01/11/2015 Sunday Politics London

Morning, folks, and welcome to the Sunday Politics.

The spectre of surveillance as the Government outlines new

powers in the digital age for our security services and new

Are they enough to allay worries about the prying eyes of the state?

It's been a frightful week on Downing Street for George Osborne.

Has the Chancellor's reputation suffered lasting damage?

International Women's day gets debated by MPs every year,

but does there need to be a debate on men's issues to mark

In London, diesel is responsible for nearly half of all the capital's air

pollution and the Mayor is being urged to do more to clean up that

And with me on All Hallows' day three saintly political journalists

Nick Watt, Polly Toynbee and Janan Ganesh who'll be tweeting

So, it's been rumbling for weeks but the row over the Chancellor s

cuts to tax credits finally came to a head last week with a defeat

in the Lords and serious dissent among Tory MPs in the Commons.

George Osborne has gone back to the drawing board on tax credits

and promised to "deal with" the House of Lords, whose actions

The Prime Minister set up a review of the Lord's powers.

That review is being headed by hereditary Tory peer

He had agreed to do an interview with us this morning but 10

Downing Street phoned us yesterday to pull him from the show.

We think the government does not want us to talk about tax credits,

so let's talk about tax credits Janan, will the Chancellor now get

away with some fine tuning, with some tweaking, or does he have to

start from scratch? Even the tweaking is very difficult. It is

technically difficult to reform the policy while simultaneously helping

people who stand to lose out. It is fiscally difficult because the

current policy saves about ?4 billion, a third of the ?12 billion

he pledged to fine from welfare There is no managerial way of doing

it. What could be done is either projecting, or hoping for

projections of higher tax receipts so he has to cut less. The deficit

is not as bad. Or move the target for getting rid of the deficit and

achieving the surplus year later. It is a much more fundamental solution.

It was only a few months ago the Tory press thought Mr Osborne walked

on water. His reputation has taken a real battering from this. In a very

short time, three weeks since the Tory party conference when they

walked out in a state of Triumph and euphoria. This budget looks like

another omnishambles and considerably more serious. Last time

it was funny with pasty taxes. This time, can he really drive through

all these cuts? At the moment he is trying to put imposed 40% cuts which

are undoable, like local government. This is only the first of many more

that will come, this undertaking. Ministers will cave in and accept

the cuts, but their departments will fall apart and they will rebel.

Against a weaker Chancellor. Yes. As Janan says, there is no tweaking

available. He gives back exactly the same amount of money he takes away,

or these hard-working people will be out of pocket. What do you hear

about what might be in the pipeline? We have got the Autumn

Statement and a comprehensive review, a three-year rolling

spending plan. It is on the last Wednesday of this month and now we

are in November, what is he up to? He is going to pony up and pony up

megabucks thanks to Rupert Harrison, his former economics

adviser and he devised the deficit reduction plan in the last

Parliament and the plan to target the surplus in this Parliament. It

sounds really hard line, there is no change from plan A, but it always

has written into it plan B and planned sea. He has delayed by one

year the targeting of the surplus and he could delay it by a further

year and still reach it by the time of the general election. Or he could

say because the OBE I will revise down economic growth forecasts by

the time of the Autumn Statement, the 10 billion he is meant to

achieve by 2019-2020, that could come down. The Chancellor is in a

hole and he is not stupid and he is going to get out of it and he is

going to spend a lot of money, but he will sound hard line by duffing

up the House of Lords. Do we take it seriously, the duffing up of the

House of Lords to reflect from the tax credits strimmer? Strimmer,

rumpus, whatever you want to call it. There was a lot of talk about

them stuffing the Lords... With Tory peers? Which ended badly the last

time it happened about 100 years ago. I cannot believe they will do

anything as provocative as that but if he wired House of Lords another

incident like this and you make the argument for your own abolition

There is a good argument for reform and abolition. I do not see why the

Lords should not do this as often as they want as long as the government

refuses to have a democratic debate. Willie Whitelaw is not of the most

ferocious people in the entire political system. We could have put

him through the fire this morning, but at least we did not talk about

Now, how far should the security services be able to spy

This week the Government will publish draft legislation to create

new powers and a new framework for the security services as they adapt

to the ever-growing challenges of digital communications being used by

the bad guys - terrorists, criminals,

paedophiles. But is there still a danger the privacy of innocent

Joe public gets gets violated as the power to intrude is extended?

There is not one person at MI6 who is not talking about it.

What, the upcoming draft Investigatory Powers Bill?

Sadly, my invite to the premiere of the new film got lost in the post,

so I am at this display of Bond cars at the London Film Museum instead.

In the new Bond film in which he drives this, one of the themes is

surveillance in the Internet age, and Westminster is revving up

for a potential row about how much the police and intelligence agencies

Because in the Goldfinger years of the '60s, it was easy to spy

on the villains, tail their Rolls or tap their phone.

Now, in the Daniel Craig era, the spooks need new weapons to track

One source told me that the work at places like the listening post

GCHQ has shifted from looking for a needle in a haystack to finding a

piece of hay in a haystack, and so a big question will be, how does the

goverment handle what is called bulk data? In other words,

looking at everyone's web activity to isolate the dodgy stuff.

Not something to worry about, say security types.

They are not interested in whether Lord West is having

They do not care, they do not look at that.

What they want to know is, am I talking to a bomb maker in the

Yemen who is talking to someone who they know has carried out an attack

in the Middle East before, who is talking to some American group that

we know are terrorists, that is talking to some people

When they get all these linkages, they hone it down and hone it down,

they use big data in the sense they use other techniques to refine it,

then they will say, this is extremely worrying, there is

something going on and then they will say, we want to go and look

at the detail of what is in these e-mails, or on social media.

But it scares the living daylights out of

The big issue for her, whether judges get to be involved.

At the moment, if someone wants to tap your telephone,

it is the Foreign Secretary or the Home Secretary who decides.

Normally in democracies we think there is a role for the judiciary in

This has not happened in the UK compared to the US or elsewhere

We also need to look to see the extent to which the security

agencies seek more power, do they want the power to hack our

Something that was considered outrageous when journalists did it,

is it now going to be OK for the spooks?

When the last Bond film came out three years ago, Parliament was

fighting over the so-called snoopers' charter, which would have

compelled Internet companies to keep and hand over a lot of our data

It was thrown out when Nick Clegg played the role of Dr No

A security minded Conservative told me this could be another car crash,

because there are enough Tory MPs worried about civil liberties that

the government will need Labour support in the Commons,

So, will your browsing history remain for Your Eyes Only,

do you trust Her Majesty's Secret Service, or are the worriers just

Stay tuned for Theresa May's new legislation, coming soon.

Hopefully they do not ban bad James Bond puns.

Well, James Bond puns are unlikely to be outlawed but on the

Andrew Marr Show this morning the Home Secretary, Theresa May

did confirm that internet service providers would have to keep

She was also asked about whether judges would need to

As I say, the three reviews came up with three

David Anderson was clear that he thought, partly

in relation to future proofing on future legislation, future legal

challenges, perhaps, judicial authorisation was the right way

The parliamentary committee, the intelligence and security committee

of Parliament, said there should be executive authorisation, i.e.

the Secretary of State should still do it because

We have looked at all of those arguments and listened to what

people have said, and we will be bringing forward the government s

position on Wednesday, but as I say, I am very clear that what we will

bring forward has very strong oversight arrangements.

We're joined now by the Shadow Home Office Minister and former Director

of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer.

Welcome, this is the first time we have had due on. It is. As a general

principle do you support stronger powers for the intelligence services

in accessing digital data? There is a case for a new law. We have been

patching up for a very long time, the law is out of date. It is very

important we have no go areas for those involved in serious offending

like terrorism and child sexual abuse. And organised crime. And

organised crime and when I was DPP we rarely prosecuted without relying

on data and this is important for protecting the public. Is judicial

as opposed to ministerial approval of warrants to be able to do this,

is that a red line issue? It is We have the chance to have a modern,

comprehensive law that sets out the powers for law enforcement and the

security services and at the same time we have the chance, a historic

chance, to get the safeguards right. One of the safeguard is

judicial authorisation of intercept roles. There is a big difference

between data and content. By content you mean what are people actually

saying to each other? That should be signed off by a judge. That is what

happens in other countries. That is the real issue. In fairness, Theresa

May has backed off from the original plans and faced up to some of the

criticism, but it is really a chance now for all of us to agree a

framework for the future that is on the one hand giving the authorities

the powers they need, but on the other hand entrenching in law the

right safeguards and judicial oversight is important in that. We

do not know exactly what she is going to say, she has to tell

Parliament first, but in the Sunday Times there is the ideal of a 2 tier

system that an initial warrant, for example what is my browsing history?

The initial one would be issued by the Home Secretary, but if you want

to get into the content of what is in these websites and what I have

been sending, that needs to be a judge. That is one idea that has

been mooted, what is your reaction to that? I am not in favour of took

your system. If you're going to go for content, we should go to a judge

straightaway. Roughly speaking, there are about 2500 warrants per

year for interceptions. That is a very high number for a Home

Secretary to deal with. In reality, that means that a lot of the

preparation is done by her team for her to look at. There is nothing

wrong with that and I am not being critical of the team, but it would

be far better if it was done by a judge, independent of any of the

operations, independent from all the parties. It is a classically judge

test, is it necessary, proportionate, focused on the right

person? This is what is done in other countries and this would

settle this dispute and allow everybody to move on, the consensus

is important. This could be a historic moment if the Home

Secretary will allow it. She has stepped in the right direction. If

she completes on that by having the right safeguards, that is a prize

worth having. However, who would be accountable if a judge refused a

warrant, not a politician, what a judge, and as a result, there was a

terrorist attack? Who do we hold accountable? One idea would be to

have a panel of judges, a commission of judges. There are many judges

that are clear to do this sort of work. Individual decisions have to

be made. In the main, we hope the decisions are right. We could not

hold a judge accountable? If the Home Secretary gets it wrong, she's

accountable, she has to appear before Parliament, come on

television, it could be the end of her job. The judge would be

accountable? We have always had a system of accountability with judges

that relies on the right person making the decision in the first

place and after the event, investigation and looking at the

warrants that had been issued. That system did continue. It is

difficult, we are arguing in the dark, but I do not accept the

proposition that if you put it to an independent judge that is a lesser

safeguard than if you put it to the Home Secretary. These are decisions

about how privacy is too precious to be left with the Home Secretary It

should be done by a judge. Within these constraints, I take it you

think that the Internet browsing history of every computer net device

should be kept by Internet providers by 12 months? That is the position

that David Anderson, the independent reviewer, proposed. We will have to

see what is in the bill, but it needs to be as clearly can just

rained -- clearly constrained as possible for as short a time as

possible. How much, who accesses it, and what conditions, this is key.

Your leader and deputy leader in the Labour Party has been opposed to

this type of legislation. Mr Corbyn called previous attempts a massive

intrusion into people's lives. What do you say to him? It is a massive

intrusion, any interception of Communications is. The question is

whether it is justified. I have worked with the police, Lauren

Forstmann and the security services for five-year is, when I was

Director of Public Prosecutions I know how important it is that we get

access to the material we need to get access to, not just in terrorist

cases. As you say, you have been director of public and is. How much

more difficult would it have been for you to get major convictions in

serious cases without both the 004 and 2006 terrorist acts which Mr

Corbyn opposed? Very difficult. We use them on a regular basis. I said

that when I was in the job. I made the case that we should not lose

capability and I am not going to change my mind. It is not just your

leader or his deputy, many of the 22 Labour MPs who voted against this

previous piece of legislation on this subject area, they are the ones

who nominated Mr Corbyn for Nader and they are now in power is the

position and influence in your party. Do you see a serious split on

this issue? I do not think so. I think Jeremy Corbyn listens to

colleagues in policy response to the government. We will make a response

when we have heard what the Home Secretary has said. We should seize

the opportunity for proper safeguards. In fairness, in the

past, Mr Corbyn and others were emphasising the case for safeguards

which they did not think were strong enough. To clarify, I have been told

that you have squared Mr Corbyn on this. In your view, if it is proper

judicial oversight, then Mr Corbyn will go along with those measures? I

would not use that expression but we have had a discussion. There is

clarity in agreement that proper powers where they are needed, it is

right to have proper safeguards He is with you on that? Uncompromising

on the safeguards is the position we should adopt, but do not stand in

the way of the powers that are necessary for law enforcement and

the security services where they are needed. You squared it, because you

have got the agreement of the Labour leader on that. That is the position

on what we have agreed. As an Andy Burnham biker in the election, how

is Jeremy Corbyn doing, better or worse than you expected? Jeremy

Corbyn got a massive mandate to lead the party. He has put together a

broad team to lead the party. We are developing policy in response to the

government's programme. We have a government at the moment that is

extreme in the sense that it is pushing through provisions furiously

and fast that it odd to be holding back and looking out to be

scrutinised more carefully. I think we are doing fairly well in this

exercise. You are London MP. London Labour got easily the most votes in

the capital at the general election. Many people say this is a Labour

city by and large. If Labour does not win the 2016 election for mayor,

does that indicate that a general election victory under Mr Corbyn is

a long, tough stretch? Listen, this time last year I was about to start

a selection exercise to be selected as Frank Dobson's replacement as

Labour candidate. We were all predicting what the general election

would hold. I am not going to fall into the trap of trying to work out

what will happen in 2020. I will say it is really important that Labour

win that election. You need to win? We need to win London, local

elections and the general election in 2020. It is an important test for

Mr Corbyn, London? If you cannot win London, how would you win the

country? It is a test for all of us. I accept that. We must win next

year, the local election and the general election. We should focus on

that. You have said that Jeremy Corbyn is not the Messiah. I do not

think that came as a surprise even to those who voted for him or even

Jeremy Corbyn. Is he John the Baptist? I said that Jeremy has

broken or a space in which we could have a discussion about the project

for the future. We had been lacking that. That space is there. Jeremy

Corbyn is not the Messiah. He does not have all the answers and if you

touch on, you are not healed. I was seeing, the heavy lifting for the

future has to be done by all of us. Keir Starmer, thank you. It has been

awhile since somebody has led the Labour Party with your name. Thank

you. Now, it's been a torrid few weeks

for the government on the issue of tax credits with senior

Conservatives such as Boris Johnson and David Willets expressing unease

about the Chancellor's proposed cuts,

unease which turned into a pretty frightful week for the inhabitants

of 10 and 11 Downing Street. Peers created a nightmare

for the Chancellor by voting, in the House of Lords, to delay tax

credit cuts and to compensate Later in the week, 20 Tory

backbenchers, including Bernard Jenkin, Heidi Allen and Jacob

Rees-Mogg, also sent shivers up Mr Osborne's spine when they backed

a motion from Labour's Frank Field calling

on the government to mitigate And there may have been sleepless

nights for the Prime Minister over at number

10, too, with the EU once more He jetted off to Iceland where he

courted controversy by appearing to some to be scare-mongering

about life outside the EU. Mr Cameron had said

the so-called "Norway option" of having access to the EU single

market but little say over EU rules wrong for the UK and that he would

"guard very strongly" against it. Now there's trouble brewing

for the government over the spooks', Next week the government will unveil

a draft Investigatory Powers Bill which former Lib Dem leader

Nick Clegg described as And we're joined now by the former

Shadow Home Secretary, David Davis. Welcome back to the Sunday Politics.

If you go -- but judicial review, would I do it for you? Almost, it is

not judicial review, it is judicial authorisation. I beg your pardon,

authorisation of warrants by a judge, not a politician. That is 90%

of the way they are. We have too much surveillance because they are

not proper constraints or checks. If we got back, I would largely lose

interest in the area, because it is no longer a real threat to our

liberties. What about your attitude towards what I was speaking about

with Keir Starmer, because it was briefed on from the Home Office the

2-tier approach, an initial approach to find out what websites I am

looking at, that comes from the Home Office, but to dig down to get into

the content of what I have been doing, that needs a judge? No. The

best guidance on this is the independent reviewer of terrorism

legislation, David Anderson, who issued a strong report on this. He

said it has got to be independent and ideally overseen by the

judiciary. It cannot be a policeman in the office next door, it cannot

be a spy in the office next door, or the Home Secretary, it has to be

independent. If you do that, you do not need a 2 tier system, you have a

uniform approach. Our politicians not more accountable than judges?

Any time I have asked a question of any minister on a security matter,

even what Lord did you do this under, they never comment. There is

no accountability. -- law. Look at America. 9/11. There were clear

errors in the handling of intelligence. The head of the CIA

went. Nobody paid a price for that. They should not have done in my

view, but they did not pay a price. We take a very soft approach to

this. Ministers are not really accountable. If they were, and

string questions in Parliament, it would be different, but they are

not. They may not be accountable enough, but many people will think

they are more accountable than judges who have jobs for life. One

minister said, judicial oversight of interception warrants is a bad idea,

he did not mean oversight, he meant authorisation. If a bomb gets

through because a judge refused to sign a warrant, what will happen?

There is a much better way of doing it. Anderson points this out. Also,

the other important report on this points this out. You have a proper

oversight procedure as well. It backs up things. You have judges

that do it, a single panel. They look in retrospect? Yes, add

everything that is done, before or after any mistakes. They find them.

The aim is to protect the public, that is aim. At the moment the Home

Secretary does about ten of these warrants in a working day. It is

impossible forward person to do this. It is bad practice, bad

managerially, bad legally and bad in terms of counterterrorism. People

who take your view of the quarter are lies, Canada, Australia, the

United States, New Zealand also of judicial authorisation of warrants.

I was looking at the figures, US judges approved 99.6% of all

warrants. In the end, it makes no difference. The warrants are given.

The warrants are given. The US Judges have been pulled up on this,

it has been tightened up. They have somebody to put the other case which

they did not have before. If you have a decent system, you do not

take a bad warrant. You do not go to them with the expectation of being

turned on, you make sure you have the right person at the rate basis.

The percentage does not tell you much. If you do not get judicial

authorisation, will you challenge this bill in the courts as you did

the last bill? No, because the last one went through the Commons in the

courts as you did the last bill No, because the last one went through

the Commons on Wednesday it had not been properly tested, so I thought,

let's tested elsewhere. Parliament is a better test than court if it is

allowed to do the job. I do not think this bill will get through the

Commons or the House of Lords without judicial authorisation. Even

if the government comes out without it this week, it will have to change

again? There is a new consensus on this across the board, across the

experts, the Spriggs, the parties and the Houses of Parliament. The

Prime Minister consistently claims that he rules nothing out in Europe,

but is it not the case that by rubbishing the Norwegian option as

he did last week, it is clear he is determined to stay" Mac -- to stay.

He wants to get an outcome which allows him to stay in. Attacking the

Norwegian option is irrelevant. Sure, he wants to be able to

negotiate to stay in. But the EU is in crisis. Many people on your side

say it is such a crisis at the moment that a British exit could be

a catalyst for the whole demise of the EU project. So why doesn't the

Prime Minister make much tougher demands as the price for staying in?

It would be a catastrophe if Europe was to lose us. He is caught in a

conundrum. I broadly would agree with that argument. He should make

extremely tough demands. Tell the British public it is a negotiation,

you will not get everything, but we will put the outcome to you. The

problem is any failure to achieve a complete success would be used as a

weapon to beat him with and therefore he will aim lower in the

hope to gain 100% success. It is the wrong analysis. The high bar with an

acceptance you will not get everything would have been smarter.

Like the trade union leader asking for five quid a week more and you

settle for four? Exactly. When I negotiated with the European Union

we try to get tough demands, but we did not get everything because we

were outnumbered, 14-1. But here for the very reason you said Europe is

no longer in a strong position. Its primary experiment the euro is in a

terrible state and we have got the stronger argument. Is it not

inevitable, given that, that when we finally get to know what the Prime

Minister is asking for in some detail, and we may get that in

December, is it not the truth that a huge chunk of your party, made the

most of them, is going to be deeply disappointed by the paucity of his

demands? I do not think so. The truth of the matter is that

everybody has got a condition to the fact the demands will not be

substantial, constitutional changes, and people are changing their

position to whatever stance they want to take. One thing is that

unlike Maastricht there is the option of a referendum. They have

got that option to exercise and they will try and get a resolution. That

will pacify people. Let me come to tax credits. Should Mr Osborne tweak

his tax credit plan to make it more acceptable, or should he in effect

junk it and go back to the drawing board? Two things. He needs to

achieve a reform of tax credits It is a bad system, it is too

expensive. He also needs to achieve fiscal balance by 2020. Those two

things are requirements. But what he does not need to do is do it next

year. That is the issue. Along with Frank Field I sponsored a debate on

Thursday in the Commons which got amazing uniformity and what came out

of that was the feeling that what ever you do, so long as it does not

penalised the working poor, particularly dependent, then we will

go with it. That is the criteria. That is more than a tweak. It is a

lot more than a tweak. If you are a single parent working and raising

two kids, you could lose ?2000. You cannot afford to lose a pound. What

we will do is a lot more than a tweak, but it is getting to the same

place in 2020. The financial markets will accept that. They will say it

is the endgame that matters. Thank you for being with us today.

It's coming up to 11.35, you're watching the Sunday Politics.

We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland who leave us now

Coming up here in twenty minutes, the week whead.

First though, the Sunday Politics where you are.

A little bit later, diesel is responsible for nearly half

The mayor is urged to do more about it.

I'm joined by the MPs with the smallest majorities in the capital.

Gavin Barwell held on to Croydon Central by 165 votes, and Rupa Huq,

Labour MP for Ealing Central and Acton, has a majority of 27 .

First off, the seven members of the the government's new

infrastructure commission were named this week and, for London,

the hopes and expectations are for progress on a second Crossrail.

TFL have just published their latest plans for the route.

The southern bit still planned to run from Clapham Junction to

Wimbledon but now stopping at Balham rather than Tooting Broadway.

The estimated cost at this stage is a cool ?27 billion.

Half of this is being sought from central government,

Presumably neither of you are going to say,

this is not a good idea, but how likely is it, Gavin, do you think?

The mood music looks good, we had a minister saying it was

The government wants it to happen but the decision

on funding will be coming out as part of the budget early next year.

This is a key infrastructure project for London.

As the city's population grows so quickly, it is so important

in terms of housing, the health service, the transport system, that

A new infrastructure commission is just the kind of body George Osborne

and the Conservatives think will get this delivered.

Andrew Adonis is someone who has resigned the Labour whip

in order to do these big infrastructure projects.

We want things for our nation to develop.

The cost benefit analysis of this are that it will affect all

parts of the United Kingdom, as far as Scotland,

If a government wants to do something,

Some of these projects are very long-term, from the inception

of the idea, taking it right through to construction and opening.

You want to get as much cross-party agreement as possible so taking them

out of politics and getting as much agreement over the principle

As a Croydon MP, I would like to see a branch

It takes some of that tension out of it.

The government can say, this commission has said something.

So just like Heathrow and the Davies commission, having predicted

and said that, there is no excuse for the government not to go ahead.

I am not going to comment on what the decision is going to be,

but the government needs to reflect on the Davies Commission and get

If you're going to have a commission like this, making a

decision like the Davies Commission has done and there is no reason

for thinking the model is different, do you go with what it says?

Would it be right to go ahead with Heathrow expanision.

Some of these things, the timings of them,

it was pushed to the long grass till after the election, conveniently.

People in West London do want to know what is going on, but they

You oppose Heathrow expansion so if an infrastructure commission comes

forward and says Heathrow expansion is the best thing, what do you do?

I think we should take soundings in the round and listen to many

I can see you need to find out more about how

the commission will work long-term, and I suppose long-term is the key.

In the wake of the VW emission test scandal

questions are being asked about the diesel pollution which puts the

The mayor is being urged to do more about it.

Here at the testing centre they check emissions for scores of diesel

vehicles every day. The VW scandal came about when the German

manufacturer installed cheaper devices. According to staff here the

UK rules are so lax that regardless of cheating those same VWs would

pass a British MOT with ease. We do not have the same emission zones

that they have in America and this is where the scandal came out. They

were covering an American state and one of these bolts on an engine came

into the yard and it would pass But change is on its way and in 202

London will see the introduction of the ultralow emission zone. All but

the cleanest vehicles will be charged a fee to drive into the

congestion charge area. But according to the Liberal Democrats,

the unreliability of emissions tests could actually be big polluters The

Volkswagen scandal highlighted this so we need to make measures now to

ensure the only vehicles entering that zone in 2020 are absolutely

zero emission or ultralow emission vehicles. The simple answer is to

say we will not allow diesel vehicles into the zone. The Met is

making efforts to reduce the number of diesel buses. This one runs on

hydrogen gas and gives out nothing more harmful than water. These are

currently the only hydrogen buses operating in the UK, but there are

only eight of them on the road at the moment. It is 0.1% of the bus

fleet. Whether the other 99.9% is as clear as this is a different

question. By 2020, roughly a third of London's buses will be hybrid or

electric and the majority will be diesel. Questions over another key

City Hall transport plan. A huge programme of tunnel building. The

GLA have identified 70 roads that could be sunk underground, including

the South circular and an extra river crossing in East London. To

judge the impact we met up with Doctor Gary Fuller from Kings

College London's air-quality network who compiles the official data on

the capital's air-quality. As a control we start by taking a reading

on a fairly typical London street with passable air-quality. 20-2

micrograms per cubic metre, which is average. So, if 20 is normal, we

test out what it is like underground in the rather high to tunnel. It

does not take long before the readings rocket. It is ten times

greater than what we were when we were on the housing estate. There is

nowhere outside in London that you would see concentrations as high as

this in the town. Amazingly, we found we were not the only people

using the tunnel on foot. Roughly a mile long it is a 15 minute walk and

before long the readings hit 40 , 20 times worse than on a normal street.

The problem is to do with what comes out the back of a car when they are

being driven. We know all of these vehicles are emitting somewhere

between six and seven times of nitrogen dioxide pollution in the

real world compared to the tests. We hope cars will get better, but we

have to wait and see. With one in 12 deaths in parts of London now linked

to air pollution the questions raised by the VW scandal will only

add pressure on City Hall's efforts to clean up our air. We can speak to

the Deputy Mayor. We heard in the report about the testing regime and

the fact that the VW could cheat a test in the US, but it does not need

to hear because it would pass with ease. Does the testing need to be

more stringent? We have been calling on the EU to tighten up their

emission standards for years. It is worth saying if the ones that had

been caught cheating with the BW had met the conditions that we had been

promised by the European Union, we would have been within the European

Union's limit values now, but we are a decade away, which shows the

effect of having a generation of diesel cars. Should we have a

tougher MOT testing regime? In the European Union you would have it

approved everywhere and the government would fight itself in

legal trouble if they could say you could not have X, Y and Z car. It

would not be practical, would you like to see us do it?

We need to see real-world driving tests as soon

as possible to ensure the new cars that come on are as clean as they

can be, it is also very important that VW goes back and retrofits all

of the Euro 4 and 5 diesels that have been caught cheating.

Do you recognise the figures from King's College London,

emissions are on average seven times higher than the actual test

We have seen for the Euro 4 and 5 diesels,

which are the ones that are the last generation, they are often an order

of magnitude out on the test cycles and could even be ten times more.

Do the Department of Transport use a slightly lower rate, do they?

Would you like to see the Department of Transport change

It is very difficult to go back to say to people who bought

their cars in good faith believing them to be clean, because they were

And then go back and say, I am sorry, even though your car is

working properly, at least as far as the manufacturer is concerned,

it now fails an MOT because it is not within its test cycle.

Would that be a reasonable thing to say to the millions of car owners?

It is different with VW where they cheated the test and they need to

If there is uncertainty about how rigourous the testing is,

there could be quite a few high polluting types

of vehicle that are still allowed to come in, even when you introduce

Looking forward to Euro 6, going forward from now,

rather than looking backwards, we need to see that real-world

The silver lining of the VW scandal is it looks like the commission will

bring forward that real world driving test sooner than they might

have otherwise have done, which means we could have cleaner cars

than we thought we were going to have when we did the modelling

It means the outcome for the Ulez could well be better than we

You have heard what Stephen Knight, the Liberal Democrats, say.

You should be moving to ban all diesel as soon as possible.

The problem with that is when it comes to heavy vehicles

and vans, there is no other technology on the market.

So to say to every van owner and every HGV driver, I am sorry,

you can no longer drive in Central London, that could have

By 2020, you could give them a lot of warning.

These technologies are not yet on the market at a scale,

at a price which is reasonable for HGVs at all, and frankly,

The point is, the Ulez, we brought it in

and I am sure that in due course it can be ratcheted up over time in the

way that the low emission zone has captured more and more vehicles

You bring it in in 2020 for all vehicles for Euro 6 diesel.

But perhaps five, ten years further down the line, you can ratchet it up

in the way that Stephen is talking about, but doing that in just five

This Ultra Low Emission Zone was promised two years ago.

It is not clear whether the new much trumpted

I think it will, some of the stuff I have seen.

Even that is a diesel emitting vehicle.

So the new Routemaster will not have to pay even though it

The first thing it is worth saying is that the Ulez is

Yes, it is five years away, but when it comes to our bus fleet, because

bus routes are letted all the time, we are letting only zero emission

single deck buses and they will be appearing very soon, and only Euro 6

hybrid double-decker buses as well. The mayor announced just

this week the final decision about taxis, that all new taxis

from 2018 need to be zero emission capable in Central London.

I think everyone watching this programme will want to see it go

faster still because air pollution costs thousands of lives every year,

but I think the mayor has made real progress.

You're looking at half the number of Londoners that now live in areas

that exceed the limits compared to when he came to office in 2008.

There are big decisions he has taken, but it is a difficult balance

because of course we want to go faster, but you have got to give

the owners of vehicles time to get the new technology.

So it is a question of moving at the right speed to see

That is all the time we have on this item.

Matthew, thank you very much for coming in.

A report by the London Assembly revealed that in parts

of the capital, cases of tuberculosis are at levels higher

Tuberculosis, a disease many think from a bygone

era and one brought under control in the UK, or so you might think.

I was absolutely shocked when I found out I had caught TB.

I thought it was a thing of the past.

According to a report released by the London Assembly,

there were over 2,500 cases of tuberculosis in London last year.

For over a decade, London has been the TB capital

of western Europe with boroughs like Newham and Brent having a

higher threshold than Iraq and Yemen and similar levels to Eritrea.

There are multiple causes for these high levels, according to the author

Tuberculous is a barometer on the inequalities of society.

It affects people who are most vulnerable, the homeless,

the drug addicts, people who have very little status and a derepressed

However, the mayor's health adviser believes

About 80% of people with tuberculosis are non-UK born.

They have probably contracted that in their countries of origin

and it lights up again maybe within five years of being in the capital.

The report calls for screening and the BCG vaccination to be made more

Whilst the consensus is that TB is closely connected to housing

and deprivation, with four of every five sufferers in

the capital being born outside the UK, is it a migration issue too

Rupa Huq, your borough, Ealing, one of the highest, fourth,

fifth highest, 62 per 100,000, right up there, higher than some

To make the automatic link between migration and TB is...

When I used to teach research methods,

If you have two things at once, one did not necessarily make

It is a social deprivation thing, when you have overcrowding,

poor housing, which was mentioned in the film, all these things at once.

People with poor immune systems get it.

As the film said, everyone thought it had gone a long time ago.

It is a Victorian disease, but other Victorian conditions are coming

80%, they think, and if you look at your borough, is it 45%

Lots of them Indian, a large Pakistani...

Is there a correlation, with them coming over,

with a kind of latent TB, and then it is sometimes developing.

I looked at the ward by ward analysis.

My constituency is the least affected.

It is the kind of thing that can linger for years.

There's nothing wrong with saying it is a migrant issue if it is.

A large population of the world have latent TB.

If you have people coming into the country

from all over the world, some of those people will have latent TB.

It is also true that people that have low immune systems,

living in poor conditions, are more likely to get the disease.

Both of the things that were said are true.

The number of cases was about 400 lower in 2014 than in 2013.

Very importantly, the number of drug resistant cases halved.

In this day and age, in the capital city, where we know we have rough

sleeping, people living in poverty, yes, there may be a factor or

Do you not feel slightly ashamed of the capital?

It is a serious problem that we have to get on top of.

That is partly about screening when people come into the country, but it

is also about health services within the UK and tackling the underlying

We've got to look at all of those issues together to solve this.

It is a false argument to say it is one or the other.

It is suggested that there is fairly fragmented and not consistent

treatment, depending on what borough you are in.

Are you happy with the identification and treatment?

It is not routinely screened for it, as far as I know.

The BCG vaccine, there was a problem with that a few weeks ago.

But it is on the down, the trend is downward.

I think it is a great piece of work that my colleague,

But there is not a uniform London wide way.

You could argue that does not make economic or health sense, to have

The BCG is only given in those boroughs with high incidence.

In my borough, Croydon, we do not have it,

because the incidences across the borough are not high, but there are

pockets in the north of the borough, where there are higher incidences.

There are ways we can improve the response across

Lots of viewers will be shocked to learn that this disease that we

thought we had dealt with is back in the capital.

Time now for the rest of the political news in 60 Seconds.

The government has handed power for running day-to-day services

at Tower Hamlets back to the local authority and its elected mayor

The government took control of the borough after claims

of inappropriate financial practices under the former mayor,

RMT union bosses have announced a 48-hour strike that will hit

the Docklands Light Railway next week, starting on Tuesday.

Craig Mackey, the deputy commissioner of the

Met Police has warned that the era of routine patrols by "bobbies

He said the anticipated ?1 billion cut in funding could

Plans for a mosque in East London that would have been bigger than

St Paul's Cathedral have been turned down.

Newham Council initially rejected the plan but now

the government has ruled against the mosque, backed by the group Tablighi

Jamaat, on the grounds it would mean losing space to build new homes

In the time we have got left, this policing situation,

we are seeing deputy commissioners, commissioners, other senior

officers consistently warning of the potential impact and that we

Rupa Huq, are you worried about that?

I have spoken to our chief superintendent and to people at both

Ealing and Acton police station and there is a sense of demoralisation

that the thin blue line is getting thinner and God forbid that anything

like the 2011 riots were to hit Ealing again. People are being

They would not be able to respond, is that what your chief

People from all over the force at all levels are saying they are

There are a range of issues, and even in my inbox,

I keep getting e-mails from Hanger Hill ward, our least good

ward in Ealing, for Labour, and lots of people are disgusted

Talking of riots, in Croydon, in your constituency, badly affected.

Would you share that concern about what people are saying

We need to put on record that numbers have been

I did meet with the commissioner recently to talk

I think he would say there is potential

for the Met to make further savings but it is very important to me

as a constituency MP that we retain the number of officers on the beat.

They have cut down on senior management and got rid

It is important to you, but it is not going to happen,

We do not have the numbers, let's wait and see.

Have you both had letters from the Met recently?

Have you had these lobbying letters, some MPs have received letters

Potentially one billion, but certainly ?800 million-?1

They have done 600 over the last few years.

Let me explain where that figure comes from.

That extrapolation is on the assumption that

the police got a 40% reduction in their grant because the Treasury has

If it was 25%, it would be 800, still a lot of money.

They asked them to do that in 2 10, but the actual reduction was not

Yes, of course, if the reduction was that big, those would be

the numbers but let's wait and see the result of the spending review,

To me, there is potential for the Met to make further savings but

in Croydon, I am passionate about retaining the officers we have.

Some people feel like the Met are doing just what everyone

does ahead of a really tight comprehensive spending review.

They are just presenting the worst scenario, shroud waving.

People from within the force tell me that they have

As I say, this is from the one-time party of law and order

You've got to accept the fact that the mayor has protected

Elsewhere in the country, we have seen reductions, but police officer

He got help because of the Olympics, he got help to be re-elected.

The crime data, it is never perfect, all constituents want crime lower,

but there is an encouraging picture on that.

I am not saying it is shroud waving at all.

People are right to raise concerns about the implications,

but let's wait and see what George Osborne says.

They are clearly looking at the worst case scenario,

if it was the steepest cut that could possibly happen.

To you both, thank you very much indeed.

Now, each year the House of Commons holds a debate to coincide with

But should the same courtesy be extended to men?

That was the question posed by the Conservative MP Philip Davies

when he appeared in front of the backbench business committee

His suggestion was met with disbelief by the

The opportunity for men to raise issues that are

Just to give you a flavour, Mr Chairman, of the type of things

which may come up and which will be part of international men's day

I am not entirely sure why it is so humorous, but to discuss issues such

as men's shorter life expectancy, wider male health issues,

many of which go unreported through embarrassment of men to go along

You'll have to excuse me for laughing but the idea that men

don't have the opportunity to ask questions in this place is a frankly

laughable thing and I say this as the only woman on this committee.

The idea that this chamber, these Houses, both of them,

in any way reflect gender equality is to me a laughable thing.

And Philip Davies joins me now from Leeds.

Welcome to the Sunday Politics. Jess Phillips is right, Parliament is

still dominated by men? Business is dominated by men. Most power centres

are dominated by men, you do not need a separate day or debate? There

is a difference between how many men are in Parliament and the debate

about men's issues. There are serious issues such as the high

suicide rate among men, the underachievement of boys in school,

the low life expectancy of men, the underreporting of health issues like

testicular cancer, the underreporting of male victims of

domestic violence. You could bring that up at any time, there are not

many in the Commons, to bring that up whenever you want? -- there are

enough men. There are few opportunities to bring up these

particular issues. There are few times when these issues have been

debated. Lots of women are concerned about these issues. Lots of women

are married to men, they have fathers and sons. These things

should be important to everybody. These are serious issues.

Are you surprised at the appalling abuse that clip about? I am not

suggesting you did it, but are you surprised at the abuse Jess Phillips

found herself on the end of? I very much hope she has reported some of

these people to the police. We have a democracy and a debate and she is

perfectly entitled to her opinion. I do not agree with them, but she is

entitled to her view. Maybe you need a debate about men not behaving in

that way over something they do not agree with? We should have debate

about what we should do with these morons who contact people in the way

they contacted Jess. It is unacceptable, I hope she goes to the

police, but that should not take away from the importance of the

issues that I want to debate on International Man's Day. You spoke

for 90 minutes this week on a bill that would have allowed carers, just

carers, to have free parking at hospitals. You talked it out for 90

minutes soak it did not get any further. Why did you do that? I do

not know if you have read my speed, but I made it clear why I did not

support the bill and what might objections were and they are all

there on public record for people to read. It would mean higher car

parking costs for other people like disabled people and other vulnerable

groups. It would mean a reduction in revenue for hospitals which would

mean they would not be able to employ as many doctors or nurses.

Why should carers...? They do not... They do have to pay. There

are many hospitals that do not charge carers for parking, or

hospitals are free to not charge carers from parking if they choose.

My view is it is best described at a local level. I have got the picture

of you in June holding up a banner and speaking up for carers. I do not

think this is what they thought you should be speaking up about. You

have not read my speech. I have read bits of it, 90 minutes is a long

time. Read it all because I spoke up warmly about carers. OK. Do not say

OK, I spoke about things that would have been far better for carers than

that ill thought through piece of legislation. If you think I did not

speak up for carers, that is a complete and utter lie. Let me move

on to Mr Cameron and the European Union. He is now warning about life

outside the EU and an associate tight relationship with the EU. Is

he really pre-empting the renegotiation? He has really made

his mind that he has to do what ever it takes to stay in. Is that a fair

conclusion? Yes, absolutely. He will get next to nothing from his

negotiation, but will come back and say it was a great triumph and based

on that we should stay in the EU. I have never yet come across any Prime

Minister in history that has come back from a renegotiation and said,

I got nothing out of it, but I did my best. They all claim it is a

triumph and we all know it is not going go anywhere. He will campaign

for us to stay in. My job is to tell people that any claim of

re-negotiation has been a complete farce. On Europe what is the logic

other than a sense of panic that the Prime Minister goes to Iceland and

talks about the Norwegian option and does not mention the Icelandic

option because 80% of the Icelandic people like it. The logic is he can

drive a wedge into the anti-EU movement by bringing to our

attention that they cannot agree on what being out means. Does that mean

being completely out, Donal Meech and model, the Swiss model, a

mythical third or fourth option which Britain negotiates for

itself? The more the Cameron talks about it, even though it is quite

specious, the more attention he brings to the fact that being in

means something quite clear. Does it? We do not know which way the

eurozone is going to go in the future and Angela Merkel and

President Hollande have been talking about greater integration in the

eurozone. We do not know what it means in five years' time, but if

you voted yes to stay in, you know what the world would be like the

following day, but you would not know what it would be like if you

voted to stay out. The burden is on the Eurosceptics to say what being

out would mean literally immediately. I do not think you can

sustain a referendum campaign without having a strong position on

that. Is there a sense of panic in Downing Street about Europe? They

are losing a sense of control. They do not want out and they think they

might end out against their will? That is true. There was a

complacency around on all sides of the people in favour of staying in.

Business, the CBI, common sense but the polls are going the wrong way.

The longer he leaves it to the referendum the worse the migration

crisis is going to look and that is at the heart of this. Nigel Farage

was rather convincing earlier today on television, and if he can

persuade people, in my opinion wrongly, but somehow that the

migration crisis can be solved if we are out of Europe, he might be onto

a winner. This has dawned on Downing Street. It is not going away any

time soon. The migration crisis is likely to get worse as we get closer

to the winter and these asylum seekers, refugees, families,

whatever you call them, that will stay on the screens and the moment

Mr Cameron tells his party what he is looking for, that is another

crisis because they will not be happy. Yes, they will not be happy

and Theresa May was putting the big question over the UK's involvement

in terms of freedom of movement and Prime Minister will not get that

fundamental point changed. David Cameron came out of the election and

he thought he could concentrate on his re-negotiation and he would

achieve a success and make the case. What they have now realised is that

the in campaign and the ad campaign are on the pitch and the government

is not. They are running a very effective insurgent campaign. What

the government is trying to do is hit on the head the fundamental

weakness of the leading campaign is, which is what Janan was talking

about, is they cannot say what the future will be. When you leave you

trigger Article 50 of the treaty and you leave the European Council. It

.2 member states to negotiate with you your departure. That takes two

years and that is voted on not by you, but by the other 27 on the

basis of a qualifying vote. The UK could not count on friends like

Germany to rally to our support The Prime Minister is trying to say you

have no ability to say what sort of arrangement we will have and that is

where they are finally coming onto the pitch. George Osborne goes to

Berlin this week to make speech on, I assume, to outline what he and the

government wants from the European Union. But this is becoming a

problem for the Chancellor as well. It has not been the best ten days

for him. We are told he did not give enough attention to tax credits

because he was so worried about the speech on re-negotiation. He goes

down with this ship as well if it all goes pear shaped, that is a

mixed metaphor. It is easy to see that the Conservative Party will get

a radically Eurosceptics leader in a few years' time. There is a personal

political problem there. The visit to Berlin is interesting because six

months ago it made sense to put all your eggs in Angela Merkel's basket

because she was the Empress of Europe and she would do a deal

because she has got political cloud. She is the walking wounded. Will she

run again? She is in much more trouble than anyone in this country

understands. The trip to Berlin makes less sense now. He wants to

get the protection for those members not in the eurozone to ensure that

on the rules of the single market they cannot be ganged up on and he

might get an emergency brake and not a veto. That will appeal to people's

heads, but where these negotiations really matter is in people's hearts

on issues like migration and on that ban of migrants not getting benefits

for four years, it looks like the government is struggling. They are

backtracking. Cameron started off saying they were not going to have a

referendum. What is more having a referendum at the lowest peak for

any government, two years in, they will be really unpopular in the

middle of all of these cuts and they will be an antiestablishment mood.

People will be voting against government. How is Jeremy Corbyn

doing? Not as badly as people have predicted. What about all these

people he has been appointing? There is a sense that he is only

appointing around Tim people who agree with him, but that is his

small, local group. By ministers and leaders tend to do that. It is not a

good idea, but it is your natural instinct. They will be watching your

back. Will the Corbin supporters, along with Mr McDonnell, will they

want their own person in for the Golden West by-election? We shall

wait and see and it will be watched by a lot of people in Labour as to

whether the momentum movement gets going, which is mobilising all the

people who have joined the party to see whether they can select

somebody. It is so important they win this by-election. You hope the

local party have quite a lot of say in the election and they choose

whoever they think can win the best. They will be up against Ukip?

Absolutely and Jeremy Corbyn would be in bad trouble if they lost

this. They must choose somebody who is a winner. Any inside information

on this? It is a 3-member panel of the Ennis -- in EC who draws up the

short list. It has Keith Vaz on it and other mainstream people, so I am

not sure this is a Trotskyist moment, it is quite an established

thing. Is it a significant milestone in Labour moving against Trident?

No, because it is a symbolic vote and I find it difficult to believe

that Jeremy Corbyn's personal position on Trident will ever carry

a party with lots of MPs in the manufacturing constituents with

trade unions to the old right. I am not sure the Scottish or even Jeremy

Corbyn with a personal mandate can carry that kind of thing. We shall

see how the vote goes. We'll be back

at the same time next week here on BBC 1 and you can catch the

Daily Politics on BBC 2 from noon Remember if it's Sunday,

it's the Sunday Politics.