31/01/2016 Sunday Politics London

Morning folks. Welcome to the Sunday Politics.

George Osborne called it a "major success".

Google say they're paying what's due.

But Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell's not impressed -

we'll ask him how he'd get big business to pay more tax.

David Cameron says he wants an emergency brake on access

to welfare benefits for EU migrants to be applied immediately

But will that be enough for the PM to clinch a deal and head

And will it be best for business if we stay in or we get out?

We'll examine the claim and counter claim and bring the two sides

In London this week, Labour badly want to take back

Is their mayoral candidate, Sadiq Khan, the man to do it?

And taking time out from their protracted negotiations

with Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs over how much tax

they should pay on their enormous fees - the best and the brightest

political panel in the business - Nick Watt, Polly Toynbee

and Janan Ganesh who'll be tweeting throughout the programme.

First this morning, George Osborne hailed Google's back tax bill

Since then the settlement's been condemned as too lenient by -

among others - Boris Johnson, The Sun, Rupert Murdoch

and the Labour Party, which has accused the Chancellor

of offering the internet giant "mates' rates".

In a moment, I'll be talking to Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell.

First here's Google executive, Peter Barron, defending the company

on the Andrew Marr Show this morning.

What I would say is that in the UK we pay corporation tax at 20%.

It's absolutely the same corporation tax rate as everybody else,

Yes, but you keep coming back to this point about sales.

We are taxed as corporation tax dictates on the activities,

the economic activities of Google UK.

So, we pay corporation tax in the UK at 20%,

and, actually, globally, our effective tax rate over the last

five years or so is round about 20%, which is very close to the UK rate,

And I'm joined now by the Shadow Chancellor,

Welcome. What single step would you take to make sure that companies

like Google, Apple, Amazon, pay a fair and appropriate level of tax?

Openness and transparency. I want the information about how this deal

has been arrived at and I want them to publish in the future there tax

records. So that we can have openness and transparency, see what

is fair. The Chancellor said this was a major success. But we cannot

tell because we have not got the information. Would you extend that

to British major companies publishing their tax? Six out of ten

of the UK's biggest companies are not paying any corporation tax. Yes,

I would. The suggestion has been put forward about the FTSE 100. That is

a good idea. There would be no commercial disadvantage. Do you

think that transparency would be a major step forward? It is one step

forward. We want country by country reporting as well. I supported

George Osborne on as negotiations in Europe with that. We're not going to

get enough. I found quite angry making this morning that we have

allegation -- allegations that their Conservatives were voting their MEPs

to vote against this. I find that frustrating. I want HMRC to be

properly resourced so they can do the job. There are too many job

cuts. We have lost too much expertise. There is time now to

start thinking about how we review our tax system. The Treasury select

committee has undertaken a review. Corporation tax is levied on

profits. Even if you got your transparency, you would quickly find

that the concept of profits that can be moved around geographically, they

can be manipulated depending on costs, would you consider replacing

corporation tax with, for example, a tax on corporate sales? Revenues are

less malleable than profits. That is one of the issues to be addressed.

Nigel Lawson has done an article to that effect. One of the most

important things is to secure international agreement. We cannot

have the situation where companies are shopping around the world to

find the lowest tax regime and inventing company structures to

enable that to happen. But if you had a tax on the revenues, it would

not happen what they moved around. Revenues are revenues. You would

levy a tax on the revenues in the UK. That is why it is worth looking

at. It might be a combination of that and economic activity as well.

One professor said if you raise corporate taxes too high, companies

may move to island macro or elsewhere. Do you accept there has

to be a limit? There has to be a limit, there has to be some

reasonableness. If we can get international cooperation, you can

avoid this development of virtual tax havens taking place. Would you

want a common rate of corporation tax? Not necessarily. You would like

to make sure that what you charge is reasonable and fair and you would

expect those companies to abide by that. I listened to the Google

representative this morning. The reputational damage to Google is

immense. The savings they have made in taxes not worth the reputational

damage. Let's move on to the other big issue, Europe. And membership.

How did you vote in the 1975 referendum? Against. In the 198

Labour manifesto it claimed that a commitment to radical socialist

policies was incompatible with membership of the European Union. It

proposed withdrawal. Did you agree with that at the time? I did at the

time. That is long gone. We're within Europe. We are working within

Europe with other parties to see how we can make Europe fair,

particularly with regard to the rights of workers. Take this tax

issue. We need to be in Europe to ensure we can secure fair agreement

on tax. That is why, by remaining within, we have got to remain within

with their own reform agenda, that is one of the issues we need to

reform. To take that phrase radical socialist policies, you are

committed to radical socialist policies. How is that now compatible

with remaining in the EU when it was not in 1983? Because we have

demonstrated with the work we have undertaken within the EU that we

have secured some benefits. Employment rights. In addition,

there are real opportunities now where we can work with others to

secure that radical change. Withdrawal from Europe at the moment

would not be beneficial. It would lose jobs. It would undermine the

benefits we have gained in terms of employment. That is why we want to

work to reform it. The issue that I have got with the Prime Minister, we

will see what he comes back with... On the social Europe issue, you want

a more social Europe. In France you have got a socialist government that

has moved to the right. In Germany, a centre-right government. Other

countries have either the hard right in power or the hard right at the

top of the polls. Where is your social Europe in that? That is why

we will work with socialist and social Democrats. I think you will

see in the coming years that a wider debate is taking place. In some way

the referendum debate will enable us to then look at those ideas.

Wouldn't it be fair to say that like Jeremy Corbyn, you are pretty

lukewarm about our membership of the European Union? I signed up to

remain within the EU. That does not mean to say that we accepted as a

perfect institution. We want to see reform. I come back to the tax

issue. Unless we get international cooperation, particularly across

Europe, we will not solve this problem. You have got a Eurosceptic

track record. Kate Hoey, a leader -- leading Labour Eurosceptic, she said

that you and Jeremy Corbyn consistently voted with Eurosceptic

MPs on the EU. That is true, isn't it? On a number of issues, because

we were frustrated with the slow pace of reform. That does not mean

we are in favour of coming out. It is better to argue from within to

secure a commonality of agreement. Do you broadly support the changes

that David Cameron is trying to renegotiate? I don't know what they

are yet. Let's see what he comes back with. My fear is if he does not

treat this issue seriously and it is just about party management, he

could blow it. We could be outside of Europe and have the economic

penalties as a result. Even if he comes back with something you do not

regard as satisfactory, you will campaign to stay in? We will

campaign for our own agenda. The government wants to get this done by

the end of June. Will you cooperate with that timetable? We will see

what he comes back with. Let's have it as soon as possible. We want the

debate to take place. Delaying it would not help. We want the debate

to start now. It would be better for him to come back fairly soon. Get

the debate going. Even if the campaign overlaps with important

elections in Scotland, England, Northern Ireland, Wales? That is the

problem but it will overlap with something. Immigration is good to be

a huge issue. The IMF says that almost 4 million immigrants will

arrive in the EU between 2015 and 2017. Almost 4 million. Should

Britain take a fair share of that? I think is important we cooperate with

our European partners to make that we can accommodate those that need

to come to this country. In addition, that we have systems in

place that protect wages, so that immigration is not used to undermine

wages. But should we take a fair share of the 4 million? I think we

should. We should cooperate with others and carry the burden. The

majority of Britons want us to rise to it and ensure we assist others

and that others are not suffering, and that we do not stand on one side

when people suffer. Could you give an indication of how many? Young not

at this stage. That would be a matter to negotiate with our

European partners. Should we volunteered to be part of the EU

quotas system? Mrs Merkel and others want 160,000 to be relocated through

Schengen. Should we be part of Schengen? Should we be part of the

160,000? We should be doing more in terms of assisting refugees coming

from Syria. We should be doing more to help those in desperate need

People are drowning in the Mediterranean. We cannot stand

aside. This country has a history of receiving refugees. People watching

this would want some sort of idea of numbers because numbers are

important. It is important. That is why we need to get into these

negotiations quickly and come back with practical proposals. In 20 3

you told a gathering of the people's assembly at a rally on immigration

that they should be open borders? I was arguing then... There was

re-search looking at the long-term structure of the globe. Inevitably

in this century we will have open borders. The movement of peoples

across the globe will mean that borders will almost become

irrelevant by the end of the century. We should be preparing for

that and explaining why people move. Conflicts, poverty and destitution,

and also climate change. In our policy-making we should be working

now to see how we address that. It will mean that we need to look at

how we resolve conflicts, how we make the world more equal and also

how we tackle climate change. In that way we can deal with the

reality of the world, which means that people are not forced to move

but there will be movement. Total open borders? At the end of this

century that is what will occur People are ignoring borders already

as they fly from Syria. We should be making sure that if there is no

forced movement, we look at the push and pull factors. Conflict

prevention, the tackling of inequality and policies that tackle

climate change. In that way we can cope with the global pressures with

regard to population movement. To do that, for a Labour government to

prepare for that, would be loosening controls as you move towards that?

No. What I am saying is if you look at the analysis of what is happening

over the next 75 years, the movement of people is such that borders are

very difficult to maintain. That will happen by the end of the

century. We should be opening up the debate of how we handle that. One of

the issues we have to tackle is why people are moving. It is about

conflict and climate change. It is about poverty as well. That means

greater equality not just in our country but across the globe. I

wanted to talk to you about Google and the EU. I hope you will come

back and give me an interview on economic policy. Let me finish with

a taster? Back to Professor Blanchflower, he said about you and

Mr Corbyn that you have to accept the realities of capitalism and

modern markets, like it or not. No more silly stuff about companies not

being able to pay dividends if they do not do X or Y. Do you accept

that? That is why I appointed him as an advisor. I wanted objective

advice. I have established the architecture for the future

development of economic policy. Are you going to accept his advice

on that? We will listen to his advice and take it on board. But we

will also listen to other advisers. But those advisers, what's the point

of them if you will not listen? We will test every policy we put

forward. On that one, we are hoping that we would avoid any need for

that by introducing as we come into covenant a real living wage. In the

meantime, we want to campaign with shareholders so they pressurise

their companies to abide by a real living wage. I think there is an

alliance to be built there. Is it party policy that if companies don't

pay what you regard as a living wage, until it's made mandatory

that they shouldn't be allowed to pay dividends? it's one of ideas we

have floated for discussion. We have put it to the economic advisers to

get their view. Angela Eagle said it's unworkable. That's why it's

open for discussion. It's a really good campaigning tool for us to work

with shareholders to make sure they exert their influence to ensure

their companies, on things like the living wage and paying their taxes

as well, to make sure their companies are acting appropriately.

John McDonnell, I hope you come back to continue the debate with us. I

certainly well. So, David Cameron once dismissed

the idea of an emergency This morning, Downing Street

is indicating that a brake on welfare benefits for EU

migrants might be acceptable if it was applied immediately,

but only as a stop-gap measure. This evening, the Prime Minister

meets EU Council President Donald Tusk as he tries to broker a deal

ahead of a crunch summit of European leaders next month -

but will the fractious leave campaigns be in any position to take

advantage if he's seen to fail? Right now the future of Britain

inside or outside the European Union You might think it started here

in Brussels, or that the media's massed ranks are awaiting

the outcome in the European Parliament in Strasbourg,

or that we are hovering with baited breath for a decision

in our own Parliament, but no. This week the decision was made

in Havering, in Essex. In this chamber right now,

Havering councillors are debating If they do, of course nothing

will change, because the smart among you know, no council,

not even the British Parliament Nevertheless Havering Council

deliberately didn't deliberate on the leisure centre

or meals on wheels. However the Prime Minister meanwhile

was hurrying for a deal on wheels - not with councillors,

but with 27 EU member states. It's his plan to block in-work

benefits for EU migrants for four years that's getting

the bumpiest ride. The EU counter proposal

of an an "emergency brake" on access to benefits - if a country can prove

it's welfare system's under strain - has not gone down well

with Eurosceptics back home. They are saying we are

allowed to go to Brussels, and ask their permission

to change the benefit rules, David Cameron still wants that

benefit ban, and knows accepting the emergency brake as is would only

accelerate any campaign to leave. We want to end the idea

of something for nothing. It's not good enough,

it needs more work, I believe we've got to put

country before party, country before personality, vote

for freedom, and vote for leave In Havering they aren't waiting

for a date or a settlement. The Prime Minster knows Brexit

supporters are eyeing his own Cabinet to see who might be tempted

do the same. Michael Gove might come

out for leave. Boris Johnson, though

it's rather doubtful, might just possibly come out

for leave, to vote for leave. Theresa May, who almost

certainly is preoccupied And finally, Sajid Javid,

the Business Secretary, who has the most

Eurosceptic record of all. But it's very difficult,

when you are a government minister, and you've got real feelings

of loyalty to your party and your Prime Minister,

to depart from the line. And a lot of pressure,

moral pressure, if you like, A Havering Borough MP thinks that

kind of pressure is wrong. I think that this is a decision

that we all have to make And it shouldn't impede

on people's political careers. People should be able

to make up their own minds, and not worry about whether they are

going to be sidelined or punished Those who do out themselves for out,

will need campaign wizards who can Which, of two battling groups,

that is yet undecided, but so far both have seen a bad

spell of personality clashes and darkening moods way over

the heads of most grassroots The chance of winning over

undeclared MPs is the magic What we did discover,

it's like the dementors slowly sucking the people up out

of the air, body I do think that there will be

a coming together now, probably for very good reasons,

there have been divisions But I think this campaign will not

be just politicians. It's about the people

versus the elite in many ways. In fact, you have a referendum

really in many ways when politicians Meanwhile back in Havering...

is they want to do. party motion is therefore

carried by 30 votes to 15. So, councillors in Havering have

voted for a motion that says Now, there are plenty of councillors

who said they don't have any business debating this,

they have far more important things But what it might show

is that for some people - and in this case,

an official elected body - never mind what the date is,

and never mind the renegotiation, they would like to make

clear their views right now. I'm joined now by the Conservative

MP, Steve Baker, co-chairman of Conservatives for Britain

and a director of the Vote Leave If the Prime Minister can get an

agreement that there will be a break in welfare payments for migrants the

day after the referendum, isn't that a powerful thing to take to the

country? It's not powerful at all. Bernard Jenkin is the Conservative

director of Vote Leave, but we have been told by the OBR that it

wouldn't make much difference even if the Prime Minister got this

break. They would only take one case brought forward by activist lawyers,

and we would expect the European Court of Justice to strike down such

a measure. We think it's a red herring, and as John Redwood said, a

bad joke. They have ended up trying to manufacture the appearance of

success out of very little. As things stand at the moment, there's

nothing the Prime Minister would bring back that would make you want

to stay in? I've been clear through the whole period that most of us

want to end the supremacy of the EU in the UK. Make our own laws in

Parliament. The prime ministers had something similar about the European

Court of Human Rights. Demanding an opt out from the charter is subbing

the Prime Minister has had to give up. So money inconsistencies. The

answer is no. I expect a good number of colleagues to join me and

campaign to leave at this stage How many Tory MPs will campaign for out?

Of the 150 on the list who have expressed interest, and about a

fifth have made up their minds, I think about 50-70. No more than 50

or 70 Tory MPs campaigning on your side of the referendum to leave

That would be my expectation at this stage. John McDonnell said he wanted

to get this out of the wear it, the referendum. Didn't sound to me like

Labour would join with the SNP on delaying tactics for the referendum.

Would you like the referendum to be later? Realistically we are

campaigning out to leave the EU and we have secured our objectives for

the campaign. But there is a good case to be made that a June date

would trust us. There are elections in neigh, and I think there's a good

case for a delay until September. I would prefer the government brought

forward a measure that went through the Commons without a row, but if

Labour and the SNP and conservative colleagues wish to put something

through, then we will be able to what's the biggest beach from the --

beast on the cabinet you would like to get? I haven't ruled anybody out.

But I'm happy to go into the campaign without any Cabinet big

beasts. It would be surprised this point if Chris Grayling didn't join

us. He would count as a big beast, leader of the house. People know

which Cabinet members are discussed. Theresa May? She made a speech on

immigration which would be difficult to recalibrate with the EU. It's a

matter for her. You've given up on Bryce Johnson? He occasionally

flirts with it in the press. But he's a typical conservative, he

loves Europe, he would like Europe to be different, but we'll see what

he does when the comes. The different leave campaigns, it's

flawed with blood, when will you stop knocking lumps out of each

other? I'm not knocking lumps out of anybody and I regret this week that

we've had distractions from the core aim of leaving the EU and I regret

they have got their way to the press. Everybody involved needs to

reach a resolution, everybody involved wants to move on and I hope

we do so quickly, let's fight a winning campaign. You are not the

director of Vote Leave but you are on the Parliamentary planning

committee for Vote Leave, so you are associated. Did you agree with the

attempts to get rid of the two full-time people running it, Dominic

Cummings and Matthew Elliott? This is a matter for the board. Do you

agree with whether they should have gone? At this stage it's very late

in the day to make such a profound change. But given the severe

concerns of my colleagues, it is clear there will have to be material

changes in Vote Leave in order to carry parliamentarians with the

campaign. What this material change mean? There has to be a greater

degree of involvement with planetary and so they think they are shaping

the campaign to win over those voters we need. Will there be a

merger in the end? Surely that's what all of you need, you are up

against the government, is huge machine, don't you need to be

united? It's a David and Goliath battle and we need to be united The

process of unity will come through designation. Realistically, leave.

EU is looking at the Courville, where as Vote Leave knows we need

the swing vote. -- looking at the core vote. I'm confident that Vote

Leave can and will win the referendum. I wouldn't give away the

mop in case there is more blood to wipe up.

One of David Cameron's four key demands in his EU

renegotiation concerns competitiveness.

The Prime Minister says the burden of regulation on businesses is too

high, and that the EU needs to strengthen the single market

and accelerate trade agreements with America and China.

Arguments about the economic costs or benefits of membership will form

a large part of the referendum campaign, with both sides keen

Those campaigning to remain within the EU say our membership

is worth ?3000 to every household in Britain.

It's based on a CBI claim that the UK's economy is 5% bigger

They also claim that 3 million jobs are linked

to trade within the EU, that 45% of UK exports of goods

and services go to the EU, and that the value of

trade with the EU is ?133 billion higher than it would be if we left.

Those who argue we would be better off if we left claim that

regulations imposed on business by the EU cost over

They say the 3 million figure on jobs is

dependent on trade with the EU, not membership.

They argue that the trade would continue if we voted to leave,

because we currently import more than we export from the EU.

So its members would want free trade to remain.

They further point out that the importance of UK trade

They cite ONS figures showing that the proportion

of UK exports heading for the EU fell from 54.8% in 1999

But an analysis by the House of Commons Library in 2013

of numerous studies into the economic

impact of EU membership found no consensus either way,

So, which side will manage to convince voters?

I'm joined now by the former trade minister Digby Jones

and Richard Reed, who founded Innocent Smoothies,

who is campaigning for Britain to stay in the EU.

Welcome. Digby Jones, the EU accounts for 45% of our exports Why

would you risk any of that? That will not change. Because in the

morning after any referendum result, Germany, it is pivotal on Germany,

would immediately want some form of tariff free arrangement with

Britain. They make a million cars they sell in Britain a year. 75 to

80% of all the trains in this country are built in Dusseldorf We

do not know for sure? No. Germany does it and the others follow. There

are many arguments to stay in. But the one thing we should kill now is

that not one job in Britain is at risk because of EU membership. Not

one. There would be a free-trade agreement because we are so

important to Europe. And by the way that does not mean there are not

other reasons why not -- why we might not want to be in or out. I

get so frustrated when people talk about jobs at risk. It is rubbish.

That is very easy thing to call total nonsense. It is clear that if

your biggest market is suddenly interfered with, that it will not

somehow affect trade, does not make sense. You know more than most

people that businesses need certainty. What we have right now is

unfettered access to the largest market in the world. The fact that

we want to start playing around with this and that is good for business,

it does not make sense. I do not see the added value in belonging to a

club that fetters small businesses in this country every day.

I am a small business. I have done it for years. This is a colossal

opportunity. If you are an entrepreneur in the UK. You're

making it sound like it makes it more difficult. It makes it much

easier because it is one set of regulations and 500 million

consumers. If you have a shop, would you want 60 million people walk by

our 500 million people walk by? You can achieve that through a

free-trade agreement. You get the sales prevention team in Brussels

marching valiantly towards 1970 trying to save this is how you will

lead your small business in Hartlepool. But we all know that

Sutherland Europe, compliance is a voluntary event. We all know that

the French do not obey these rules. Then we and northern Europe, we are

by no means the best, we obey this stuff. And a small business who

doesn't have lobbyists in Brussels, and you know this... I know this.

Britain loves a bit of regulation. You are absolutely right. If we come

out and you say we will still trade, we will still have to comply with

the regulation. That is the condition of free trade. We will not

avoid regulation. The regulation is there whether we are in or out. If

we are in, we get to influence the regulation. We get to have the voice

heard. You tell that to the money men in the City who have seen

legislation come down from Brussels. You see what happens when we're not

there when the big decisions are made. You think we have no

influence? We're one of the three big forces in Europe. We are one of

the three biggest economies in Europe. Digby Jones, I want to ask

you this. You assume we will still have unfettered access to the single

market. But it has been pointed out by Richard Reid that that means we

would have to meet the conditions of getting into the single market.

Could there be other costs? Free movement of people may be a cost.

That is a price Switzerland and Norway pay. Let's Explorer that I'm

concerned this referendum is going to become a referendum purely on a

migration on the street, when we ought to be discussing how can

European Union reform and improve the life of an unemployed

25-year-old in Madrid and a single mother in Athens? How can the power

of Britain, economic and otherwise, how can it be seen as a driver to

get the standard of living up? If you base your economy on exporting

our lives and importing BMWs, you will go bust. They are asking Europe

to subsidise the growth of our lives, in the hope that for some

reason on skilled people in Europe will do this. You are going to get

on skilled people in Europe coming to rich countries instead of

actually getting skilled people in Europe being marketable in northern

Europe. You can only pull that off with reform. We should not be

campaigning to stop these people coming. We should be campaigning to

get the skills base of Europe up so they get wealthy, but more

importantly, they are more marketable in our market. The

British government has enough trouble getting the skills base

right in Britain without trying to get it right in southern Europe

Richard Reid, you say that we are in the club that we can influence the

rules. Let me put the question. The British have been on the wrong end

of EU majorities on these rules more than any other country that is a

member of the EU. We really get away on these things. You are joking We

have got the best possible setup. We are part of the EU. We said no to

the euro, no to Schengen, no to force migratory bird it is. Why so

many majority votes? This is a macro decision. Once in a generation. We

have got to get it right. The big picture is it is a colossal

opportunity and we have got the best version of the deal. When you and I

were arguing cases about whether we should join the euro years ago, I

can remember sitting in television studios and being told the world was

going to end and we were going to go to Armageddon and back if we did not

join the euro. We made the right decision about the euro. This

interview has come to an end. I thank you both.

It's just gone 11:35 - 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 be hearing from our political panel.

First though, the Sunday Politics where you are.

This week, we are looking at Labour's

What is Sadiq Khan offering, and is it a programme that can win

With their own view on that, and with me

this week, are Rushanara Ali, the Labour MP for Bethnal Green and

And Stephen Hammond, Conservative MP for

His final budget was discussed at City Hall this week,

We don't need to pay for the Olympics

any more, he said, so girls could come down.

We made a very clear promise to cut council tax in real

And we are actually keeping a commitment that was made

to Londoners by the previous mayor, that the precept would not go

For ten years we have been paying ?20, the so-called

Olympic precept, as part of what the mayor raises

We have paid all that off, but isn't there

an argument, as the Liberal Democrats and Greens suggest,

that we just keep this, get to Londoners

to pay the same level of council tax, but maybe use the money

I think if we want to resolve the housing crisis, we need to be

Radical and ambitious about how planning works.

how we finance housing, and what we do to stop the fuelling

of the housing market with foreign investors and other kinds

Your party didn't object to Boris Johnson

No, we didn't, because there are clearly issues

about Londoners, particularly those on medium and low wages

I think if we want to tackle the housing crisis, we need

This would be tinkering, frankly, and we need

to look at how we use land and planning.

Boris Johnson scrapped the key workers programme and a whole

series of other things that were helping ordinary Londoners

Sadiq Khan has got plans for London, particularly around housing

which are much more comprehensive and

Stephen Hammond, you could use that money, the Liberal

Democrats are saying, to leave in more borrowing.

Isn't there something hypocritical or

He's always said you need to keep fares up for investment

in the transport system, but here he wouldn't keep council

tax up because it would be useful for his

successors for various projects, housing.

Boris is keeping his promise to Londoners.

This was always the promise to Londoners and it's right

He's also a legacy that I'm very pleased to Zac

Goldsmith will inherit later in the year.

Because he's left us with council tax coming down,

a fairer London, he's left us with a boom

He's left us with the same number of police officers on the street,

He's left us with 100,000 affordable homes

This is a legacy to which anyone would be

And I know Zac will be pleased to inherit it later in the year

I suppose, as you say, he's made a promise and he would be

criticised from all sides if he had broken that promise will stop

but let's move on and consider who might

It's clear how the Conservatives intend to portray Sadiq Khan.

The Prime Minister said this week that if Labour's man

became mayor, Londoners would become lab rats in an experiment

Khan said he's his own man, and at this stage, as we said last

week, he's ahead in the available polling.

Labour's candidate from mayor, Sadiq Khan, invited our cameras

to a Hackney building site this week.

The message he wanted to present, that

he was the man to fix London's housing problems.

I'm going to set up in City Hall, a homes for Londoners,

Making sure there are genuinely affordable homes to rent

He's also promising a target for 50% of new

An old City Hall policy that was scrapped by Boris Johnson.

Is reintroduction could prove controversial.

This week, the home builders Federation, who represent a pity

-- who represent property developers.

While housing was the focus this week, the Labour candidate has also

put transport centre stage with promises

Increase the size of the so-called ultra low emission zone,

which would introduce restrictions on all but

the cleanest vehicles from driving in zones one and two,

On Wednesday, the Prime Minister could hardly have been clearer

Just think for a moment what having, you know,

the first Corbyn elected mayor be like in London for our economy,

our education, our politics, for our city.

You do not want to be lab rats in the first

Corbyn economics experiment in public life in our country.

However, the mayoral candidate has been keen

to strike a very different tone to Jeremy Corbyn on some issues

I want to be the most pro-business mayor

Jobs, growth, increased productivity, it means

they can profit, employee more Londoners, and pay them a living

I want London to be a living wage city, the first of its kind

So, what to make the man who says he's resolutely

pro-business, but is accused of helping to usher

Conservatives say the answer is simple.

His line has changed over the years, as the Labour Party line

There is very little consistency there, a lot of flip-flopping.

So I think Zac Goldsmith is much more independent

minded and will find it easier to work with all the different

parties that have power in different parts

of London, and that makes him a better potential candidate to be

While the Conservatives may claim that he is

evasive and a difficult man to pin down, there is one unshakeable truth

they have to accept about Sadiq Khan.

Right now, he's ahead in the polls, and the bookies favourite to be

Pro-business, we've heard you say that.

Business wants a mayor with financial credibility

and somebody who can ensure a stable transport system,

Why would you give away hundreds of millions of pounds that

you could be using for investment in transport

system with a fares freeze guarantee for four years?

Well, one of the most important thing is Londoners

need is a transport system they can afford to use.

Public transport in London is the most expensive in Europe

Over the last eight years it has doubled.

So, I've set out a fully funded fares freeze for four

I've set up how we will pay for that.

Boris Johnson himself accepts my figures.

It will cost roughly speaking, ?450 million.

If you are going to say he did before,

He was at LBC two weeks ago accepting my figures.

More importantly, because you have raised that straightaway,

more reportedly come as you know, his

transport agency says you would cost Londoners 1.9 billion.

Why is there such a discrepancy between your two sets of figures?

TfL's figures say that this year Boris Johnson's fare increase,

the eighth in a row, would cost ?43 million.

I've promised a fares freeze over four years.

The cost of you freezing the fares...

fare this time in 2020, as you pay now.

You are not allowing for an inflation rise.

Why would you do that when the cost is going up?

Because our public transport system is the most expensive

Let me explain to you how we will pay for this.

We will merge TfL's engineering fund.

Currently you have a different one for underground and surface.

That alone brings in more than ?400 million.

If it has been so sensible, why has it not been

Because TfL say it will not make the savings you say.

TfL have said that they will make sure the new mayor has

Last year TfL spent almost ?400 million on consultants

Last year, ?61 million was lost by fare evasion and we will cut

Hong Kong's transport agency raises more money.

through their properties than through their fares.

Let me come back to the fundamental point about why you would make such

Why would you bind yourself, when you have the right

and ability, depending on what the financial climate is,

to consider things year-on-year, do you accept

it looks a bit like some sort of populist gesture rather

than a very business like financially prudent

It's a policy Londoners need, after housing.

So you accept it's not based on financial reason?

After housing, public transport is the second biggest

Do you accept it's a rather populist measure?

You are not denying that the money is money you are giving back to fare

payers, and if you had the money you could use

It's disgraceful that Londoners in week

three and four are choosing between food and fares.

I'm going to be a mayor for all Londoners.

That means helping Londoners get from home to work.

How will you help them if their network is not

being invested in and there aren't more trains and services?

This is why, unlike the current deputy Mayor of London,

who has promised a fares cut should he

He actually has experience of running

He didn't actually win the mayoral nomination,

he didn't impress the Conservatives very much.

It's really important Londoners know that over the last

I promise you will pay exactly the same fares,

not a penny more, in 2020, as you do now.

So our transport correspondent has been told that you have

That you haven't taken into account Crossrail,

which comes into play, opening in 2018.

You are, in effect, giving up hundreds of millions of pounds that

you could get from people coming in from outside London.

As I said to you, what I promised, and I haven't

I actually have experience of being a minister

in transport, and was the Minister for Crossrail, and was the Minister

who took through the bill that means businesses pay

It will open in 2018 and 2019, parts will be opening earlier

than other parts, and it's important we use those revenue streams

TfL, that's why they are saying you will cost ?1.9 billion,

because you haven't thought of those.

What I'm saying is this, my fares freeze

We will make sure we make the savings this mayor has

But we will also increase revenue streams.

We could build on Hyde Park, the genuinely affordable homes that

But also a really important revenue stream as well.

I'm the person with a plan and experience to make sure TfL

You are promising that Londoners get first dibs,

first call on homes, not just on public land,

mayoral land, which we heard from Zac Goldsmith last week,

Is that people born in London, that they get first choice?

What we will stop happening is developers marketing properties

off plan overseas before they are available for Londoners.

Last year, for example, one estate agent

marketed 7000 properties in the middle east and Asia.

Even now you can market it at the same time.

Even now you could market one day later

and it means foreign buyers would be able to buy the property.

It's really important that Londoners get

This means, for example, as part of the planning condition,

you can't have properties for sale less than six

One of the biggest challenges Londoners have is persuading

their building society to give them a mortgage when the home will be

completed more than six months later.

As part of the London plan, we will say to developers and local

authorities, you can no longer sell off plan to investors overseas.

They shouldn't be gold bricks for investors,

You accept though that developers will not like this,

because they get a lot of upfront money that ensures you get more

developments in the end and thus more affordable housing

by the using some of this foreign investment.

Will you accept as well that, Londoners first, or any kind

of restriction you put into the planning system,

that's an interference with the market and

will again put developers off coming forward.

Your reporter came with me to Hackney this week,

and has seen what Hackney Council has done, and

Labour Hackney as part of the development, we made sure

that the private developer, working with the council,

We're talking about a huge scale across London.

Zac Goldsmith told us of that last week.

You asked me a question and I'm giving you an answer.

Labour Hackney has shown that at scale, across London,

will not want to do that, they will not want that

There are 32 boroughs, and some of them are already doing this.

We need to make sure all boroughs do this.

That's why you have a Mayor of London who drafts a London

A London plan that will be used by all 32 London boroughs,

and also developers will know where they stand.

We need to bring certainty to the market.

That also means defining what I mean by affordable homes.

It's making sure homes are genuinely affordable to Londoners.

You will bring less certainty because you say

you can achieve 50% affordability on the total housing over

We've had a Conservative for the last eight years.

Across London, we've never got higher than 39%, have we?

Are you accepting your reach will be that you will not hit

We have a London plan which covers all of London.

At the moment we have some really good local

authorities trying their best with their hands tied

behind their back with the current London plans that allows developers

to market affordable homes costing 80% of

How will you persuade developers to come forward

and build when you are telling them that 50% of them have to be

There will not be the profit margins.

I gave you the example of Labour Hackney.

Let me give you the example of Camden.

I visited a development in Camden two weeks ago,

warehouses owned by Camden Council who could

have sold off to private developers, and instead they are working

with a private developer, in this case, Savills,

to make sure that half of homes are genuinely

By the way, the other half are market

value, and the revenue stream from the market value means you have

genuinely affordable homes for all Camden residents.

You also have enough money for the council estates.

Stephen Hammond, the Prime Minister's comments about Londoners

becoming lab rats in an experiment in Corbynism.

What does he mean by that, what would happen to London

I think there are some real questions.

You have already seen that Corbyn is not pro-business.

Sadiq Khan may or may not be pro-business,

but Corbyn certainly isn't.

I think the key question for Londoners, is,

listening to Sadiq Khan, why is it that TfL say

there is 1.5 billion black hole in his fares plan?

Simply because it isn't affordable and will hurt investment in the tube

As well as the overground system and a number of projects

A number of things he mentions are already being done,

particularly bringing forward land into the London land commission

The 50% affordable homes target was dropped because it didn't work.

Ken Livingstone failed to deliver, Boris has delivered.

100,000 homes, which he promised to do.

Also don't forget, this 450 is a cap, there are affordable homes

being built in Greenwich as we sit here today at ?150,000.

It doesn't have to be at 450 thousand.

A neutral body, Transport for London, saying that

they had plans for investment and 1.9 billion is what they thought

they would get, but they wouldn't get

Two points, firstly TfL are not saying that.

You had on your programme two weeks ago one of the world's leading

The LSE's Professor Tony Travers, and he says he's changed his mind

In 2012 he thought it wasn't possible to have a fares freeze

You will know that he now says it is possible.

He said it's possible, but it's whether it's a sensible

If you want to fulfil all your other dreams in the transport network

That means ensuring they can afford a modern transport system.

Tower Hamlets has never achieved anything

What we have done is in the past we had

the support of the former London Mayor in making sure

What you have got at the moment is a London

Let's take the bishop Bishopsgate goods yard. Towers going up and most

Londoners can't afford to buy them. Boris Johnson has decided to recall

planning decisions by Hackney That kind of contradictory behaviour

is completely at odds with trying to deal with London's

housing prices. I want a mayor working

in partnership Not just Labour local

authorities, all local authorities, to make sure

that we apply the right kind They are going scot free and making

profit for doing very In the time we have left,

is Jeremy Corbyn a help Jeremy Corbyn is not

on the ballot paper, What is important is I set

out my vision for a London. There will be occasions

when I agree with Jeremy Corbyn There will be some

occasions when I do not. Londoners did not want to see a

patsy of their party leader, Corbyn or Cameron will stop.

Londoners want somebody with experience, with values and vision.

Will he be an asset to your campaign, and will he be out

campaigning with you between now and polling day?

Jeremy Corbyn is passionate about

Jeremy Corbyn understands far better London's

housing crisis than any other party leader.

What is important for Londoners is to see a candidate and a mayor

standing up for London, not being in the pocket of the Prime

Minister, but standing up for Londoners.

We have got just under 100 days to go.

We hope you will come back to explore some

What about the rest of the political news in the capital this week?

A 24-hour tube strike planned for this week

was called off after the RMT Union agreed to suspend it.

It follows ASLEF, TSSA and Unite calling off

The RMT said the suspension would allow for further

Questions about the future of the Garden Bridge

after it emerged that the mayor

the project with executives from Apple in California

a week before the search for a designer was endorsed.

City Hall said the meeting had no bearing on the procurement process,

which was open, fair and transparent.

Speculation this week over the long-term future of Britain s

most senior policeman, the head of the

Metropolitan police, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe.

He had wanted a three-year extension to his contract

However, Boris Johnson recommended a one-year

extension in a letter to the Home Secretary,

Stephen Hammond, a quick one on garden bridge.

All kinds of problems. Looks like the mayor has had a private meeting

in San Francisco. Before the contract was given out.

Boris flew to San Francisco to speak to Apple about

sponsoring the bridge and getting involved.

The designer was out there for a completely different

It was quite clear, and everybody accepts,

it was an open and transparent process.

It feels very much like after the event

bitching by people who did not get the contract.

It says it doesn't smell. Boris went there at tax payer's expense. It

looks like a stitch up, frankly Far from being transparent, it looks

very dodgy. I think we should.. We need to know why this happens. We

don't know much. In the time we have left, would you give Bernard

Hogan-Howe the full three years I think he has done a very important

job for London. You have no objection? I have no objections But

given we have an election coming up and a new mayor, I don't have any

problems. What about his position, he wants three years, shouldn't the

Home Secretary give it to him, and so what about the elections question

I think Boris made a very sensible decision, a one-year extension. The

failure of the Labour Party as they talk about themselves and the

mayoral budget. Back to Andrew. Welcome back. Let's return to the

issue of Google's tax bill. It is not just Google. Earlier I spoke to

John McDonnell and asked him what he would do to make sure that companies

like Google pay a fair and appropriate level of tax. First of

all, I want the information about how the deal was arrived at and I

want them in future to publish their tax records, the British part. So we

can have openness and transparency, we can see what is fair. The

Chancellor said this was a major success, but we cannot tell because

we have not got the information I would suggest that the Google row

rumbles on by Google appearing with Andrew Marr this morning. There are

other companies in the frame like Amazon, Apple, big investigation by

the European Commission -- commission. And we discover that a

lot of major British multinationals do not pay any are very small

amounts of corporation tax. This issue has got a long way to go, I

would suggest? Yes, and it could end up in a transatlantic almost cold

war between the EU and the US and in particular US companies. Each side

thinks the other is trying to exploit its site disproportionately.

I wonder if eventually the people who ultimately lobby for

International corporate tax reform and clarity will be corporations

themselves. At the moment they are getting into trouble of what is

ultimately observing the letter of the law, and certainly observing

their duty to pay the legal minimum of tax, the duty they have to their

shareholders. If that is getting them into trouble, I think they have

an incentive in the long run to press for a clarity and reform

internationally, even if it means their aggregate tax payment goes

slightly upwards. The irony is that this row comes after there has been

major changes at the OECD level at EU level, on trying to simplify and

get multinationals to pay their due tax. And yet we seem to be no

further forward than before. I wonder if people start looking

harder at corporation tax and whether that is the right way to

proceed? S there are other ways of doing it. You can do it on turnover,

sales. These large companies that are taking bigger and bigger slabs

of the British markets are not paying their tax. Think of the

people competing against Amazon Argos, the local book shop... It is

not fair. Their sense of indignation... Then to discover that

the Conservative Party, while talking about how they are trying to

clean this up and they are doing more than Labour, which possibly

they are, meanwhile instructing their MEPs to vote against moves in

Europe, to try to get a proper European agreement on this, it will

not work unless we get a European agreement, and to find out that the

Government says one thing speaking here but secretly in the European

Parliament does something else. There are a lot of legs on this A

lot of trouble for the Conservative Party because it plays to their

weakness, sick -- just a security and defence place to be Labour

weakness. They are in bed with the big corporations. Do you think they

are in bed with them? Politicians love meeting cutting edge companies.

They do not spend that much time with steel companies. It is a bit of

a stretch to then think that they were ever doing anything about

Google's tax returns. I think it is quite a stretch. The Google top

executive right at the heart of Downing Street, just as Andy Coulson

from the Murdoch empire was right at the heart of Downing Street. You

have got Seamus Milne at the heart of the Corbyn Empire. There is quite

a difference! It is ironic, the International rules were meant to be

cleaned up. They were meant to have done something about the double

Irish and Dutch sandwich. I speak in tongues because that is how you have

to do it these days. Unless there is a major radical change, I would

suggest, if they carry on the current way, it will be another ten

years before there are further changes? Yass and not only were the

international rules meant to have been cleared up, George Osborne

talked about how reprehensible aggressive tax avoidance is. Then

last week he said the deal with Google is a special deal. The

problem with George Osborne is he has forgotten the second part of

Peter Mandelson's famous sentence about being relaxed about people

getting rich... As long as they pay their tax. The problem for George

Osborne is that he sees everything through a 2010 lens. This deal is

much better than anything that happened under new Labour. That is

six years ago. We have moved on People are now judging this

government on what they have done. It has been a long slow burning

campaign. The tax Justice campaign has been brilliant. UK uncut Ren

fantastic demonstrations against top shop, Vodafone, boots, people

avoiding their taxes in elaborate ways. Witty campaigns the public

saw. I think it is at the centre of it now. With other cases coming up,

Apple and Amazon, Vodafone always in the frame... Just finally, I thought

it was fascinating that Peter Borren of Google explained in effect that

the money made in Britain and other places is then sent to Bermuda,

essentially warehoused in Bermuda. It is a tax haven. If they

repatriated back to California headquarters, they would pay

corporation tax in America and they think that is too high. America

corporate tax is run about 40%. Apple has about 200 billion US

dollars in cash reserves internationally. Let's move on to

the referendum. I got the impression from listening to John McDonnell and

other Labour shadow ministers I have interviewed that there is no

appetite on the Labour front bench to delay this referendum. I think

they would like to get on with it? S they want to get on with it, then

wanted to succeed. They want the yes campaign to win. At the moment

Labour is not doing very well with it. It ought to be a great hallmark

for them. Labour is almost unequivocally pro-EU. They should be

making a lot of capital against every split Tory party and they are

not, really. It is not clear why. Maybe their hearts are not in it. It

is led by two people who voted to come out into -- 19 75. Alan Johnson

woman who is leading the campaign, does not appear to be making much

headway. Maybe they are waiting until Cameron comes back with a

package. I think they are missing a trick. The Eurosceptics want more

time. They fear if it is rushed they will definitely lose. But for a

June referendum in the Commons, it would need Labour as well. It is

clearly not going to happen. The only thing that could stop it,

because the numbers are now not in the Commons, is if the electoral

commission, bearing in mind you have the leaders of the three devolved

administrations saying they're not happy, that is the only thing that

could potentially stop it. Now that the Labour Party is saying we should

get on with it, it looks like that will happen. People like Steve Baker

needs to be careful. They have been saying for 20 years we need a

referendum. Here it is coming down the stream and they say, we are not

sure about it. That potentially shows they are nervous about the

case. One of the most telling thing is Steve Baker said was the number

of Tory MPs who would vote to leave would be no more than 70, which is

clearly expectations management on his party that's my part. What you

have seen in the past 72 hours is expectations management on all

sides. Downing Street is dampening down expectations. We are all

massively impressed. I hope you are right that he is that clever. What

worries me is that he has been reckless. He has put things out

there that he could never get. He has not put everybody square. If not

clever, certainly cynical. Steve Baker and the sceptics are playing

down their expected numbers, even Cabinet ministers. The area where

George Osborne thinks he will make the most fundamental and important

changes as the exceptions for those countries not in the eurozone. That

gets very little coverage. George Osborne says that is the most

important thing we could get because it will play for decades to come.

The territory they are fighting on is the area where they are quite

weak, benefits reform. We will have another referendum in 2021 when

treaty change takes place and the eurozone becomes a proper monetary

union. I don't think anybody is go to do a treaty change for a long

time. The mood across Europe, particularly about immigration and

refugee is, I think nobody will want a treaty. It is all talk. I do not

see it. I don't think anybody will trust their own electorate

sufficiently at any particular point. They will look at hours with

great interest. And they will say, don't go there. Before we go, a sad

morning today. We learned that veteran broadcaster Terry Wogan has

died at the age of 77 after a short battle with cancer. Over his many

years in broadcasting, he interviewed a great number of

people, including politicians. He really is talking to Margaret

Thatcher. What do the next ten years hold for

us and for our Prime Minister? Mrs Margaret Thatcher. You ever

apprehensive? Are you ever nervous before you get up and speak? Always.

And you would not speak well if you were not. I have been answering

questions in the House every Tuesday and Thursday for ten years. And I am

still just as nervous as I was at the beginning. It requires immense

preparation. You have seen your share of trouble and strife and

success. What have been your worst moments? The worst moment on totally

was when the Argentinians invaded the Falkland Islands. I will never

forget it. With the worries and some of the terrible problems you have

had, do you have any time for personal worries? We have been very

lucky. You know Dennis very well. You both belong to Lord's Tavern is.

Everyone knows Dennis. He is marvellous! Why did your audience

laugh when you mentioned him? He is held in great affection by everyone

because he has the tremendous knack for saying things people would love

to say but they're not. Terry Wogan, one of the most

accomplished and professional, charming broadcasters in modern

times. Sadly died this morning. We learn from his family. Terry Wogan.

That is it for today. I thank all of my guests. The daily politics will

be on BBC Two from noon tomorrow and every day next week, including Prime

Minister's Questions on Wednesday. I am back your macro same time, same

place next week. We will know more about the American election campaign

by them. If it is Sunday, it is the Sunday Politics.

The Government thought it was the right thing to do.

They're going to make me the demon of Peckham.

to the decline and fall of a charity empire.

Camila! I've got to go to my funeral appointment.