:02:18. > :02:25.Speaking on the drawn mar show this morning, the Harriet Harman said
:02:25. > :02:29.that their needed to be a single judgment-led inquiry. -- speaking
:02:29. > :02:34.on the Andrew Marr Show. There are a multiplicity of enquiries. We
:02:34. > :02:37.need one over-arching inquiry. Stoke Mandeville is looking into
:02:37. > :02:42.what happened there and the Department of health looking into
:02:42. > :02:50.how he was able to run a task force. And they are looking into why files
:02:50. > :02:55.were presented to the police and there were no charges and the Leeds
:02:55. > :03:00.General Infirmary. We need one over-arching inquiry. Should this
:03:00. > :03:06.be independent? It should be. There are big lessons to be learned here.
:03:06. > :03:10.What is it about politicians that barely a week goes by now without
:03:10. > :03:15.one of them calling for another inquiry? It is the easy thing to
:03:15. > :03:19.say, isn't it, really? I think the BBC seems to have entered into a
:03:19. > :03:28.kind of compulsive self-flannelling racial mode at this point on this
:03:28. > :03:31.story. -- self--flagalation. But there is a point that not
:03:31. > :03:35.everything is a conspiracy. The decision to drop that Newsnight
:03:35. > :03:39.programme was possibly more of a cockup rather than a conspiracy.
:03:39. > :03:43.They do happen, even in the BBC. But it is a feeding frenzy for
:03:43. > :03:48.everybody Rowenna. If you look at the Sunday Times this morning, they
:03:48. > :03:52.are having a go at the outgoing DG, Mark Thompson, going to the New
:03:52. > :03:55.York Times where Mr Murdoch is locked in a biter battle with the
:03:55. > :03:59.Wall Street Journal. We have the Tory press baegt up on Chris Patten,
:03:59. > :04:09.they never liked him as a Tory and you have everybody beating up on
:04:09. > :04:21.
:04:21. > :04:27.The inquiries are not called for fun. We need accountability. On the
:04:27. > :04:31.point of the public -- BBC liability, it is in a dangerous
:04:31. > :04:36.position. The right-wing press will jump on them, if we have these
:04:36. > :04:40.inquiries one by one. There are vested interests who what to see
:04:40. > :04:49.the licence fee ended. We need George Entwistle to come out with
:04:49. > :04:56.some strong action. He needs to come out and say why and never
:04:56. > :05:02.again. How can anybody say that? We employ a 22,000 people, something
:05:02. > :05:05.else will happen. Not as endemic as this. A lot of the calls for
:05:06. > :05:09.enquiry have been frivolous. The call for an enquiry into banking as
:05:09. > :05:15.a whole. But this scandal is officially sprawling and has
:05:15. > :05:22.ensnared so many institutions, the NHS, social services, that you need
:05:22. > :05:27.one overarching. To take Leah's -- take years, keep liars in well-paid
:05:27. > :05:36.jobs. It does not guarantee it will never happen again but if it
:05:36. > :05:42.reduces the chances... Who is investigated? Who is investigating
:05:42. > :05:47.Brogborough, Stoke Mandeville, Leeds General Infirmary? They all
:05:47. > :05:51.gave Jimmy Savile run of the institution. You would hope they
:05:51. > :05:55.are doing investigations themselves, but having said that, this was a
:05:55. > :05:59.very long time ago, and I don't think this would happen today. We
:05:59. > :06:05.are talking about several decades ago. It has been happening in
:06:05. > :06:09.Rochdale right now, for the past couple of years. We're not talking
:06:09. > :06:14.about a celebrity. Young girls being systemically, regularly
:06:14. > :06:19.abused. It is happening now. That is very different to what we're
:06:19. > :06:23.talking about now in terms of the one big celebrity. That interview
:06:23. > :06:26.was not pulled long ago and that is what makes it relevant. I agree
:06:26. > :06:31.that child abuse and a cemetery of power, the problems of confronting
:06:31. > :06:39.the authority remains, and one good thing that could come out of this
:06:39. > :06:43.is we could address that better in the future. There is a danger this
:06:43. > :06:49.country suffers from too many inquiries and to many resignations.
:06:49. > :06:54.We have already seen Peter Ripon go. He was the editor of Newsnight.
:06:54. > :06:59.is unlikely he will come back. There is now the question of George
:06:59. > :07:04.Entwistle bowling. Mark Thompson's job is now under question in New
:07:04. > :07:10.York, such as the brand damage to be associated with the BBC. Who is
:07:10. > :07:14.vulnerable? Is there a demand for a scalp, and who is likely to have
:07:14. > :07:17.their head on the guillotine? think we're getting a bit
:07:17. > :07:22.hysterical. David Cameron was quoted as saying the BBC could be
:07:22. > :07:28.fatally damaged and I just think that is totally over-the-top.
:07:28. > :07:32.Fatally damaged, that means the end of the BBC. I don't think so.
:07:32. > :07:39.not fatally damaged, it is a bad time, I live through the Patten
:07:39. > :07:44.report, the Iraq investigation. That was a bad time. His problem is
:07:44. > :07:49.much bigger than the BBC, it is also about why the tabloids did not
:07:49. > :07:53.investigated and the police. Which public institution is left that
:07:54. > :07:59.commands trust? The BBC take it, the tabloids, Parliament, is that
:07:59. > :08:03.the judiciary? Trust levels in judges are quite high, other than
:08:03. > :08:10.that, I can think of a British public institution not morally
:08:11. > :08:14.tainted. This programme! The one bit of the BBC that works. After
:08:14. > :08:19.omnishambles, U turns, policy on the hoof and a protracted
:08:19. > :08:24.resignation, finally some good news for the Government. The double-dip
:08:24. > :08:32.is history. Britain is out of recession. Good economic news
:08:32. > :08:36.landed on the desk of the chief secretary. The economy grew by 1%
:08:36. > :08:43.over the last three months, helped by the Olympics and no bank
:08:43. > :08:47.holidays, but positive news nonetheless. But with inflation at
:08:47. > :08:51.its lowest level for three years, the government says we are on the
:08:51. > :09:01.right track. To many of us feel any better off? Analysts say the
:09:01. > :09:03.
:09:03. > :09:06.average Briton 18,000 is �1,800 worse off than the recession. With
:09:06. > :09:11.everyone and rising energy prices, inflation could increase. The
:09:11. > :09:21.eurozone cast a shadow over the economy, as do domestic spending
:09:21. > :09:30.
:09:30. > :09:36.cuts. The Chief Secretary to the Welcome. The economy has barely
:09:36. > :09:40.grown in the 2.5 years you have been in power, are you claiming
:09:40. > :09:45.this flat lining has nothing to do with the austerity measures you
:09:45. > :09:49.introduced? What I'm saying is this country has a number of very deep-
:09:49. > :09:53.rooted economic problems, the legacy of the financial crisis, the
:09:53. > :09:59.mistakes made in the public finances by the Labour predecessors,
:09:59. > :10:03.that was a mess we needed clear-up. The pressures from the eurozone, a
:10:03. > :10:10.high inflation, that means growth has been slower than we would have
:10:10. > :10:14.liked. Have the austerity measures played a part? The judgment you
:10:15. > :10:19.have got to make is going back to 2010, if we let things as they were,
:10:19. > :10:22.did not put in a plan for austerity, I think the impact would have been
:10:22. > :10:26.worse. You can look at other countries around the world and see
:10:26. > :10:29.what happened to countries that did not have a plan, the question is,
:10:29. > :10:37.be putting in place the plan that we have put in place and we are
:10:37. > :10:41.seeing through, which does involve difficult choices, is that giving a
:10:41. > :10:45.stronger foundation for growth? That was not a question I asked.
:10:45. > :10:50.Are you saying the austerity measures played no part in the flat
:10:50. > :10:54.lining? I'm saying if we had not gone for the programme we did, the
:10:54. > :10:58.spending reductions, the economy would be in a worse position. One
:10:58. > :11:03.of the benefits of that is the lower interest rate. That is not
:11:03. > :11:06.the question I am asking. I think the way you need to look this is
:11:06. > :11:11.whether any policy has had an effect, but is the choice we make
:11:11. > :11:16.the right one for the economy? I think it is, it is keeping interest
:11:16. > :11:20.rates low, helping people with the cost of their mortgages, businesses
:11:20. > :11:24.with the cost of finance. If you make decisions about their reducing
:11:24. > :11:28.benefits, increasing VAT, these things have an effect on the
:11:28. > :11:34.economy, but the net effect of having chosen a path of credibility
:11:34. > :11:39.and confidence is the right answer. You play the eurozone crisis, that
:11:39. > :11:43.was one reason, commodity prices have also been blamed. But they
:11:43. > :11:48.affect every economy in the West. Why has the UK recovery been weaker
:11:48. > :11:57.than almost every other economy? you look around Europe you will see
:11:57. > :12:00.a number of countries that are in a worse position than us more. One of
:12:00. > :12:04.the biggest mistake that was made in the run-up to the crisis is to
:12:04. > :12:07.do with the failures of regulation of the financial sector, the
:12:07. > :12:10.banking system. The weight of those mistakes and the weight of the
:12:10. > :12:14.broken banking system is holding the economy back more than other
:12:14. > :12:19.countries, the Kazakh banking system is larger as a share of the
:12:19. > :12:22.economy than in other countries. -- because our banking system. If you
:12:23. > :12:29.look at the year's coming out of the banking crisis, the economy was
:12:29. > :12:33.on a similar path to recovery, the same as countries like Germany. It
:12:33. > :12:38.only fell behind when he took over the public finances in 2010 and
:12:38. > :12:41.began austerity. What you had in that period was people scrutinising
:12:41. > :12:46.Britain's public finances, the people from whom we are still
:12:46. > :12:49.borrowing tens of billions of pounds every year, questioning the
:12:49. > :12:55.credibility of the government's economic strategy, that meant that
:12:55. > :13:00.when we came into office, the long- term interest rates were at the
:13:00. > :13:06.same level as countries like Spain and Italy. We have seen at the path
:13:06. > :13:11.they have taken. That is why I believe we made the right decisions.
:13:11. > :13:15.In a sense, what we inherited was not just a mess in public finances,
:13:15. > :13:21.it was a deficit in competitiveness. That is why we are investing in
:13:21. > :13:25.infrastructure and skills, deregulating, things that will lift
:13:25. > :13:29.the growth potential of the economy. I believe in the end, the previous
:13:29. > :13:34.Labour government was to focus on financial services and the City of
:13:34. > :13:37.London. The only way to get back to sustainable growth is having a more
:13:37. > :13:45.balanced approach to the economy. Since the coalition came to office,
:13:45. > :13:47.the economy has grown by only 0.6% in 2.5 years. You pays your
:13:47. > :13:56.spending cuts on official projections that the economy would
:13:56. > :14:02.have grown by almost 6% by now. It has grown by 0.6%. You were 10 out.
:14:02. > :14:10.If you had known then what he knew now, would you have agreed to cut
:14:10. > :14:15.so much? I would. In fact, it is the projections from the Office for
:14:15. > :14:22.Budget Responsibility. That is wrong. They published an evaluation
:14:22. > :14:29.of why the focus has gone wrong. They focused on a high commodity
:14:29. > :14:32.prices, the eurozone, the financial system. They did not place great
:14:33. > :14:42.weight on posterity as having a negative effect. If we had not
:14:42. > :14:48.taken the decisions we did, the dangers for the economy, we were on
:14:48. > :14:52.the verge, the judgment we made was the right one, but it was difficult.
:14:52. > :14:55.Even if you had known the economy was going to flat line for 2.5
:14:55. > :15:02.years, you would still have gone ahead with all the cuts and tax
:15:02. > :15:05.increases? Of course, you need to base your judgment on what you know
:15:05. > :15:11.at the time. We can ask hypothetical questions, we could
:15:11. > :15:14.have been given any set of numbers, but the basic challenge we face in
:15:14. > :15:18.2010 was a country that did not have a plan to deal with financial
:15:18. > :15:23.problems, to reform the economy, left the growth potential. We put
:15:24. > :15:28.in place those things and as a result there is greater confidence
:15:28. > :15:38.and credibility in a United Kingdom than would have been otherwise.
:15:38. > :15:50.
:15:50. > :15:55.Let's look at what would have been The growth hasn't happen and
:15:55. > :15:58.productivity is falling now.. 7 it wasn't sufficiently strong to
:15:58. > :16:02.outweigh the negative effects. The economy hasn't grown. You cannot
:16:02. > :16:05.still stand by that statement. will go back to what I have said.
:16:05. > :16:09.If you look at the OBR, who are responsible for the forecasts, we
:16:09. > :16:14.have quite rightly taken the forecasts out of the hands of
:16:14. > :16:18.politicians, so they are done independently. They publish why the
:16:18. > :16:21.forecasts were out. They have cited the problems in the eurozone, which
:16:21. > :16:25.have had an effect on business confidence here and exports and
:16:25. > :16:28.high commodity prices. They are stronger headwinds, if you like,
:16:28. > :16:32.than we'd expected where things have been more difficult than we
:16:32. > :16:38.expected. We knew they were going to be difficult when we came into
:16:38. > :16:41.office but I don't think the path we set is wrong. You can look at
:16:41. > :16:45.other countries who haven't had plans in place to deal with their
:16:45. > :16:48.financial problems. When we came in the you UK had one of the largest
:16:48. > :16:51.budget deficits in the world. If you look in countries in southern
:16:51. > :16:56.Europe, they are growing a great deal more slowly. Which major
:16:56. > :17:00.economy has grown more slowly than us? If you look at countries if in
:17:00. > :17:04.southern Europe, litly and Spain. But in the past two years they
:17:04. > :17:09.haven't grown more slowly. If you look at the forecasts for those,
:17:09. > :17:14.they are a great deal slower than us. Forecasts. But the judgment we
:17:14. > :17:17.have to make is given the circumstances we face, when
:17:17. > :17:21.Britain's economic credibility was on the line and when there was no
:17:21. > :17:24.plan, did we make the right judgments? My answer is yes.
:17:24. > :17:28.Although I have not asked you tkha question, you have answered the
:17:28. > :17:32.three times. Probably a record for the Sunday Politics It is the
:17:32. > :17:38.central point. I have got that point all right. Look at this chart
:17:38. > :17:42.here. What this show, the yellow, the 23%, shows less than one-
:17:42. > :17:45.quarter of the cuts to current quarter of the cuts to current
:17:45. > :17:50.spending have yet to be introduced. 77% of your cuts have still to be
:17:50. > :17:53.done. Will the effect of the 77% that we have still to go threw,
:17:53. > :17:56.what effect will that have on the economy? Will it be positive,
:17:56. > :18:02.economy? Will it be positive, negative or neutral? I don't
:18:02. > :18:06.recognise the figures. Current spending, Institute of Fiscal
:18:06. > :18:09.Studies. We have set out in our Spending Review, plans to reduce
:18:09. > :18:11.spending progressively year on year spending progressively year on year
:18:11. > :18:15.over four years in the Parliament. We have half way through delivering
:18:15. > :18:18.the plans. By the end of the year, 48% of the spending cuts will have
:18:19. > :18:23.been delivered as well as various tax increases you know Bwe are
:18:23. > :18:27.entering into a process of setting out plans for the first year of the
:18:27. > :18:32.next Parliament. And, look, part of what we have to do is to Mick sure
:18:32. > :18:38.we make the reductions in a way that minimises impact on the
:18:38. > :18:42.economy. -- make sure. Will they be positive, negative or neutral?
:18:42. > :18:45.me carry on. Which is for example, if you look at capital spending
:18:45. > :18:50.which has a big impact on the economy and where we are spending
:18:50. > :18:53.more than the previous Government set out. We have been through the
:18:53. > :18:58.process to spend that on the things that will have the biggest impact
:18:58. > :19:00.on the economy. We are spending more on the transport
:19:00. > :19:03.infrastructure than our predecessors. You are coming on to
:19:03. > :19:08.what I want to talk about, Mr Alexander. Because the Liberal
:19:08. > :19:12.Democrats are particularly fond of state investment, in what is called
:19:12. > :19:17.- you have euphemistically, infrastructure spending to boost
:19:17. > :19:21.growth. Nick Clegg told in September, 2011,
:19:21. > :19:26.he promised a ger-shift in Government to unblock the system,
:19:26. > :19:30.get the money out of the door. -- gear-shift. Everybody cheered. How
:19:30. > :19:33.much extra infrastructure spending has there been? Has gone out the
:19:34. > :19:37.door in the 13 months since he said that. I don't know the precise
:19:37. > :19:41.answer. I would say two things: in our Spending Review we increased
:19:41. > :19:45.the amount of capital spending by �2 billion a year, compared to the
:19:45. > :19:47.plans set out by Labour. In the autumn statement we allocated an
:19:47. > :19:51.extra �5 billion to capital investment. But getting our
:19:51. > :19:54.infrastructure going is not just about the public sector. So, for
:19:54. > :19:59.example, we've announced UK guarantee scheme. We've had more
:19:59. > :20:02.than 50 expressions of interest from private sector infrastructure
:20:02. > :20:06.projects where a Government guarantee can get them going.
:20:06. > :20:09.Tomorrow morning I'm getting with 40 chief executives of major extra
:20:09. > :20:13.providers. We are sitting down with the industry to work with them to
:20:13. > :20:17.deliver the infrastructure plans faster and more effectively than
:20:17. > :20:21.have been set out. I'm glad you have said that. The Director-
:20:21. > :20:26.General of the CBI said "Businesses looking for action (on what you are
:20:26. > :20:30.talking about and we haven't seen it yet) we are critical of the
:20:30. > :20:36.execution and delivery. The pace needs to pick up." I agree. That's
:20:36. > :20:39.why I asked John Cridland after he said that, to come along to the
:20:39. > :20:42.infrastructure committee in Government which I chair. This is
:20:42. > :20:46.the message from Treasury I'm giving to other departments in
:20:46. > :20:50.Government. He said he supports the pact that infrastructure is a big
:20:50. > :20:53.focus for this Government and a big focus for the Liberal Democrats and
:20:53. > :20:56.it is vitally important to lifting the growth potential of this
:20:56. > :20:59.country. We have done big things, we are investing more in railways,
:20:59. > :21:03.for example, since the Victorian times. Let's look at the overall
:21:03. > :21:07.picture. Since you make a big deal. Let's look at the figures up here.
:21:07. > :21:09.This is public sector net investment from the office of
:21:09. > :21:13.investment from the office of Budget responsibility.
:21:14. > :21:18.Everry year you are cutting public sector net investment.
:21:18. > :21:23.Infrastructure spending. You started at 38 billion by 2015 you
:21:23. > :21:27.will be down to �22 bill yob. River year it falls If you look --
:21:27. > :21:31.billion. If you look at the plans we inherited. They were sharper
:21:31. > :21:34.than that. I cannot conjure money up out of thin air. We have the
:21:34. > :21:38.biggest deficit we've had in our country's history. We are trying to
:21:38. > :21:42.deal with those problems by getting better value for that money by
:21:43. > :21:46.using Government guarantees to offer guarantees for up to �50
:21:46. > :21:51.billion of projects funded in the private sector, knotted public
:21:51. > :21:55.sector to bring the investment forward -- not the public sector.
:21:55. > :21:58.We are giving more to energy investors to bring infrastructure
:21:58. > :22:01.investment forward. There is lots you can do to get infrastructure
:22:01. > :22:04.going. You mentioned the guarantee going. You mentioned the guarantee
:22:04. > :22:07.scheme. But you are guaranteeing the borrowing of plieft companies
:22:07. > :22:12.and infrastructure investment. How is that give from the Government
:22:12. > :22:15.doing the borrowing itself, which it could do more cheaply, other
:22:15. > :22:18.than it is an accountcy sleight of hand it. Doesn't end up on the
:22:18. > :22:22.Government's balance sheet. But it is the same thing. It is different
:22:22. > :22:25.because these are private sector projects being brought forward by
:22:25. > :22:28.the private sector but because we are seeing difficult conditions in
:22:28. > :22:33.the funding markets, for many reasons you gave earlier,
:22:33. > :22:38.particularly around the eurozone crisis and lack of confidence, the
:22:38. > :22:42.big Riisek is not that the projects cannot be funded eventually - the
:22:42. > :22:44.big risk, but because of the delays, by offering a guarantee we can
:22:44. > :22:47.bring them forward and make sure they happen now over the next 12
:22:47. > :22:50.months and get more activity in our economy happening now. I think
:22:50. > :22:54.that's a wise use of the strength of this country's balance sheet
:22:54. > :22:58.that we've built up because we have taken tough economy decisions.
:22:58. > :23:01.me move on to the autumn statement it. Would be good if you could be
:23:01. > :23:04.concise. They are specific questions. The Chancellor has ruled
:23:04. > :23:08.out a mansion tax at the party conference is. That idea now dead
:23:08. > :23:13.nted water for the rest of the Parliament? I still -- dead in the
:23:13. > :23:19.water. I still believe the mansion tax is the right thing. Is it dead
:23:19. > :23:22.in the water as an idea? I will not enter into autumn statement s
:23:22. > :23:25.through the medium of this programme. We will sit down over
:23:25. > :23:29.the next few weeks to discuss the different ideas on the table. I'm
:23:29. > :23:33.not going to have the negotiations in public. Could there be a mansion
:23:33. > :23:36.tax? I would say to you that making sure the wealthiest in this country,
:23:36. > :23:40.the people who have the most, contribute the most, in the next
:23:40. > :23:44.round of deficit reduction is an essential principle for Liberal
:23:44. > :23:48.Democrats and we will not bring forward a package that doesn't meet
:23:48. > :23:51.that. When you were last in the show you said that tax avoidance is
:23:51. > :23:57.morally repugnant. I still believe that, absolutely. Starbucks which
:23:57. > :24:01.has paid �8 million in tax on �3 billion on profits. Is it morally
:24:01. > :24:06.repugnant? As a Treasury Minster I will not get into commenting on the
:24:06. > :24:11.affairs of individual tax payers. I don't have information about
:24:11. > :24:15.individual tax payers. They have paid almost no, eBay, Facebook,
:24:15. > :24:19.Google, Amazon. If you are serious about tax aindividualance don't you
:24:19. > :24:24.have to do something about it? are. We are taking steps across the
:24:24. > :24:32.range of tax avoidance and tax evasion on individuals, wealthy
:24:33. > :24:38.individuals and businesses. No tax on a �3 billion takeover. We are
:24:38. > :24:42.investing in the HMRC so they have to resources to go after the tax
:24:42. > :24:47.avoiders. Whether you are a big company a welty individual, we are
:24:47. > :24:51.coming to get to you make sure you pay your fair share. -- wealthy.
:24:51. > :24:55.That includes these companies I named? That includes anybody.
:24:55. > :25:00.me finish up on Scotland. Do you still think it wise, in view of the
:25:00. > :25:04.serious issues of trust raised by your party and others about Alex
:25:04. > :25:08.Salmond, last week in Scotland, do you think it wise to let him set
:25:08. > :25:13.the question? I'm glad we have got out of the process questions. And
:25:13. > :25:16.we are going to have the referendum. We haven't set the question One of
:25:16. > :25:20.the things we secured was the roll of the Electoral Commission in the
:25:20. > :25:22.Scottish referendum in exactly the same way as it plays in UK
:25:22. > :25:26.referendums. I think there are more immediate questions for Alex
:25:26. > :25:29.Salmond to aeb. He has to answer the question why it was that he
:25:29. > :25:34.allowed thousands of pounds of tax payers' money to be investing in
:25:34. > :25:39.paying lawyers it prepare a court case to prevent him releasing legal
:25:39. > :25:41.advice that turned out didn't exist on Scotland's EU membership. His
:25:41. > :25:47.accounting officer has questions to answer. There are rules about
:25:47. > :25:51.public finances in this country. You shouldn't just waste taxpayers'
:25:51. > :25:56.money on politicians' vanity projects. You are happy he can set
:25:56. > :25:59.the question. I think in the end, if what the -- what the Scottish
:26:00. > :26:02.people want is information, facts before them to understand what it
:26:02. > :26:06.means and I think if Alex Salmond tries to fiddle the question the
:26:06. > :26:08.Scottish people will come down on him like a tonne of bricks.
:26:08. > :26:13.shall see. Now, should parents have as many
:26:13. > :26:16.kids as they want and send the bill to the rest of us? Work and
:26:16. > :26:20.Pensions Secretary, Iain Duncan Smith thinks not, as part of his
:26:20. > :26:23.efforts to cut billions from the Welfare Bill, he says in future
:26:23. > :26:27.parents should be paid child- related benefits for a maximum of
:26:27. > :26:35.just two children. In a moment we'll go head-to-head on the rights
:26:35. > :26:40.and wrongs of such a policy. First here is Susana Mendonsa.
:26:40. > :26:45.! Children are costly. Clothes, food, toys, the list goes on. If
:26:45. > :26:49.you are a working family, you may decide only to have as many as you
:26:50. > :26:55.can afford. That's certainly the case for Danyel, a South African-
:26:55. > :26:58.born college lecturer, living in Karl shal ton, she has one child,
:26:58. > :27:03.15 Monday Isobella. She would love three but can't afford them. She
:27:03. > :27:06.says it isn't fair that families on benefits chief more state cash the
:27:06. > :27:10.more children they have. Definitely unfair. My husband and I work hard.
:27:10. > :27:13.We earn good money and here we are sitting every month thinking - OK,
:27:13. > :27:18.do the figures add up for us to have another one? Then you see
:27:18. > :27:21.people that don't go to work with three, four, children and you just
:27:21. > :27:25.think - how fair is that when they are not having to think about the
:27:25. > :27:30.same things that we have to think about, when it comes to deciding
:27:30. > :27:33.how many children you want to have and if you can afford to have them.
:27:33. > :27:39.Parents who are on income support receive around �82 extra a week in
:27:39. > :27:41.benefits for their first child and around �65 a week for each
:27:41. > :27:45.subsequent child according to the Child Poverty Action Group. But
:27:45. > :27:49.Iain Duncan Smith wants to kapt benefits at child number two. --
:27:49. > :27:54.cap the benefits. It is estimated it would save around �200 million.
:27:54. > :27:58.That's only a fraction of the �10 billion the Chancellor says needs
:27:58. > :28:04.to be wiped off the welfare budget. But some say it would still be good
:28:04. > :28:09.news for tax payers. Every penny of this spending is a penny taken out
:28:09. > :28:13.of their pockets making it harder for them to afford this. Re
:28:13. > :28:16.dressing the balance so tax paying and benefit-claiming families both
:28:16. > :28:19.have to make the same tough decisions over how many children
:28:19. > :28:24.they can afford is only fair and realistic.
:28:24. > :28:28.But what about the potential impact on families that rely on benefits?
:28:29. > :28:31.Like Peter, a single dad in Brixton with two kids. Financially it is
:28:31. > :28:36.completely wrong. Because it's not the children's fault. The children
:28:36. > :28:39.need to be supported in some way. Like I have both of these, he is
:28:39. > :28:42.autistic. I cannot go out to work because he goes to school for a few
:28:43. > :28:47.hours. It is half term next week. There is not many jobs where you
:28:47. > :28:51.can have, you know every two months or so, have a week off, it doesn't
:28:51. > :28:55.exist. So, you know in the long-run it ends up costing more money.
:28:55. > :28:59.cut wouldn't come into effect until after the next general election and
:28:59. > :29:04.it isn't yet clear which benefits would be included.
:29:04. > :29:10.It with also most likely only apply to new claimants.
:29:10. > :29:14.But some charities say families in work could end up losing out, too.
:29:15. > :29:18.Six out of ten poor children live with a work parent. These are the
:29:19. > :29:22.strivers, working really hard, in low-paid jobs. They have already
:29:22. > :29:25.had cuts to tax credit, child benefit and housing benefit and so
:29:25. > :29:29.on and they claim benefits this. Policy of two children would affect
:29:29. > :29:33.people in work as much as it affects people out of work.
:29:33. > :29:37.While the ideas of a benefits cap does play well with potential
:29:37. > :29:47.voters now, it's how it works in practice that could make or break
:29:47. > :29:48.
:29:48. > :29:56.Conservative MP, Philip Davis and Kate Bell from the Child Poverty
:29:56. > :30:00.Action Group are here to go head- to-head.
:30:00. > :30:04.Kate Bell evening working families are having to delay having kids
:30:04. > :30:14.because of the economic circumstances. So it s it fair to
:30:14. > :30:22.
:30:22. > :30:25.It is not clear what the aim of this policy is. It does not say
:30:25. > :30:30.very much my and we do not think anyone is having children based on
:30:30. > :30:35.whether they get more benefits or not. It does not save much money,
:30:35. > :30:38.it does not affect those getting benefits already, it is politics.
:30:38. > :30:41.It will save some money by definition but it is mainly about
:30:41. > :30:45.fairness. Everybody needs to make decisions about whether they can
:30:45. > :30:49.afford to have children. Lots of people make that decision but some
:30:49. > :30:53.people are not making that decision. They are free to have as many
:30:53. > :31:03.children as they like, get more and more in benefits, pay for a bigger
:31:03. > :31:03.
:31:03. > :31:07.House than they have, and other people cannot afford to decide that.
:31:07. > :31:10.Those people making those decisions are having to put their hand deeper
:31:10. > :31:15.into their pockets in taxation to pay for those who do not make those
:31:15. > :31:19.decisions. We really need to tackle some of the messier. There is a
:31:19. > :31:25.tiny proportion of families on out- of-work benefits to have more than
:31:25. > :31:28.two children. 95% of them have two children are less. The other thing
:31:28. > :31:32.is, when you have your children you do not know what will happen to you.
:31:32. > :31:36.We just came out of a double-dip recession, many people lost their
:31:36. > :31:41.jobs, they did not expect to be bringing up children on benefits,
:31:41. > :31:43.should we be penalising them on that? The point about that his
:31:43. > :31:47.people need to take responsibility for their own decisions and their
:31:47. > :31:52.own lives. They cannot expect other people do forever pick up the tab
:31:52. > :31:57.on the back of their decisions. We all know the world is not safe for
:31:57. > :32:01.people in their jobs, jobs are vulnerable, they are decisions we
:32:01. > :32:04.need to take ourselves, we need to take responsibility. We cannot
:32:04. > :32:09.expect the taxpayer to pay more in benefits to pick up the tab
:32:09. > :32:12.whatever people's circumstances, people need to make more
:32:12. > :32:20.responsible decisions. The welfare budget has grown massively over the
:32:20. > :32:25.last 10 or 15 years. We need to make decisions that make it fairer.
:32:25. > :32:29.I suppose those on the side of the argument say the welfare system is
:32:29. > :32:33.providing a perverse incentive for people on benefit to have more
:32:34. > :32:36.children. There is absolutely no evidence that is going on. The
:32:36. > :32:40.Department for Work and Pensions look into this a few years ago, it
:32:40. > :32:45.produced a report and found there was minimal or no effect of welfare
:32:45. > :32:51.on fertility, so this idea of a perverse incentive, we have no
:32:51. > :32:56.evidence. When Iain Duncan Smith speaks about at clustering of large
:32:56. > :33:05.families at the lowest incomes, he has no evidence for that? We have
:33:05. > :33:10.not seen the numbers. Whereas the evidence? We do see this happening,
:33:10. > :33:16.we read reports in the papers of families with eight or 10 kids on
:33:16. > :33:20.benefits, expecting to be housed in bigger Houses. My constituents come
:33:20. > :33:26.to me and talk about these people living down the street from them.
:33:26. > :33:31.It builds up resentment among many working-class walkers who are going
:33:31. > :33:35.out. -- working-class voters. They see other people in the same street
:33:35. > :33:41.not making the stuff decisions. They are sitting back and expecting
:33:41. > :33:45.the taxpayer to pick up the tab. That is simply unfair. It is really
:33:45. > :33:51.important that in emotive areas we make the policy based on evidence,
:33:51. > :33:56.not rumours are a one-off story in the papers. The vast majority of
:33:56. > :34:01.families on benefits have two or less children. We also know that
:34:01. > :34:04.most people stay on Jobseeker's Allowance for less than a year, 90%
:34:04. > :34:09.arrived of work for less than a year. The idea that we have people
:34:09. > :34:13.on benefits having more and more children is just a myth. What if a
:34:13. > :34:19.moderate -- what if a mother of three subtly becomes widowed, what
:34:19. > :34:23.would happen to her? The details need to be ironed out. It is quite
:34:23. > :34:28.an important detail. People who already have a child might have
:34:28. > :34:33.twins. Those things can be dealt with by exception. Exceptions can
:34:33. > :34:39.be dealt with in the benefits system, but we should have a set
:34:40. > :34:43.policy that is the norm. We can deal with exceptions when they come
:34:43. > :34:48.along in individual cases. But I think Iain Duncan Smith is
:34:48. > :34:50.absolutely right. He has observed a problem that lots of my
:34:50. > :34:56.constituents think is undermining the welfare state and he is
:34:56. > :35:01.bringing forward a sensible policy that would restore confidence.
:35:01. > :35:07.results we have in this suggest that most people think what he says
:35:07. > :35:13.his spare. Again, we have met said there. People are mistaken? It is
:35:13. > :35:20.really important to look at the evidence. The idea that people on
:35:20. > :35:23.benefits having extra children, it is a myth. There is lots of
:35:23. > :35:27.insecurity, everyone is worried about where their money is going,
:35:27. > :35:31.but to have these policies that target people and ultimately the
:35:31. > :35:35.effect is to target children. That is not the right way to goal.
:35:35. > :35:40.of the welfare budget is spent on the elderly, so here you are
:35:40. > :35:44.targeting child related benefits but you continue to pay winter fuel
:35:44. > :35:49.payments to millionaire pensioners. That is a different issue. It is
:35:49. > :35:54.the same. It is spareness. We are trying to reward people who do the
:35:54. > :35:57.right thing and penalise people who do the wrong thing. The welfare
:35:57. > :36:02.system at the moment disincentive for people to do the wrong thing
:36:02. > :36:07.and penalises those doing the right thing. What Iain Duncan Smith has
:36:07. > :36:12.been doing, what he is proposing is to rebalance the welfare system to
:36:12. > :36:15.reward those who make responsible decisions and does not reward those
:36:15. > :36:25.who take irresponsible decisions. This will penalise children whose
:36:25. > :36:28.parents are unlucky enough to lose their jobs. Thank you. Coming up in
:36:28. > :36:38.20 minutes, I will be looking at the week ahead with the political
:36:38. > :36:43.
:36:43. > :36:47.panel. Until then, the Sunday Politics across the UK.
:36:47. > :36:53.Welcome to Sunday Politics in the capital. Coming up, our
:36:53. > :36:58.redevelopment of Earls Court will bring jobs and schools to the area,
:36:58. > :37:02.but were the people living on estates due for demolition unduly
:37:02. > :37:09.pressurised into supporting the demands? They said we could be put
:37:09. > :37:14.anywhere in London, Clapham, Croydon, other places. He said we
:37:15. > :37:20.could even be put in a hotel, and that scared me. With me is the
:37:20. > :37:26.Conservative MP for Calders cream, and the Liberal Democrat former
:37:26. > :37:30.health minister. -- Golders Green. Is the NHS in London safe in the
:37:30. > :37:35.government's hands? There are plans to rationalise healthcare across
:37:35. > :37:40.the capital. It is clear there are mighty battles ahead. At a party
:37:40. > :37:47.that is the plan to have you were large centres of excellence. -- at
:37:47. > :37:53.the heart of it. Around the capital, health service chiefs are facing
:37:53. > :37:58.growing calls rethink in the face of mergers and closures. In July,
:37:58. > :38:04.the South London Healthcare Trust, which includes the Queen Mary's in
:38:04. > :38:10.Sidcup, became the first trust to be put into administration by the
:38:10. > :38:19.Government. They ran up debts of �150 million. The administrators
:38:19. > :38:24.will announce their plans on Monday. Meanwhile, NHS south-west London,
:38:24. > :38:31.they have put up a local panel that will close to local maternity unit
:38:31. > :38:36.at St Hellier us. The former health minister has attacked it. He said
:38:36. > :38:42.it is dangerous. It is north-west London where it glazers -- the
:38:42. > :38:47.scale is most dramatic. They will close four out of nine Accident and
:38:48. > :38:57.Emergency units. In Ealing, the plan comes after a year in which
:38:58. > :38:58.
:38:58. > :39:06.admissions have gone up 22%. NHS chiefs argue it is about creating
:39:07. > :39:12.fewer large centres, they say this Let's doctor our political
:39:12. > :39:17.correspondent. This is clearly a minefield. What happens next?
:39:17. > :39:23.a minefield are a time bomb. We have competing demands, clinicians
:39:23. > :39:28.are saying they need change, there is an ageing population, we need to
:39:28. > :39:32.save �5 billion across London. We cannot carry on. Compare that to
:39:32. > :39:40.what local people are saying, they say they do not want the local
:39:40. > :39:46.services to disappear, it is difficult. The timebomb factor, in
:39:46. > :39:50.April, the London health authority will be abolished and replaced.
:39:50. > :39:57.These decisions come to ahead in February, when Jeremy Hunt will
:39:57. > :40:01.have all these consultations on his desk. Can this be characterised as
:40:01. > :40:07.the rational against the emotional? What would make sense for the whole
:40:07. > :40:12.of London against what people feel about their local hospital? Yes, it
:40:12. > :40:18.can. The NHS says it cannot go on, the need to make savings otherwise
:40:18. > :40:21.things will fall over. We will have accident and emergency units closed
:40:21. > :40:24.overnight because there is a lack of staff. On the other hand you
:40:24. > :40:28.have people saying if they take things away they will get worse
:40:28. > :40:36.care. It is a simple argument but for the politicians it is really
:40:36. > :40:43.difficult, because there is no good enclosing services. In north-west
:40:43. > :40:48.London, does it make sense to have so much here? If you were designing
:40:48. > :40:52.north-west London you would put three or four hospitals, not nine.
:40:52. > :40:56.London has grown up in an odd way over the years and people have got
:40:57. > :41:06.used to having major hospitals next to them. The NHS say that cannot go
:41:06. > :41:09.on. A final point on a different crisis, in south-east London.
:41:09. > :41:13.special trust administrator who went in will make his announcement
:41:13. > :41:16.on Monday. He will look at the whole of south London from what we
:41:17. > :41:20.understand, and he will suggest that another accident and emergency
:41:20. > :41:28.in Lewisham is going to have to close. That is the source of a
:41:28. > :41:32.growing campaign among MPs in all parties. Thank you. I enjoyed by
:41:32. > :41:39.daughter Spencer, part of the group that came up with the plan to close
:41:39. > :41:43.four accident and emergency units in London. That would mean an age
:41:43. > :41:50.year -- an area the size of Leeds left without an accident and
:41:50. > :41:53.emergency. That is a gross exaggeration. We have just finished
:41:53. > :41:59.consultation, we are analysing the results. If you look at our
:41:59. > :42:05.hospitals we are closing, Charing Cross is two miles from Westminster,
:42:05. > :42:11.Ealing Hospital is 3.5 miles. They do not leave the population without
:42:11. > :42:17.local services. We needed because admissions to Ealing accident and
:42:17. > :42:23.emergency are up by 20%. We are fully aware we need local services,
:42:23. > :42:28.and we are recommending urgent care centres, most of that growth is in
:42:28. > :42:36.those that go to those centres. That is people who cannot go to the
:42:36. > :42:42.GP, they are not going to major trauma. How can you convince
:42:42. > :42:48.people? Petitions are coming, you know what is happening. What we are
:42:48. > :42:53.describing is investing and making hospitals bigger and better, the
:42:53. > :42:59.services we have is variable, some of the accident and emergency units
:42:59. > :43:03.have no paediatrics, general surgery, behind the front door.
:43:03. > :43:09.People assume they have everything and that is not the case. We need a
:43:09. > :43:13.consistent, large major hospital that provides better care. How much
:43:13. > :43:19.our politicians helping or hindering? They do not want these
:43:19. > :43:23.hospital closures either. It is difficult for politicians, I hope
:43:23. > :43:28.they will get on board and explained that very rational
:43:28. > :43:33.changes we are making. We can demonstrate we're going to save
:43:33. > :43:40.lives and improve care. In the past, centralised services, we save lives
:43:40. > :43:44.every year through changes, and it was opposed by politicians.
:43:44. > :43:54.Clinicians said it was the best thing to do. I hope politicians
:43:54. > :44:00.
:44:00. > :44:05.will listen to us. Kenya reassure - - can you reassure you go stages
:44:05. > :44:11.that these changes are necessary? would be prepared to make the case,
:44:11. > :44:16.but the problem is on the evidence, the case does not stand up. They
:44:16. > :44:23.say they can take 60% of people out of south-west London, I did those
:44:23. > :44:31.units, it is not deliverable. You're losing one hospital out of
:44:31. > :44:36.four. The clinicians are saying it is possible. Why do you know
:44:36. > :44:41.better? The advisory team, who are clinic team, looked at the
:44:41. > :44:45.proposals, they said that underpinning them is the idea that
:44:45. > :44:50.60% going to accident and emergency do not need to be there, that has
:44:50. > :44:56.never been achieved anywhere in the country, it is not safe. I these
:44:56. > :44:59.undeliverable? I am not across all the details but the fatal flaw in
:44:59. > :45:08.these reconfiguration of health care is the lack credible
:45:08. > :45:10.leadership and they do not offer a credible leadership vision. It is
:45:11. > :45:14.the Strategic Health Authority looking at London as a whole and
:45:14. > :45:19.you are protecting local interests. You are putting that ahead of what
:45:19. > :45:25.is best for London. I am looking at the facts and the bases of the
:45:25. > :45:30.evidence suggests they do not add up. Across London, these are not
:45:30. > :45:34.about -- these are about getting alongside community leaders, seen
:45:34. > :45:44.the case for change and making that case. Most reconfiguration has
:45:44. > :45:50.
:45:50. > :45:55.You were Health Minister. Due shi it should shall torn up across
:45:55. > :46:00.London -- do you think? I can talk as a condition constituencycy MP
:46:00. > :46:06.looking in great local detail at my local were posals, and on the
:46:06. > :46:10.grounds of fact... -- proposals. So you think they should be rolled out
:46:10. > :46:13.across London You have to look at the facts and the merits on the
:46:13. > :46:18.ground. That's what NHS London is looking, at London at a whole and
:46:18. > :46:20.there will be uncomfortable decisions? In my assessment in
:46:20. > :46:25.south-west London, we have had chaos reign because of the way they
:46:25. > :46:30.have run a demerger of my local trust which has been derailed
:46:30. > :46:39.because of the of the attempt to close an A&E department Dhas knead
:46:39. > :46:44.uncertain and unclear. Morale has been undermined -- -- it has made
:46:44. > :46:48.it uncertain and unclear. Case Farm is closing, you are happy to see
:46:48. > :46:51.that happening. There is a strange conundrum. Six months ago when we
:46:51. > :46:55.were debating NHS reforms, the public say the trust the doctors.
:46:55. > :47:00.The doctors are now saying we need to consolidate health services and
:47:00. > :47:05.we are saying don't trust them. There is a conuntrum there. The
:47:05. > :47:09.starting point is, -- conundru. But you are right, NHS London has a
:47:09. > :47:15.strategic view. But they don't sell the vision or the rational. When
:47:15. > :47:20.you had Ruth Kranel a few weeks ago in a high-handed manner saying that
:47:20. > :47:23.politicians get in the way and have no role to play it, shows a high-
:47:23. > :47:28.handed manner. But we have too many hospitals. I don't say we have that,
:47:28. > :47:33.I don't have a problem with consolidation as long as clinicians
:47:33. > :47:40.spend time explaining why it is good for patient health care. I got
:47:40. > :47:44.it wrong. I opposed a unit. I was wrong but they didn't explain it.
:47:44. > :47:52.I'm happy to explain it if clinicians get off their high horse.
:47:52. > :47:56.Paul bur sko is speaking of a different area. -- Paul Burscough.
:47:56. > :47:59.What do you say about to the clinicians. For north-west London,
:47:59. > :48:04.this has been led by all the GPs and medical trusts, whether they
:48:04. > :48:10.are under risk of changes or not. So we think tgs clinically-led. Our
:48:10. > :48:14.experience and analysis of urgent care and A&E attendances is that 60
:48:14. > :48:17.people are going urgent care centres and not A&E which has been
:48:17. > :48:22.put in place over the last several years. Thank you for joining us. It
:48:22. > :48:25.is one of the largest building projects in the capital, an �8
:48:25. > :48:28.billion redevelopment the Earls Court but in the determination to
:48:28. > :48:35.get this huge scheme under way, have people living on two estates,
:48:35. > :48:38.which will have to be demolished, been subjected to undue pressure to
:48:38. > :48:43.back it. Hammersmith and Fulham council launched an investigation
:48:43. > :48:47.that residents were offered priority housing in exchange for
:48:47. > :48:51.their support during the public consultation process. This is the
:48:51. > :48:55.master plan, an art igs's impression of the future of Earls
:48:55. > :48:58.Court. -- artist's impression. It is one of the capital's largest and
:48:58. > :49:02.most important building projects. But at the moment it is home to
:49:02. > :49:06.these estates, earmarked for demolition. Earlier this year Tommy,
:49:06. > :49:10.a resident, said a man in a suit knocked on his door and told him
:49:10. > :49:16.there would be consequences if he didn't put down a positive response
:49:16. > :49:19.on the council's consultation. said they were going to knock them
:49:19. > :49:25.down and you could be put anywhere in London, he mentioned Clapham and
:49:25. > :49:31.Croydon and other places. He said, "You could even be put into a
:49:31. > :49:35.hotel." That got me scared. As a result, Tommy said he said yes to
:49:35. > :49:40.demolition but looking back, he isn't sure who his visitor was?.
:49:40. > :49:43.knocked a at my neighbour's door. She told him to go away. He has
:49:44. > :49:47.been around a lot of people. There are lots of people he has been to,
:49:47. > :49:53.offering them flats. I don't know who he is. Other residents talk
:49:53. > :49:57.about the existence of an early- movers' list, a compilation of
:49:57. > :50:01.supporters of the demolition who had been promised a priority move
:50:01. > :50:05.out of the estate. This man says he was one of them. Once I found out
:50:05. > :50:10.the early movers' list was being taken seriously by the council, for
:50:10. > :50:14.a while it played in my mind, am I on it, should I be on it? I had to
:50:14. > :50:18.think about it. I said to an officer - am I on the list? And I
:50:18. > :50:22.was told by that officer - yes, of course you are, Richard. That was a
:50:22. > :50:26.council officer. Yes. He later resigned from the steering group,
:50:26. > :50:34.saying he believed the list to be immoral. It was offering residents
:50:34. > :50:37.an early move on to the Sea grove Road in exchange for support for
:50:37. > :50:39.the statutory consultation that took place. Last month the
:50:39. > :50:44.Metropolitan Police were handed this document by local campaigners,
:50:44. > :50:48.they say it is aaway based on interviews with 20 residents all of
:50:48. > :50:51.who talk about the existence of an early movers' list. The police have
:50:51. > :50:54.told us they are considering whether it merits launching an
:50:54. > :50:57.investigation. This week the council launched an investigation
:50:57. > :51:01.of their own into the allegations and it is hoped to report back
:51:01. > :51:04.before Christmas. Whatever the result it may not be enough to
:51:04. > :51:07.please some opponents of the redevelopment. We invited
:51:07. > :51:09.Hammersmith and Fulham council to come on to the programme but they
:51:09. > :51:19.said they didn't want to prejudice the outcome of the investigation
:51:19. > :51:31.
:51:31. > :51:35.but provide us with a statement in I'm joined by the Labour Leader of
:51:35. > :51:38.the Labour Group at Hammersmith and Fulham, councillor Steve Cowan,
:51:39. > :51:43.welcome to you. This is a decision now, anyway this planning decision
:51:43. > :51:47.and the wider picture thau, can't overturn. I mean it's happening. --
:51:47. > :51:51.that you can't overturn. What are you trying to achieve? There is a
:51:51. > :51:55.case going through the High Court on the consultation and the bit of
:51:55. > :51:58.saw in your film, the allegations of what happened, what happened
:51:59. > :52:03.during the period of the statutory consultation. So I think there may
:52:03. > :52:07.well be way that is this can be blocked. The central issue is that
:52:07. > :52:12.the allegations that council officers were involved in and
:52:12. > :52:16.partners were involved in making homes for support offers, appeared
:52:16. > :52:20.in January of this year. And at no point in the nine months did the
:52:20. > :52:25.council take those allegations seriously, despite them being made
:52:25. > :52:29.by a former alIan partner of theirs. So your view leshes wanting to know
:52:29. > :52:33.exactly what was it that stopped the council investigating it. -- so
:52:33. > :52:36.your viewers will be wanting to know. But valid for a council to
:52:36. > :52:39.employ people, or the council officers to be going around talking
:52:39. > :52:44.about the benefits of regenerating, knocking down this estate and
:52:44. > :52:46.knocking on peep's doors. That would be valid. -- on people's
:52:46. > :52:51.doors. That would be valid. Initially that's what the council
:52:51. > :52:55.said it was doing. Then I asked if they had been involved in anyway in
:52:55. > :52:58.putting together a VVIP list or early movers' list. They said it
:52:58. > :53:02.was their partners in the scheme. Now in your film and your
:53:02. > :53:05.introduction you read out a bit that the council says it was doing
:53:05. > :53:08.the collection of the early movers' list. That does raise questions
:53:09. > :53:12.about what impression that created for people being offered the new
:53:13. > :53:17.homes and does that pollute the statutory consultation that it
:53:17. > :53:20.undertook during that period. this is a scheme that is going to
:53:20. > :53:25.bring so much economic good to this area, isn't it? If you were elected
:53:25. > :53:28.and you were running that council in 2014, would you try to stop this
:53:28. > :53:31.development? We would. This investment coming?. We would. We
:53:31. > :53:35.are not against redevelopment. Labour has developed and
:53:35. > :53:42.regenerated whole areas, Westfield was done under Labour's watch. What
:53:42. > :53:46.we are against is if you are going to develop 7,500 homes, only 760 of
:53:46. > :53:51.those are generally affordable. And of those there is no compunction on
:53:51. > :53:54.the developer to build any for the first ten years. You have to ask
:53:54. > :54:01.yourself is this coming to the strategic needs of a borough in
:54:01. > :54:05.addressing the London housing crisis or is it the benefit of a
:54:05. > :54:09.Tory ideological programme But the reality is, if there are legal
:54:09. > :54:14.challenges, there is nothing you can do about it, plans are plans.
:54:14. > :54:17.Well there are things you could do. There are legal contracts, you
:54:17. > :54:21.could be sued. We would came to do that. Contracts are contracts, we
:54:21. > :54:24.will have to see what happens with that. You have to remember that
:54:24. > :54:28.Conservative members of the council flew to the French Riviera in 2008
:54:28. > :54:33.to meet with the developer about this site. So this is a scheme long
:54:33. > :54:36.in running, it's been put together by private meetings, most of which
:54:36. > :54:39.they have denied throughout the time. I think it was on your
:54:39. > :54:43.programme in 2009 they denied it and when they come about putting
:54:43. > :54:46.together a programme, they don't give a ballot. They do a
:54:46. > :54:50.consultation where four to one of residents consulted vote against
:54:50. > :54:54.and even then they drive ahead. It doesn't sound democratic. Neither
:54:54. > :54:58.of you two are going to know the details but on the principle, what
:54:58. > :55:04.you have heard, the possibility of offering people priority housing if
:55:04. > :55:08.they agree to support it? I'm not sure about priority housing, I was
:55:08. > :55:11.leader when Brent Cross Cricklewood went through. There is nothing
:55:11. > :55:15.unusual about part of the consultation saying you will be
:55:15. > :55:18.rehoused in better or larger properties. What about getting
:55:18. > :55:22.early or priority moving I think that has yet to be proved. As far
:55:22. > :55:25.as I can tell, Deloittes have been appointed to look into this. The
:55:25. > :55:31.Leader of the Opposition on hammer Smith let the cat out of the bag,
:55:31. > :55:37.the real objective here is out of 7,000 new homes only 700, the
:55:37. > :55:42.existing ten rants being rehoused, the objective is gentification. I
:55:42. > :55:46.think that underlines the opposition. And Paul bur sko on the
:55:46. > :55:50.principle of offering an incentive It goes to the motivation behind
:55:50. > :55:55.that. I think that is a legitimate issue. If the motivation was to say
:55:55. > :55:58.- we will give you first move, would that be acceptable? I think
:55:58. > :56:02.there needs to be investigations. I don't need it hear the details.
:56:03. > :56:05.What I have heard raises questions in my mind about what the
:56:05. > :56:08.objectives where with this development. Well thank you very
:56:08. > :56:12.much for joining us today. It is your chance to review some of the
:56:12. > :56:22.other stories making the news this week, here's that week in 60
:56:22. > :56:23.
:56:23. > :56:27.At 8.92 billion the Olympics reached the finishing line on time
:56:27. > :56:32.and under Budget according to the Sports Minister. It was also
:56:32. > :56:36.revealed a total of �1 billion had been giving to private company
:56:36. > :56:40.LOCOG to organise the games. Car manufacturer Ford announced it is
:56:40. > :56:44.to close a number of factories, including a plant in dagna. Unions
:56:44. > :56:48.are warning up to 1,000 jobs are on the line -- Dagenham. There has
:56:48. > :56:53.been a nearly 60% increase in people needing few handouts
:56:53. > :56:57.according to Fairshare. The charity is currently helping to feed 5,000
:56:57. > :57:03.people a day in London. It is a green light for bus on Oxford
:57:03. > :57:06.Street. Campaigners want to get rid of the wall of red double Deccers
:57:06. > :57:12.on Europe's busiest shopping route. But transport bosses say they are
:57:12. > :57:16.going nowhere. The mayor has promised �600,000 for the London
:57:16. > :57:21.annual gay pride waipbts community groups to take over its running.
:57:21. > :57:25.After financial troubles last year, the future of gay pride now looks
:57:25. > :57:28.in the pink. We are told that we finally have
:57:28. > :57:32.come out of recession in the capital and then we see what
:57:32. > :57:35.happens in Dagenham. We are not out of the woods, are we? I would
:57:35. > :57:38.always say that statistically we are out of recession but I don't
:57:38. > :57:44.think the recession will be a straightline recoverry. I think it
:57:44. > :57:47.will be a bumpy ride. Some sectors will do well. Others not so well.
:57:47. > :57:51.Retail sales doing really. Restaurants are doing well but
:57:51. > :57:54.house something still difficult. It will be bumpy and patchy. Paul,
:57:54. > :57:59.give me an example of something locally that independent kailgts to
:57:59. > :58:03.you that we are seeing those shoots -- indicates Well in my
:58:03. > :58:06.constituency we have seen unemployment fall month-by-month.
:58:06. > :58:12.We have the highest employment rate anywhere in London and Sutton is
:58:12. > :58:16.identified as one of the places people want to move to because of
:58:16. > :58:20.good employment opportunities and good education. Full-time jobs.
:58:20. > :58:23.Full-time and part-time. This is a very difficult recovery. Mervyn
:58:23. > :58:26.King the chairman of the Bank of England made it clear at the outset
:58:26. > :58:30.of this administration, that whoever was in power now, because
:58:30. > :58:34.of the mess they inherited from Labour, they had a choppy future.
:58:35. > :58:40.We are told because of the Olympics and the London effect, it's