06/03/2016 Sunday Politics London

The leave campaign deploys Boris Johnson to defeat

what they call Project Fear, but are the remain campaign

George Osborne hoped taxing pensions would help him fill the black hole

in the public finances, so why has he abandoned his plans

And four more states have voted - is Trump a step closer

Donald J Trump for President! In the capital, new homes at a third of the

price. Too good to be true? We ask if this development could be the

answer to London's housing problems. And talking of Project Fear,

with us for the duration this morning, a terrifying political

panel whose incisive insights strike fear into the hearts

of politicians everywhere. Toby Young, Helen Lewis

and Janan Ganesh. So, he took a while to make his mind

up which way to swing, but those campaigning for the UK

to leave the European Union will hope the deployment

of their most charismatic performer - Boris Johnson -

on the Marr Show this morning The Mayor of London took a swing

at the deal the David Cameron the stated Government policy

was that we should have a reformed EU, fundamentally reformed,

wholesale change in Britain's relationship with

the EU was promised. That has obviously

not been delivered. We were told at the time that

Britain would be perfectly safe to walk away, by the Government,

by the Prime Minister. That has now, that rhetoric has now

very much been changed, I think, by the way,

the policy was right then. We should be absolutely confident

about the future of this country. What do you make of his performance?

David Lloyd George said negotiating with devil are was like trying to

pick up mercury with a fog, and I imagine Andrew Marr feels similarly

after trying to pin down Boris Johnson over questions of the

Brexit. If these leaves campaign don't have

an agreement on something that fundamental, you can see them

struggling with the real harsh light of scrutiny getting applied in the

later weeks of this referendum campaign, I think what will end up

happening is there will be a division of Labour whereby Michael

Gove leads on the hard detail and interviews such as this, Boris

Johnson does what he's good at such is the retail politics, and we don't

have incidents like that worrying level of confusion. Was it an

assured level of performance? I think the way that interview will be

seen is as Boris not being able to get a wording edgeways, being

constantly interrupted, not being allowed to develop his points, and

that will add to a sense of grievance which is emerging as one

of the features of this campaign. The leaves campaign already

complaining about George Osborne lining up the G20, David Cameron

getting these European leaders to weigh in on the remaining side. That

grievance narrative will probably be powerful when it comes to mobilising

the debate. Wasn't he being interrupted because Andrew Marr was

trying to get him to address the point? When you interview Boris, you

have got to come not just Boris, but when you interview him you have got

to interrupt because quite often politicians just play for time in

these interviews. Often he was developing a particular point, and

while he was trying to develop a point and answer what Andrew Marr

had asked him, he got interrupted, but I think the general sense of

grievance emerging on the leave site will help mobilise the levers when

it comes to the actual referendum. The fact the levers feel more

passionately than the remainders do about remaining will help the leave

cause. I think that is the best defence you can give Boris this

morning, it is worrying. There is a moment of extreme danger for Boris.

What happens after the referendum, particularly if we stay in? Should

he take a Cabinet job, in which he affects people's lives, or does he

stay on the backbenches not making his move? He is in real danger. A

lot of his popularity comes from the fact he doesn't do politics. He

hasn't got an enormous track record to his name as London mayor, and

people don't have a huge amount of tolerance for that hail fellow well

met act. Is there a lot of grievance, as Toby says? Yes, you

can imagine how much worse it will be later on. Things like Scheuble's

interview, where he said Britain would have to pay in to have access

to the EU market, that could be seen as bullying. If you are on the other

side of the argument, of course you will see it as provocative. My worry

is the campaign will get poisonous, and the opening two weeks is

reflective of something much worse. If this grievance narrative begins

to gain traction over the course of that campaign, won't it help

mobilise the leave side? We have seen how it can motivate voters in

America with Donald Trump. But there was grievance in the Scottish

referendum, I think it helps, but to win plurality you need to go beyond

grievance. That partly depends on turnout and if the public are turned

off by the negative tone of the debate, you will have a low turnout

and that will probably favour leaving rather than remaining. We

will see. It is a long time until July the 23rd.

It's been branded Project Fear by opponents and in a moment I'll be

talking to one of the remain campaign's chief protagonists.

First, here's a reminder of how they've been making their case over

Tell us what the model is that they believe

the European Union would negotiate with Britain.

Remember, this is going to be a divorce if we

decide to leave, and as with any divorce it is likely to get messy.

In many ways, I am a Eurosceptic, absolutely, and I'm still a Brussels

basher in many ways and will always remain so.

I think the answer to the concerns that people have, and these

concerns of course are not completely absent in Scotland,

isn't to clamp down on free movement.

If we leave, the people who are advising us to leave,

they cannot at the moment answer the question about what arrangements

So Project Fact is about saying stay and you know what we get.

And I'm joined now by Nick Herbert who is leading the Conservatives'

Let's go through a number of things your site has been saying. Firstly

let's take the Calais camp, the Prime Minister 's office has said if

we move the camp -- if we leave the camp will move to the south-east of

England. They would be little interest in remaining the agreement

we have that people stay on the French side. That will result in

people coming over to this side, and we having to deal with them rather

than the French, which means they can claim asylum in this country.

And what was interesting about this claim, which I think is about a

common-sense that is how the French would respond if we were outside of

the EU and they no longer have the same set of incentives to cooperate,

is that it was dismissed as scaremongering and now we have the

most senior politicians in France confirming that this would probably

be the case so this isn't scaremongering at all. What I'm

wondering is why you would move the camp overnight to the south of

England. Explain why they would form a camp if they have made it to

Britain. The point is that we would have to deal with them on the

British side. That would require us to send them back. One of the things

we have in this debate that many to do is to remind ourselves that we

have border controls in Britain, we are not part of the passport free

area, the Schengen Agreement in the rest of Europe, and we can and do

check EU citizens when they come in. We indeed turn them away. Thousands

of EU citizens are turned away from our borders and it is too are

advantage that the controls that prevent people from coming in are on

the French side. Let's assume the French do what you are claiming. If

they come here, if they make it here, either they will apply for

asylum, in which case they will don't to official reception centres

until it is sorted out, or they will disappear into the labour market.

Neither involves creation of a camp in England. I don't know what was

meant about a camp, what I do know is that at the moment we have

arrangements where people can be stopped on the French side, the

French would have little incentive to keep that if we walk out of the

EU. It was initially dismissed on this site by Brexit campaigners as

scaremongering, I think it is a very good example of an issue that we

will have to deal with if we leave. You keep on mentioning these French

politicians, only one has said this, that the economics minister. Would

you like to tell our viewers what the interior minister has said?

Right up to President Hollande... He didn't say anything about that.

President Hollande and his ministers have said this will be on the

agenda. There is a raft of French politicians who have made this

clear. Name one. Common sense would tell us that if there is an

arrangement, because it is a part of the cooperation and partnership we

have with the French that they would no longer have that same arrangement

if we were out of the EU. I will tell you what the French interior

minister says, he says ending the treaties which govern the Calais

camp would not be responsible solution, we will not do it, we

would like to go on building a good immigration policy with the UK,

especially at Calais. Other French ministers have said different

things. One. Let's just look at what governs the Calais camp. The 1991

protocol governs the tunnel, another treaty... Wires are EU membership

critical factor? I have already made that point, that this a separate

issue legally to our EU membership of the question is what incentive

would the French have to continue with those arrangements if we were

outside of the EU, and it is as I say senior French politicians

themselves and local French politicians who are raising these

questions. What I think is a reminder of... But these are EU

treaties, Anglo-French treaties, the French could stop them tomorrow

whether we are in or out. I said that before you did that it is

legally a separate matter, but politically I think there is little

doubt that the French would not have the same set of incentives to stand

by this issue. That was made clear at the highest level last year. All

of this is a reminder that Britain is in a different position than the

rest of our EU partners. We are not in the Schengen arrangement, we do

have border controls. It is in our interests that some of those border

controls operate on the other side of the Channel Tunnel, and in our

interest that we continue to remain outside of the Schengen area. It is

one of the things that gives Britain the best of both worlds, we are able

to access the market but outside of the passport free area. The protocol

that governs the tunnel is a protocol to the Treaty of Canterbury

which sets up the tunnel, there is no way you can change it without

reneging on the treaty. To close down the existing situation would

effectively close the tunnel. The French government owns 55% of the

operation of the tunnel, why would they do that in or out of the EU?

Ask the French politicians. You confirmed it was the senior French

minister. He said he was implicitly confirmed by the President. He hopes

to be running for President next year. None of this has come out of

thin air. It has come because it would very obviously be one of the

ways in which we would lose out, potentially, from withdrawing from

the EU. That is because the same sort of arrangements that means that

we cooperate with our partners would no longer exist. Let's move onto the

benefits of membership. Your side of the campaign has said that we

benefit ?3000 per household has accumulated over our time in the EU.

Do you stand by that figure? It was a CBI figure and it was not actually

their own calculation. What they did was look at a range of studies that

show the economic benefits of the single market. They range from some

saying that there was not a benefit, to some saying there was a very

substantial benefit. They have updated this research just last

month and they said that the majority of the studies showed there

was a substantial benefit. About 10% of JD chilly GDP. They calculate it

as ?10,000 per head. You are using it, Britain is stronger in Europe,

do you stand by it? It is the CBI's figure. Do you stand by it? It is a

average figure that has been done by the studies that have been done, not

just the CBI's own studies. It shows there is a net benefit to us being

in the single market. Do you stand by the ?3000 figure? It is not a

figure I have used. Your campaign has used it, look down there,

Britain Is Stronger In Europe. It is a perfectly reasonable figure for

them to use because it is a study that has been done, not their

studies. The majority of those studies that have been done, they

show that there is a benefit to being in the single market. The CBI

stays of its study of 12 research papers, originally beginning with

five, all of which were pro-EU, it has widened that to 12, some of

which are more hostile. It there is an and avoidable degree of

uncertainty. But you have to caveat that? We need to weigh up the costs

and benefits. The majority of the studies showed that there would be a

benefit. That could be more substantial. In terms of the

increase in GDP, the domestic product, that has been gained as a

result of being in the single market. It comes back to the single

market, because it gives us easier trade and facilitates business,

because it benefits the huge number of companies that trade with the

European Union, there is a benefit to the whole economy. The big

question is, if we were to leave the European Union, what alternative

arrangement would we have? That is the question the opponents will not

answer. They will not say if we would be in the single market or

not. The risk is that we would lose those benefits. As a consequence,

there would be an impact on businesses and, therefore, on the

economic benefit coming to the country. On the research paper, you

are right that the CBI did not do its own research, the latest one was

12 research papers with 14 estimates. Out of those, it took

seven. It did not include some of them. It happens that the seven they

took out showed far fewer benefits. So we are right to be sceptical. The

sample is down to a largely pro-EU sample. To be fair, I think you need

to ask the CBI about its calculation. But what was striking

was that the range of benefit and the majority of studies that they

tuck it down to, the seven... Took it down to. Yes, was up to 10% of

GDP. Most serious economic analysis shows there was a benefit to being

in the single market for the economy. That is why businesses

themselves, the majority of members of the British chamber of commerce,

the majority of members of the Institute of Directors, the FTSE 100

companies, a full third of the FTSE 100 companies said it would be

damaging to leave the EU. The other two thirds were not saying the

opposite. This claim of a decade of uncertainty, a vote to leave the EU

would be the start, not the end of the process and could lead to a

decade or more of uncertainty. Why would it take twice as long to

withdraw from Europe as it took to win the Second World War? Because of

the length of time it takes to do trade deals and make alternative

arrangements. If you look at the average trade deal that is done,

they take years. Canada's trade is still not fully signed off. It took

seven years. We would have had to negotiate alternative arrangements,

not just with the EU, that would be problematic enough, and the other

side has not told us what arrangement that would be, but the

one thing that is becoming increasingly clear is that it would

not give us the benefits of the single market we currently have.

With the 35 other trade deals that the EU has done, those arrangements

would fall as well. Would we not just say, put the need to negotiate

a single market agreement to one side, why would we not say to other

countries, Morocco, South Korea and so on, we will continue with

existing trading relationships. Why would they not agree? Because,

automatically, all of these deals fall. But why would Morocco not

continue to trade with us on the same basis as it does at the moment?

The question is not whether people would continue to trade, it is what

it terms the trade would be. On the same basis? We would have to

renegotiate with the EU, which would be hugely problematic and we would

be disadvantaged by the process that would be triggered. Stick with

non-EU countries, why would a country that happily trades with us

under the EU rules, why would they not continue to trade on the same

basis out of the EU? It depends on the kind of deal that we are doing

with the EU. If we are unable to do a deal with the EU, we would fall

out altogether and then into the World Trade Organisation rules,

meaning we trade with tariffs, which would be immensely damaging to

British business and to jobs. Hold on, you mentioned tariffs. In your

Project Fear scenario, sterling is down by 20%. The average tariff on

cars would be ten. Overall we would be more competitive, we would face a

tariff wall of 10%, but we would be 20% more competitive? What is wrong

with that? What is wrong with all of this is that we have, at the moment,

a situation of certainty, where businesses know they have access not

just to the single market, but also to the 50 or more countries that

have done deals with the EU, and more in the pipeline. That gives

certainty. We face the prospect of huge uncertainty because the other

side will not say what kind of deal would be on offer. They don't know

whether it would be like Norway, like Switzerland, these are

countries that have the benefits, some benefits of access to the

market. It is essentially an open market from Iceland through to

Turkey. There is not a single arrangement. But essentially open.

Why would the European Union pick on us and not include us in that

largely open market from Iceland to Turkey? Because, as the German

finance minister said today, we cannot have access to the single

market without accepting certain things. Those include freedom of

movement and paying in. Overall, the single market gives us much greater

benefits to the businesses than alternative arrangements. That is

why it would be economically damaging to leave, in the view of

most businesses. The important point is this. It is not just a question

of the deals we would do, have to do with the EU, it would also be with

the 35 other countries, more than 50 other deals, leading to a period of

huge uncertainty that is damaging for British businesses and jobs. We

have discussed that already. The director-general of the British

chamber of commerce, suspended for coming out in favour of Leave. Did

anybody involved in Downing Street have something to do with this? I

think that is a ridiculous suggestion. I am not surprised there

is unhappiness in the British chamber of commerce. They were meant

to have a neutral position. The majority of their businesses, in a

recent survey, said they wanted to remain. So, no Downing Street hand?

Absolutely not. Why would they? Thank you very much.

Now, the scenes of hundreds of thousands of desperate migrants

that fill our TV screens provide powerful images for those arguing

that we should turn our backs on the crisis-hit European Union.

In a moment I'll be asking Ukip's only MP, Douglas Carswell,

First let's have a look at what Leave campaigners have

They need a free-trade deal with us and it will be a central part

of the negotiations when we leave the European Union, an important

part, but one where they have a commercial imperative

Once we have control of our own borders, we can send back

whoever we want so if somebody comes in and they are not appropriate,

they shouldn't be here, they should've stopped in France

or Germany or wherever, we will send them back.

So the threat is both wrong, inappropriate, and won't work.

Come on, donnez-moi un break, as we say in Brussels.

It's sad but perhaps unsurprising that those who want

the British people to be kept in the European Union have launched

This is designed to make the British people afraid of change.

Douglas Carswell joins me now. Let's look at some of the things your side

have been complaining about. The cost of membership. We will stop

sending ?350 million every week to Brussels. Do you stand by that

figure? Absolutely. The reason I do is because every year we make a

gross contribution of 19.2 billion, if you divide that by the weeks in a

year, 350. We're talking about what we send to Brussels. Let's look in

little more detail. This is from Office for Budget Responsibility.

These are the 2014 figures. The column on the left-hand side, we

have 18.3 billion. It is 19.2 now, but I will let that go. It gives you

350 million. But before we send that, we deduct the rebate of 5

billion. We don't send the rebate, we take the ?5 billion off. The

contribution we send is ?13.5 billion and that is 260 billion --

million per week. The figure is very vulnerable to the machinations of

ministers. Look at what Tony Blair did with the rebate. They were fast

and loose with it at the blink of an eye. What I am trying to point out,

because the phrase here was we are sending ?350 million, we don't send

the rebate and we send it back. We take the rebate off and then we send

them 13.5. The rebate is very vulnerable, as we discovered when

Tony Blair gave away a large section of it. It is very vulnerable to

change. I think it's fair that we include a figure. But we don't send

it. In addition to that, having not sent the rebate and sent 13.5, we

then get 4.4, almost ?4.5 billion back to spend in ways that will be

guided, sometimes dictated by the EU, but it is money that comes back.

Our net contribution, as you can see from the table, is 9 billion. That

is ?175 million each week. It is not 350 million. The reason I think it

is vertical about the gross contribution of ?19.3 billion a

year, you don't deduct the services you get from the government, you

don't say your tax bill is zero because of the mended potholes and

the streetlights and things you get. It is appropriate that we talk about

the 19.2 billion we send every year. But I just explained that we don't

send that. The actual saving, because the original quote was about

saving to spend elsewhere, is 175 million each week. You can say it is

too much, not enough, I don't want to stay in, but it's not 350 million

a week. 350 million on the table, some of that is highly vulnerable

because it is part of the rebate. I think it is right and proper we talk

about that. It is enough money to build a new hospital every week. It

would not be a saving, even out of the EU we would continue to have

some form of farm subsidies and forms of regional aid? We would

spend some of the money we currently send to Brussels for ourselves. I

think instead of sending 350 million each week to Brussels, we would be

better spending that money improving the NHS, giving a better deal to

farmers, maybe even tax cuts. I think it is fair we talk about ?350

million we have to send every week to Brussels. People will make their

minds up on that. Let's move onto another issue. Nigel

Farage has said 75% of UK law is made in Brussels. Do you with that?

I asked the Parliamentary authorities when I first became an

MP and they were not able to tell me. Some claim it is as little as

15%, on our side some claim 70%. The German legislature in Berlin have a

figure of 80%. Do you agree with the 75% figure? It is probably about

right. What is the source? The question was talking about the

amount of legislation that is emanating from member state versus

that coming from Brussels. What is the source of the 75% figure? You

just cited Nigel. He is not a source, he is a messenger. We have

looked carefully at the research, we can find no credible study. Even by

pro-Brexit groups that puts the figure at 75%. I have seen studies

that show 25%, but I can find nothing that gives me 75%. I don't

think this morning you can help on that. I have raised questions in

Parliament and I am happy to forward on the answers I have got, but there

is a question raised... The German parliament has produced a figure of

80 something. For the German parliament. Talking about the ratio

coming from Brussels. Vote Leave says if we Vote Leave we can take

back control of our immigration policy. No country has full access

to the single market without first agreeing to the free movement of

people. As you demonstrated earlier this week when you quizzed Matthew

Hancock, you can have free trade from Iceland to Ireland to Russia,

so you can leave the EU and have tariff free access. Canada have

recently negotiated a deal to give them free market access. The

Canadian deal includes tariffs, even tariffs on some manufacture

products, it includes tariffs on products and does not include

anything to do with services and we are 80% service economy. But we

would benefit, as a service economy. But we would benefit, as every

country in Europe does apart from Belarus, for tariff free access. But

how do you know that? The Council of the European Union is unequivocal.

Two years ago, the internal market and its freedoms, one of which is

freedom of movement, are indivisible, you cannot have one

without the other. We know that last year we had a trade deficit with the

other EU member states, about 60 billion. The idea they would

introduce tariffs seems to me absurd. On the point of regulation,

sometimes it is said we need to be part of the single market for

regulatory reasons, but in many ways it is possible to have market access

from a regulatory perspective without being part of the single

market. If you are selling into Europe you have got to meet Europe's

regulations... But do I take it that you are indicating that if we leave,

we would not seek total access to the single market as we have at the

moment? We would seek instead of free trade agreement which is less

than a single market? We would see access to the single market but we

would not want to be bound up. We would not initially seek full access

to the single market? I think if we had tariff free access and wouldn't

have regulatory obstacles put in our way, it would be free access. But

the trade agreements you have specified, particularly the one with

Canada, it is not a single market agreement, it includes tariffs, it

includes... It does not include services. Look at Switzerland for

example. Switzerland at the moment has 4.5 times trade ahead the EU

from outside of the single market than we manage from within. But it

does not have full access for its services. You accept that a free

trade agreement... They have also moved huge chunks of their financial

services to London so that they are inside the EU and can trade. Another

confidence within the City of London. On Friday Suzanne Evans and

your fellow Vote Leave supporters were sacked from their roles as UK

speakers. Miss Evans has now been sacked twice, are you next for the

job? Suzanne Evans is brilliant at this sort of stuff, we will hear a

lot more from her. Are you next for the chop? Nigel described me as

irrelevant, I have been called far worse in the elections I have

stored, but in four of those five Parliamentary elections are won.

That is the beauty of democracy. There is being a member of Vote

Leave, and being a Ukip MP, are these things becoming mutually

exclusive? Absolutely not, Vote Leave is now garnering support from

the political left, the political centre right, and people... So why

doesn't Nigel Farage? You need to address that question to him. He is

your leader. There are differences of opinion. There is a strategic

difference, I'm the think we need to win this election with an upbeat,

positive campaign. Your leader says you are relevant, could you not

resign the whip and become an independent? It is the voters who

decide who is and who isn't relevant. Thank you for joining us.

If you want more facts about the EU referendum, you can check the BBC

News website. It is excellent. 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 -

will Donald Trump win the Republican First though, the Sunday

Politics where you are. Coming up later: At breaking point,

as London's junior doctors prepare for Tuesday's strike,

we ask who will blink first in the stand-off with

Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt. Here in the studio, I'm joined

by Colonel Bob Stewart, Conservative MP for Beckenham,

and Meg Hillier, Labour MP Let's kick off, if we can,

with the issue of school places. 81,000 kids in the capital found out

this week whether they had got their first choice

secondary school. 31% of those across London

were disappointed. In some boroughs, that

was up to one in two. What do you put this down to,

Bob Stewart, what's the problem? In Bromley, my borough,

there are far too many children Last year, for example,

there were 4800 babies born There are 4100 primary

school places in Bromley. In four years' time, 500,

sorry, more than that, 700 places, assuming

people don't go private, have got to be found in the first

year of primary school. That is a huge problem if each

class is roughly 30. Meg Hillier, what is

the situation where you are? Well, Hackney has planned ahead

for the population growth, so actually we are not doing too

badly, with enough school The key thing here is

that the Government says it is not its responsibility,

local government has had Really, the Government has to make

sure that planning is in place to make sure children

have school places. It really is a quite

simple question of maths, Your local Conservative-run local

council failed to predict and provide, or is it

central government? The problem is, they are trying

to build schools, but nobody The locals don't want schools

built on their doorstep. We are in greenbelt land

and there is not a lot They are trying their very best,

but, actually, there is a problem. We could have a solution to that,

we will come to that later on. Next week, applications open

for a radical housing scheme that offers brand-new homes

for a third of market value. Well, the scheme in London's East

End is the first of its kind Sarah Neville has

been taking a look. Established as a Victorian

workhouse, then a psychiatric institution, St Clement's Hospital

has been an imposing local landmark Now disused and dilapidated,

it is about to be transformed as part of a pioneering

housing project. This may look like an ordinary

building site, but what is taking shape here in Bow is the first

of its kind in a British city, a ground-breaking way to buy

a new house at a third of the cost 23 of the 250 properties on this

site will be sold through London's first community land trust, or CLT,

an innovative not-for-profit organisation, established by local

people to provide affordable housing for local residents -

a model some hope could help bring I think this is the answer

to London's chronic What we are doing is developing

homes here on this site, which will be basically one third

of the market price. We are doing that because we

are linking the price The average income in

Tower Hamlets is ?30,000. We are saying if you are on ?30,000,

you should be able to afford That means a one-bed apartment

through London CLT will cost Or two beds for ?182,000,

rather than the market Tower Hamlets is one

of London's poorest boroughs. Despite that, property has recently

reached record highs, with an average sale of over

?500,000 making it unaffordable Suzanne Gorman and her family hope

the CLT can change that. We have three kids who share

a bedroom, a bunk bed with a trundle bed underneath, which is fine

but not going to be forever. We live in a shared ownership

property, which we bought Even that model which was our access

to affordability has been This development breaks the mould

because it offers permanently We have created the first

community land trust on the St Clement's Hospital site,

and we will do Mayor Boris Johnson has

enthusiastically backed the St Clement's scheme,

which is on former GLA land. Nobody could deny that the capital

needs this, but it has been a slow process to deliver

a handful of homes. The Government has put housing

at the heart of its administration, with a target of 1 million

new homes by 2020. In London, 50,000 homes a year

are needed to be built, but only a fraction

of that number going up. The housing charity Shelter says

a more radical solution is needed. If we are going to build

the houses London needs, we're going to have to take some

really quite difficult choices That means taller buildings in some

places, which aren't always popular. It means losing some industrial

land, which isn't always popular. It maybe means building

out into the greenbelt, to a small extent, in order to get

the homes we so desperately need. The cut-price homes go on sale

on Monday, when thousands With plans for several more

CLT sites in London, perhaps this old hospital represents

the future of home buying. Toby Lloyd from Shelter

is with us again. It has been very slow progress,

in the take-up of CLTs. Well, I certainly think that this

kind of approach really should be It is providing really affordable

housing in a place where people This was GLA land, mayoral land,

this one has taken long enough. It has taken a long time because,

unfortunately, it took an awfully long time to release that land

and get everybody to agree Look, there is no single magic

answer to London's housing crisis. If there was, we would have

done it by now already. Unfortunately, we need to be looking

at every single possible intervention to get more housing

built and, most importantly, make sure enough of it is

genuinely affordable. But a lot of the land

where you could put new developments is owned by councils,

owned by boroughs. What is stopping them

from using this model, retaining the value of the land,

if you like, and making these homes Well, there are a lot

of different obstacles there. Firstly, local councils have quite

stringent best value rules. They are expected to get market

value for their land. If not, they can get in trouble

with the Government. They can even be sued by rival

companies for not having So it's actually very difficult

for local authorities to do We should be making it

an awful lot easier. Public sector land,

where it does exist, affordable housing, not

being sold on the open market So, if your assumption is that

you are seeing no signs from central government that they are going

to create the framework and environment where you can get

more of these models, you are looking elsewhere

for alternatives, presumably, to build the kind of housing

you need and you are advocating we should be thinking

about the green belt more? We are looking at

every single option. The answer is that London needs

all of these things. That does include a sensible look

at releasing little bits London's green belt

is extremely large. It is about 22% of

the entire GLA area. It has been a great policy

and should be preserved. But it makes sense to release

small pieces of it, where we can do that,

in order to build housing Only a fifth of that land has some

sort of environmental protections. I don't know if you heard,

we were just talking about schools and Bob Stewart will say one

of the restrictions why you cannot build schools and many other things

is because of the green belt. What about housing

on the green belt? People are looking

at the green belt. There's a huge amount

of local objection to that. Once you have built on green belt,

it is gone for ever. A lot of green belt,

I agree with you, is actually called green belt but it is a bit

like building sites. There is probably a lot

of this in Bromley. The problem in Bromley

is that we are actually struck -- stuck for space to build schools,

for example, new housing. So it is time, you'd say,

to think about it? I would say look at it very

carefully. There might be some possibilities,

where it is a rubble site which is actually called green belt,

that might be a possibility. I think Toby Lloyd is right to say

that it's not just about that You've got to look at

it across the board. We have seen to the Public Accounts

Committee, which I chair, that the Government is releasing

public land for sale, it is for housing, but it can't

even tell us family homes are built, let alone how

many are affordable. If you could take away some

of the restrictions, you get a double dividend

for taxpayers and people that need homes, and you provide homes

for local communities, holding unit is together,

affordable homes for key workers so we keep public services running

and we need to look at the change to allow that to happen

because there was also public land in London that could be one

of the top priorities. Unfortunately, several

of the sites is not enough, There isn't that much available

brownfield development site land. In London, there is brownfield land

that can be developed, We just published a report

where we looked at all of the land in London and found, let's face it,

most brownfield land already has If you look at vacant brownfield

land, there is very little of that. Quite rightly, all of that is

already in the planning system Do you think it is time

we should explore this? Sadiq Khan has been very clear

as our mayoral candidate that he doesn't want to start

building on green field. David Lammy, one of your neighbours,

said we should start doing that. Well, he's not the mayoral

candidate. I think what is really clear

is that we need to focus on the land that the public sector already owns

and get that double dividend. What is your own view

about the green belt? That we need to focus on hospital

sites that have been taken over by this thing called PropCo,

by central government. Local areas would do much more

for the local health economy if they could provide possibly

a good health facility, but mostly a good,

affordable housing. You would prefer to see

the green belt go? I would prefer us to

look at those sites. Frankly, the green belt in my area

does not make a difference, Bob Stewart, we have schoolchildren

that need places now, And houses for them,

as they grew up. Places like Bromley have got

a huge problem. There is not that much land that

isn't green belt that Bromley Council have

been all over it. They know every single square inch

of land that isn't green belt that Do you think any mayoral candidate

can rule out any of these options if they are going to

deliver their promises? No, the next Mayor can fix this

in London, but it does require some tough choices and it requires

looking at all the options, including densifying the suburbs,

includes town centres, includes brownfield land,

includes being really imaginative But it will probably involve

a little bit of green London's junior doctors

are preparing for another Earlier this week, the BBC's

Inside Out programme gave a flavour of the stress and anxiety

in the profession at the moment. I was supposed to finish

at eight o'clock. I didn't finish until 1:30

and I didn't get home It was only at two o'clock

in the morning when I realised my own father was waiting for me

to talk about the operation he was due to have that day,

and he wanted to talk to me I just felt really bad,

because his daughter is a doctor and I felt like I couldn't look

after my own father. But I was trying to help someone

else, that's really difficult. It's really difficult,

because it felt like I totally Two weeks after we filmed with her,

she collapsed while working, suffering dehydration,

low blood sugar and a racing heart Last month, the Health Secretary

Jeremy Hunt said he would impose With neither side backing down,

we are asking how this will end. In the studio are Dr Hamed Khan,

an A doctor at Tooting St George's Hospital and Sam Bowman

from the Adam Smith Institute. Well, I think the key issue

to realise is that the whole premise for the junior contract,

the seven-day NHS that the Health Secretary pledged in the last

election, is completely flawed. Jeremy Hunt has constantly

manipulated data from a research study that was done earlier to scare

the public into believing that more people who are admitted on weekends

die as a result of understaffing. He is making changes to the junior

contract to allow him to stretch the non-emergency,

five-day service within the current That just isn't sustainable

or doable at all. It just isn't feasible,

as the Cass Business School told the public affairs

committee last week. Ultimately, this isn't

about patient safety. It isn't about patients at all,

this is about money. If I was a doctor,

I might be striking. I might be annoyed that some

doctors, for example, But, ultimately, this is

an industrial dispute about money. The doctors are being given

a reasonably generous offer. What comes first is limited

resources for the NHS Do we continue to pay doctors that

are already very highly paid, junior doctors will go on to earn

over ?100,000, much more than most people can ever hope of earning,

what do we use that money for, other things on the NHS,

which is already extremely I think we go with the plan that

we've got and we use that money where it is going to be needed more,

not to pay doctors more. He addressed the remarks to me,

but he could be addressing Junior doctors have a basic starting

salary of ?23,000. They spent thousands of pounds

of their own money to do their qualifications

so that they leave no stone unturned in providing the best

patient care possible. They work 60-70 hours

a week, routinely. Together with other health care

workers, they provide about ?1.5 billion worth of unpaid,

unrecognised overtime to the NHS. The British taxpayer gets

brilliant value for money out The whole ?100,000 thing

is just completely wrong. Junior doctors will

go on to earn that. But this is about the

junior doctor contract. We're not talking about

the consultant contract. We are talking about doctors

who will go on to earn A senior consultant will earn

multiples ?100,000. You weren't saying a junior

doctor gets ?100,000? The most a junior doctor can

earn is about ?70,000, But Hamed says a lot

of stuff is not monetised, stuff that they do which does

not get thought of now, So do nurses and lots of other

health care workers. If the idea is that we are paying

people according to the effort they put in, we should be talking

about nurse salaries, we should be talking

about the salaries of people much If we are talking about how to get

the best value for money for people who use the NHS, patients

and taxpayers, then I think the key is to restrict the amount of money

we are paying doctors, to make sure it does

not go up any further, because they will go on to a get

much more than almost It's pretty clear, Jeremy Hunt

himself said he had to do this because he wanted to stop dealing

with militant staff. That tells us he came at it

from completely the wrong angle, he has escalated

this to a ridiculous level, when you're dealing

with people that really They are public servants who really

believe in what they do. He should never have let

escalated this level. He should never have let it

escalate to this level. We have looked at the

funding on the Public Accounts Committee and you are

right, it is about the maths, but they never did the maths

about seven-day working and they never did

the maths on this issue. Would you allow Meg Hillier

to get away with that? I think we need

seven-day working for I wouldn't like to go into hospital

with a real problem at the weekend. I don't care what statistics are,

there are not the same number of staff in hospitals

at the weekend. It's not so much about seven-day

working, it's about the way the contract was handled,

the contract negotiation, so-called, and is now

being imposed with some insulting a group of

very dedicated public He didn't insult anyone,

he wants the doctors to be onside. He's tried to give them a fair

by increasing their basic salaries. He is trying very hard to give

the public a first NHS service. Sometimes I am wondering

what the heck the junior Hamed, you're standing

in the way of progress? This will make the Health Service

far poorer by the following. The first thing that will happen,

as a result of making junior doctors work even more hours

than they do and by reducing their pay is that more

will opt to leave abroad. We are in a situation

where about a third of the entire A workforce has emigrated over

the last five years, about a third of GPs

are planning to emigrate. If this continues, soon,

we will become a net I thought doctors' hours

were coming down from 90 to 70? Listen, the second issue,

the key thing to appreciate is that they are removing

the fundamental safeguards that exist at the moment

which prevent doctors We have an independent system

at the moment that this incentivises That will be replaced

by an in-house guardian system It will make doctors

leave to go abroad. This cannot improve

the state of care. From 16 points of contention

between the Government The one sticking point

was overtime for This is about money,

it's not about patient safety. They should get back

to work, shouldn't they? I don't think the junior doctors,

we should not call them junior, they are pretty senior

people,should go on strike. The Secretary of

State has mishandled I would go with Dan Poulter,

a Conservative MP, a former minister of health, who is also a doctor

and knows the system far better than any of you do, frankly,

because he is a doctor. He also feels the new contract

is unsafe in terms of making doctors over fatigued

and unfair, which will result I said last word, but,

Bob Stewart, you don't I don't think they will,

I hope the doctors will stay working and I don't expect

them to put patient They have signed

an oath not to do so. Thank you very much

indeed for coming in. Now a quick look at the rest

of the week's news in 60 seconds. All Heathrow express trains have

been taken out of service indefinitely after engineers found

a crack on the underside However, replacement

trains have been deployed and the service

is running at the same speed MP for Orpington and Universities

and Science Minister Joe Johnson spoke on Thursday

in favour of staying He told Cambridge University,

my clear view is that a vote to leave would be

a leap in the dark. It puts him at odds with his

brother, the Mayor of London Boris Johnson, who announced two weeks ago

he would campaign to leave the EU. London is the global capital when it

comes to attracting high skilled workers, according to

a new report by Deloitte. It said that almost a quarter

of a million high skilled jobs had been created

in the capital since 2013. However, it also criticised

the city's gender diversity, pointing out that just

one in ten of London's senior The city Corporation are voting this

week that they want to stay in. Jo Johnson, your neighbouring MP wants

to stay in. You are reluctantly saying out? I am reluctant to

actually stay in. I think the fundamental principle for me is the

sovereignty business. I want us to be able to control what we do in

this country. At the moment, increasingly, we are not. You have

about 20 seconds, why do you want to stay in? We are safer if we stay in,

I've spent three years negotiating with ministers and I know what can

be achieved when 28 nations work together. I don't want to become a

little England outside of that and unable to influence what is

happening on our doorstep. Thanks very much for joining's.

Welcome back - and with the Budget coming up in just 10 days time,

George Osborne was hoping taxing pensions would help him fill

the black hole in the public finances.

Tax relief on pensions costs the Treasury ?34 billion a year,

but yesterday an ally of the Chancellor let it be known

that there would be no changes to the way retirement savings

So why has the George Osborne abandoned the idea?

Here's Ellie - and I should warn you that her report contains

For lots of people, retirement looks a little bit like this.

The Government's drive to encourage us to save for ourselves,

but is the current way we save for our pensions

an effective and fair way of doing things?

Well, in last year's Budget, the Chancellor seemed to tee up yet

Pensions could be treated like ISAs, you pay in from taxed income

and it's tax-free when you take it out, and in-between it receives

This idea and others like it need careful and public consideration.

At the moment, pensions contributions are tax-exempt

because earners get tax relief on what they put in.

As the fund grows they aren't taxed, so again exempt, but you pay income

tax when you come to take the money out.

It's a principle known as exempt exempt taxed.

One of the proposals was to turn that on its head by stopping all tax

relief on the way in, so taxing contributions,

but exempting the fund as it grows, and allowing pensioners to take out

That was described as a pensions ISA.

The other option was to introduce a flat rate of tax relief

That would have meant higher-rate taxpayers would lose out.

The pensions industry estimate the changes could earn the Treasury

an extra ?10 billion a year, essentially bringing forward tax

But ?10 billion is, you know, a lot of money but money

that the Chancellor himself could do with.

It is, but it's needed for people's pension savings and really this

is just a short-term tax raid on people's pension funds.

They didn't go down terribly well with the Pensions Minister either,

who made clear the pensions ISA idea would be a big mistake.

And when I spoke on Friday to a Tory backbencher opposed to the single

rate of tax relief idea, he said his Chancellor's of politics

It seems to me it is unreasonable, bordering on socialism,

to give people tax relief from other people's tax, and it undermines

the certainty which people have had with their pension saving.

Tricky political territory for the Chancellor.

At a time when he really needs your support.

At a point when he is otherwise so popular because of his stance

So, was it because of concern of a backlash from Tory voters -

the people the Government needs on-side ahead of the EU referendum?

The Treasury says it was nothing so cynical.

The Chancellor's eyes are on the prize one

day of being leader, and he's keen to avoid a repeat

of a raft of unpopular measures in 2012.

Even people within Downing Street are calling

He's no stranger to climb-downs either, remember tax

I've listened to the concerns, I hear and understand them.

The simplest thing to do is not to phase these changes

The Chancellor is unlikely to avoid altogether any further

rows with his own party, but dumping these pension proposals

Of course, supporters of the changes say he has missed an opportunity.

He may have read the lay of the land for now,

but one Tory MP told me he doubted this would be the end of it.

Helen, there is a lot of politics in this. The Chancellor has been under

pressure from Tory MPs, his changes he suggested will run popular, I

would also suggest the referendum plays into this. It would mainly

affect older people, who are likely to vote no to leaving the European

Union, and who doesn't want to give them another reason to do so. I

think you will also be looking at this through the prism of tax

credits where he did a U-turn. Voters simply don't remember things

that didn't happen in the way they do remember things did happen.

Pensions is particularly tricky territory. Labour and the SNP

together have managed to get an interesting coalition opposition,

it's one of the few times Labour have looks like an effective

opposition. Pensioners who are close to retirement age vote and this was

potentially a huge landmine for him. There were reasons for unifying the

tax relief, making it lower for those who were better off, he would

have saved money by doing so, but has he bottled it because he has

realised it could get in the way of his leadership ambitions? At the

very least it would make the next four months before the referendum

more tricky than they need to be. It is interesting that when he

capitulates, he capitulates entirely. With tax credits he ended

up doing none of them. He has pretty much abandoned all of it. Were you

to tax people going into the pension rather than when they come out, all

of the political losers are in the here and now rather than in 20

years. The political cost outweighs the benefit in revenue. All of the

obvious tax increases and all of the obvious spending cuts happen in the

first parliament. What he's left now with is a list of equally

provocative options. If you try to do tax credits it is unpopular,

pensions is unpopular, logically he should be putting more on petrol

duty given where the oil price is but you can imagine how provocative

that would be among Tory voters. If his deficit reduction plans are in a

bit of trouble and he may not hit this year's financial target, where

does he get the money from? One possibility is cutting the top rate

of tax. He said in the House of Commons it had raised 8 billion in

the financial year 13/14 so maybe he is preparing the case for that. The

figure is pretty suspect because people knew the tax rate was falling

so in the year 12/13, they held back. We won't know until we get the

14/15 to know if the cut generated extra tax rather than displacing tax

year from year. That's right but his already claiming it. It doesn't mean

he is right. No, but he needs to throw some red meat to

Conservatives. At the moment George Osborne makes it look as though the

only point in winning general elections is to put yourself in a

stronger position to win the next general election, even if that means

embracing Labour policies. He wants to give the impression there is some

vision there, some substance. If he has got serious ambitions, doesn't

he have to do something more for Middle Britain? That's why it is

interesting to see Labour's response on this, which hasn't been on the

why are they letting rich people off vibe. He won't achieve his targets,

he has consistently done that and faced almost zero political come

back for doing so. It is an artificial target he has created.

And he still gets to borrow at record low interest rates.

So, five more states voted last night in the race for the Democrat

On the Republican side Donald Trump and Ted Cruz won two states each.

Before voting Trump asked his supporters at a rally in Florida

to pledge their primary votes to him.

That I, no matter how I feel, no matter what

the conditions, if there's hurricanes or whatever...

..Will vote on or before the 12th for Donald J Trump for president!

He then went on to give a three-hour lecture on health reform. Trump is

still the clear front runner. Mr Rubio is almost out of it, will be

if he loses his home state on March 15 and Ted Cruz is probably hated

even more by the Republican establishment than Mr Trump.

Discuss. Rubio isn't even number two any more. As shocking as all of this

is, I find Rubio's failure in many ways more interesting than Trump's

success. He has all of the raw materials of a top-level politician.

He is young and attractive, sensible enough, with a compelling life

story. To fail to translate any of that into any degree of momentum at

all during this primary campaign, to the point where the only people who

think he should be the nominee are people in my profession really... He

won the Minister of caucuses, let's not forget that. Jeb Bush went into

this having raised the most amount of money and completely tanked.

There is one argument which is that money controls politics, that is

proving quite challenging in this election. The second thing is that

media controls politics, but people say Jeremy Corbyn would do better if

only the media stopped attacking them, but the media has relentlessly

attacked Donald Trump. It is a nightmare for the mainstream

Republicans now. Their choice is down to Trump and Cruz, but not a

single senator has come out and endorsed Cruz. Trump's popularity is

a disaster for Conservatives around the world because he is associated

with the Conservative brand, and in particular it is a disaster for

those who want Western democracy to triumph in the battle of ideas.

Trump is like a villain in a Marvel superhero Hollywood blockbuster

written by the Islamic State's propaganda mastermind. What better

recruiting Sergeant could you have for the Islamic State than a parody

of a kind of capitalist billionaire, sexist, racist, Islamophobic ogre?

But other than that, he is very good! The establishment are not

hoping for a broken convention, we haven't had one for 60 years, it is

a pretty long shot. Yes, I think their nightmare must be that Trump

is elected as the candidate, and you think fine, the worst comes to the

worst, Hillary Clinton winds, but what if something happens to her

between now and November? She gets indicted or is forced to withdraw?

That is why Joe Biden is vice president, still tarnishing his

credentials. Or Bloomberg. It should be fun.

We're back same time next week here on BBC One.

The Daily Politics is back on BBC Two at midday

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