Episode 17 Sunday Morning Live

Speaking on the drawn mar show this morning, the Harriet Harman said

that their needed to be a single judgment-led inquiry. -- speaking

on the Andrew Marr Show. There are a multiplicity of enquiries. We

need one over-arching inquiry. Stoke Mandeville is looking into

what happened there and the Department of health looking into

how he was able to run a task force. And they are looking into why files

were presented to the police and there were no charges and the Leeds

General Infirmary. We need one over-arching inquiry. Should this

be independent? It should be. There are big lessons to be learned here.

What is it about politicians that barely a week goes by now without

one of them calling for another inquiry? It is the easy thing to

say, isn't it, really? I think the BBC seems to have entered into a

kind of compulsive self-flannelling racial mode at this point on this

story. -- self--flagalation. But there is a point that not

everything is a conspiracy. The decision to drop that Newsnight

programme was possibly more of a cockup rather than a conspiracy.

They do happen, even in the BBC. But it is a feeding frenzy for

everybody Rowenna. If you look at the Sunday Times this morning, they

are having a go at the outgoing DG, Mark Thompson, going to the New

York Times where Mr Murdoch is locked in a biter battle with the

Wall Street Journal. We have the Tory press baegt up on Chris Patten,

they never liked him as a Tory and you have everybody beating up on

The inquiries are not called for fun. We need accountability. On the

point of the public -- BBC liability, it is in a dangerous

position. The right-wing press will jump on them, if we have these

inquiries one by one. There are vested interests who what to see

the licence fee ended. We need George Entwistle to come out with

some strong action. He needs to come out and say why and never

again. How can anybody say that? We employ a 22,000 people, something

else will happen. Not as endemic as this. A lot of the calls for

enquiry have been frivolous. The call for an enquiry into banking as

a whole. But this scandal is officially sprawling and has

ensnared so many institutions, the NHS, social services, that you need

one overarching. To take Leah's -- take years, keep liars in well-paid

jobs. It does not guarantee it will never happen again but if it

reduces the chances... Who is investigated? Who is investigating

Brogborough, Stoke Mandeville, Leeds General Infirmary? They all

gave Jimmy Savile run of the institution. You would hope they

are doing investigations themselves, but having said that, this was a

very long time ago, and I don't think this would happen today. We

are talking about several decades ago. It has been happening in

Rochdale right now, for the past couple of years. We're not talking

about a celebrity. Young girls being systemically, regularly

abused. It is happening now. That is very different to what we're

talking about now in terms of the one big celebrity. That interview

was not pulled long ago and that is what makes it relevant. I agree

that child abuse and a cemetery of power, the problems of confronting

the authority remains, and one good thing that could come out of this

is we could address that better in the future. There is a danger this

country suffers from too many inquiries and to many resignations.

We have already seen Peter Ripon go. He was the editor of Newsnight.

is unlikely he will come back. There is now the question of George

Entwistle bowling. Mark Thompson's job is now under question in New

York, such as the brand damage to be associated with the BBC. Who is

vulnerable? Is there a demand for a scalp, and who is likely to have

their head on the guillotine? think we're getting a bit

hysterical. David Cameron was quoted as saying the BBC could be

fatally damaged and I just think that is totally over-the-top.

Fatally damaged, that means the end of the BBC. I don't think so.

not fatally damaged, it is a bad time, I live through the Patten

report, the Iraq investigation. That was a bad time. His problem is

much bigger than the BBC, it is also about why the tabloids did not

investigated and the police. Which public institution is left that

commands trust? The BBC take it, the tabloids, Parliament, is that

the judiciary? Trust levels in judges are quite high, other than

that, I can think of a British public institution not morally

tainted. This programme! The one bit of the BBC that works. After

omnishambles, U turns, policy on the hoof and a protracted

resignation, finally some good news for the Government. The double-dip

is history. Britain is out of recession. Good economic news

landed on the desk of the chief secretary. The economy grew by 1%

over the last three months, helped by the Olympics and no bank

holidays, but positive news nonetheless. But with inflation at

its lowest level for three years, the government says we are on the

right track. To many of us feel any better off? Analysts say the

average Briton 18,000 is �1,800 worse off than the recession. With

everyone and rising energy prices, inflation could increase. The

eurozone cast a shadow over the economy, as do domestic spending

cuts. The Chief Secretary to the Welcome. The economy has barely

grown in the 2.5 years you have been in power, are you claiming

this flat lining has nothing to do with the austerity measures you

introduced? What I'm saying is this country has a number of very deep-

rooted economic problems, the legacy of the financial crisis, the

mistakes made in the public finances by the Labour predecessors,

that was a mess we needed clear-up. The pressures from the eurozone, a

high inflation, that means growth has been slower than we would have

liked. Have the austerity measures played a part? The judgment you

have got to make is going back to 2010, if we let things as they were,

did not put in a plan for austerity, I think the impact would have been

worse. You can look at other countries around the world and see

what happened to countries that did not have a plan, the question is,

be putting in place the plan that we have put in place and we are

seeing through, which does involve difficult choices, is that giving a

stronger foundation for growth? That was not a question I asked.

Are you saying the austerity measures played no part in the flat

lining? I'm saying if we had not gone for the programme we did, the

spending reductions, the economy would be in a worse position. One

of the benefits of that is the lower interest rate. That is not

the question I am asking. I think the way you need to look this is

whether any policy has had an effect, but is the choice we make

the right one for the economy? I think it is, it is keeping interest

rates low, helping people with the cost of their mortgages, businesses

with the cost of finance. If you make decisions about their reducing

benefits, increasing VAT, these things have an effect on the

economy, but the net effect of having chosen a path of credibility

and confidence is the right answer. You play the eurozone crisis, that

was one reason, commodity prices have also been blamed. But they

affect every economy in the West. Why has the UK recovery been weaker

than almost every other economy? you look around Europe you will see

a number of countries that are in a worse position than us more. One of

the biggest mistake that was made in the run-up to the crisis is to

do with the failures of regulation of the financial sector, the

banking system. The weight of those mistakes and the weight of the

broken banking system is holding the economy back more than other

countries, the Kazakh banking system is larger as a share of the

economy than in other countries. -- because our banking system. If you

look at the year's coming out of the banking crisis, the economy was

on a similar path to recovery, the same as countries like Germany. It

only fell behind when he took over the public finances in 2010 and

began austerity. What you had in that period was people scrutinising

Britain's public finances, the people from whom we are still

borrowing tens of billions of pounds every year, questioning the

credibility of the government's economic strategy, that meant that

when we came into office, the long- term interest rates were at the

same level as countries like Spain and Italy. We have seen at the path

they have taken. That is why I believe we made the right decisions.

In a sense, what we inherited was not just a mess in public finances,

it was a deficit in competitiveness. That is why we are investing in

infrastructure and skills, deregulating, things that will lift

the growth potential of the economy. I believe in the end, the previous

Labour government was to focus on financial services and the City of

London. The only way to get back to sustainable growth is having a more

balanced approach to the economy. Since the coalition came to office,

the economy has grown by only 0.6% in 2.5 years. You pays your

spending cuts on official projections that the economy would

have grown by almost 6% by now. It has grown by 0.6%. You were 10 out.

If you had known then what he knew now, would you have agreed to cut

so much? I would. In fact, it is the projections from the Office for

Budget Responsibility. That is wrong. They published an evaluation

of why the focus has gone wrong. They focused on a high commodity

prices, the eurozone, the financial system. They did not place great

weight on posterity as having a negative effect. If we had not

taken the decisions we did, the dangers for the economy, we were on

the verge, the judgment we made was the right one, but it was difficult.

Even if you had known the economy was going to flat line for 2.5

years, you would still have gone ahead with all the cuts and tax

increases? Of course, you need to base your judgment on what you know

at the time. We can ask hypothetical questions, we could

have been given any set of numbers, but the basic challenge we face in

2010 was a country that did not have a plan to deal with financial

problems, to reform the economy, left the growth potential. We put

in place those things and as a result there is greater confidence

and credibility in a United Kingdom than would have been otherwise.

Let's look at what would have been The growth hasn't happen and

productivity is falling now.. 7 it wasn't sufficiently strong to

outweigh the negative effects. The economy hasn't grown. You cannot

still stand by that statement. will go back to what I have said.

If you look at the OBR, who are responsible for the forecasts, we

have quite rightly taken the forecasts out of the hands of

politicians, so they are done independently. They publish why the

forecasts were out. They have cited the problems in the eurozone, which

have had an effect on business confidence here and exports and

high commodity prices. They are stronger headwinds, if you like,

than we'd expected where things have been more difficult than we

expected. We knew they were going to be difficult when we came into

office but I don't think the path we set is wrong. You can look at

other countries who haven't had plans in place to deal with their

financial problems. When we came in the you UK had one of the largest

budget deficits in the world. If you look in countries in southern

Europe, they are growing a great deal more slowly. Which major

economy has grown more slowly than us? If you look at countries if in

southern Europe, litly and Spain. But in the past two years they

haven't grown more slowly. If you look at the forecasts for those,

they are a great deal slower than us. Forecasts. But the judgment we

have to make is given the circumstances we face, when

Britain's economic credibility was on the line and when there was no

plan, did we make the right judgments? My answer is yes.

Although I have not asked you tkha question, you have answered the

three times. Probably a record for the Sunday Politics It is the

central point. I have got that point all right. Look at this chart

here. What this show, the yellow, the 23%, shows less than one-

quarter of the cuts to current quarter of the cuts to current

spending have yet to be introduced. 77% of your cuts have still to be

done. Will the effect of the 77% that we have still to go threw,

what effect will that have on the economy? Will it be positive,

economy? Will it be positive, negative or neutral? I don't

recognise the figures. Current spending, Institute of Fiscal

Studies. We have set out in our Spending Review, plans to reduce

spending progressively year on year spending progressively year on year

over four years in the Parliament. We have half way through delivering

the plans. By the end of the year, 48% of the spending cuts will have

been delivered as well as various tax increases you know Bwe are

entering into a process of setting out plans for the first year of the

next Parliament. And, look, part of what we have to do is to Mick sure

we make the reductions in a way that minimises impact on the

economy. -- make sure. Will they be positive, negative or neutral?

me carry on. Which is for example, if you look at capital spending

which has a big impact on the economy and where we are spending

more than the previous Government set out. We have been through the

process to spend that on the things that will have the biggest impact

on the economy. We are spending more on the transport

infrastructure than our predecessors. You are coming on to

what I want to talk about, Mr Alexander. Because the Liberal

Democrats are particularly fond of state investment, in what is called

- you have euphemistically, infrastructure spending to boost

growth. Nick Clegg told in September, 2011,

he promised a ger-shift in Government to unblock the system,

get the money out of the door. -- gear-shift. Everybody cheered. How

much extra infrastructure spending has there been? Has gone out the

door in the 13 months since he said that. I don't know the precise

answer. I would say two things: in our Spending Review we increased

the amount of capital spending by �2 billion a year, compared to the

plans set out by Labour. In the autumn statement we allocated an

extra �5 billion to capital investment. But getting our

infrastructure going is not just about the public sector. So, for

example, we've announced UK guarantee scheme. We've had more

than 50 expressions of interest from private sector infrastructure

projects where a Government guarantee can get them going.

Tomorrow morning I'm getting with 40 chief executives of major extra

providers. We are sitting down with the industry to work with them to

deliver the infrastructure plans faster and more effectively than

have been set out. I'm glad you have said that. The Director-

General of the CBI said "Businesses looking for action (on what you are

talking about and we haven't seen it yet) we are critical of the

execution and delivery. The pace needs to pick up." I agree. That's

why I asked John Cridland after he said that, to come along to the

infrastructure committee in Government which I chair. This is

the message from Treasury I'm giving to other departments in

Government. He said he supports the pact that infrastructure is a big

focus for this Government and a big focus for the Liberal Democrats and

it is vitally important to lifting the growth potential of this

country. We have done big things, we are investing more in railways,

for example, since the Victorian times. Let's look at the overall

picture. Since you make a big deal. Let's look at the figures up here.

This is public sector net investment from the office of

investment from the office of Budget responsibility.

Everry year you are cutting public sector net investment.

Infrastructure spending. You started at 38 billion by 2015 you

will be down to �22 bill yob. River year it falls If you look --

billion. If you look at the plans we inherited. They were sharper

than that. I cannot conjure money up out of thin air. We have the

biggest deficit we've had in our country's history. We are trying to

deal with those problems by getting better value for that money by

using Government guarantees to offer guarantees for up to �50

billion of projects funded in the private sector, knotted public

sector to bring the investment forward -- not the public sector.

We are giving more to energy investors to bring infrastructure

investment forward. There is lots you can do to get infrastructure

going. You mentioned the guarantee going. You mentioned the guarantee

scheme. But you are guaranteeing the borrowing of plieft companies

and infrastructure investment. How is that give from the Government

doing the borrowing itself, which it could do more cheaply, other

than it is an accountcy sleight of hand it. Doesn't end up on the

Government's balance sheet. But it is the same thing. It is different

because these are private sector projects being brought forward by

the private sector but because we are seeing difficult conditions in

the funding markets, for many reasons you gave earlier,

particularly around the eurozone crisis and lack of confidence, the

big Riisek is not that the projects cannot be funded eventually - the

big risk, but because of the delays, by offering a guarantee we can

bring them forward and make sure they happen now over the next 12

months and get more activity in our economy happening now. I think

that's a wise use of the strength of this country's balance sheet

that we've built up because we have taken tough economy decisions.

me move on to the autumn statement it. Would be good if you could be

concise. They are specific questions. The Chancellor has ruled

out a mansion tax at the party conference is. That idea now dead

nted water for the rest of the Parliament? I still -- dead in the

water. I still believe the mansion tax is the right thing. Is it dead

in the water as an idea? I will not enter into autumn statement s

through the medium of this programme. We will sit down over

the next few weeks to discuss the different ideas on the table. I'm

not going to have the negotiations in public. Could there be a mansion

tax? I would say to you that making sure the wealthiest in this country,

the people who have the most, contribute the most, in the next

round of deficit reduction is an essential principle for Liberal

Democrats and we will not bring forward a package that doesn't meet

that. When you were last in the show you said that tax avoidance is

morally repugnant. I still believe that, absolutely. Starbucks which

has paid �8 million in tax on �3 billion on profits. Is it morally

repugnant? As a Treasury Minster I will not get into commenting on the

affairs of individual tax payers. I don't have information about

individual tax payers. They have paid almost no, eBay, Facebook,

Google, Amazon. If you are serious about tax aindividualance don't you

have to do something about it? are. We are taking steps across the

range of tax avoidance and tax evasion on individuals, wealthy

individuals and businesses. No tax on a �3 billion takeover. We are

investing in the HMRC so they have to resources to go after the tax

avoiders. Whether you are a big company a welty individual, we are

coming to get to you make sure you pay your fair share. -- wealthy.

That includes these companies I named? That includes anybody.

me finish up on Scotland. Do you still think it wise, in view of the

serious issues of trust raised by your party and others about Alex

Salmond, last week in Scotland, do you think it wise to let him set

the question? I'm glad we have got out of the process questions. And

we are going to have the referendum. We haven't set the question One of

the things we secured was the roll of the Electoral Commission in the

Scottish referendum in exactly the same way as it plays in UK

referendums. I think there are more immediate questions for Alex

Salmond to aeb. He has to answer the question why it was that he

allowed thousands of pounds of tax payers' money to be investing in

paying lawyers it prepare a court case to prevent him releasing legal

advice that turned out didn't exist on Scotland's EU membership. His

accounting officer has questions to answer. There are rules about

public finances in this country. You shouldn't just waste taxpayers'

money on politicians' vanity projects. You are happy he can set

the question. I think in the end, if what the -- what the Scottish

people want is information, facts before them to understand what it

means and I think if Alex Salmond tries to fiddle the question the

Scottish people will come down on him like a tonne of bricks.

shall see. Now, should parents have as many

kids as they want and send the bill to the rest of us? Work and

Pensions Secretary, Iain Duncan Smith thinks not, as part of his

efforts to cut billions from the Welfare Bill, he says in future

parents should be paid child- related benefits for a maximum of

just two children. In a moment we'll go head-to-head on the rights

and wrongs of such a policy. First here is Susana Mendonsa.

! Children are costly. Clothes, food, toys, the list goes on. If

you are a working family, you may decide only to have as many as you

can afford. That's certainly the case for Danyel, a South African-

born college lecturer, living in Karl shal ton, she has one child,

15 Monday Isobella. She would love three but can't afford them. She

says it isn't fair that families on benefits chief more state cash the

more children they have. Definitely unfair. My husband and I work hard.

We earn good money and here we are sitting every month thinking - OK,

do the figures add up for us to have another one? Then you see

people that don't go to work with three, four, children and you just

think - how fair is that when they are not having to think about the

same things that we have to think about, when it comes to deciding

how many children you want to have and if you can afford to have them.

Parents who are on income support receive around �82 extra a week in

benefits for their first child and around �65 a week for each

subsequent child according to the Child Poverty Action Group. But

Iain Duncan Smith wants to kapt benefits at child number two. --

cap the benefits. It is estimated it would save around �200 million.

That's only a fraction of the �10 billion the Chancellor says needs

to be wiped off the welfare budget. But some say it would still be good

news for tax payers. Every penny of this spending is a penny taken out

of their pockets making it harder for them to afford this. Re

dressing the balance so tax paying and benefit-claiming families both

have to make the same tough decisions over how many children

they can afford is only fair and realistic.

But what about the potential impact on families that rely on benefits?

Like Peter, a single dad in Brixton with two kids. Financially it is

completely wrong. Because it's not the children's fault. The children

need to be supported in some way. Like I have both of these, he is

autistic. I cannot go out to work because he goes to school for a few

hours. It is half term next week. There is not many jobs where you

can have, you know every two months or so, have a week off, it doesn't

exist. So, you know in the long-run it ends up costing more money.

cut wouldn't come into effect until after the next general election and

it isn't yet clear which benefits would be included.

It with also most likely only apply to new claimants.

But some charities say families in work could end up losing out, too.

Six out of ten poor children live with a work parent. These are the

strivers, working really hard, in low-paid jobs. They have already

had cuts to tax credit, child benefit and housing benefit and so

on and they claim benefits this. Policy of two children would affect

people in work as much as it affects people out of work.

While the ideas of a benefits cap does play well with potential

voters now, it's how it works in practice that could make or break

Conservative MP, Philip Davis and Kate Bell from the Child Poverty

Action Group are here to go head- to-head.

Kate Bell evening working families are having to delay having kids

because of the economic circumstances. So it s it fair to

It is not clear what the aim of this policy is. It does not say

very much my and we do not think anyone is having children based on

whether they get more benefits or not. It does not save much money,

it does not affect those getting benefits already, it is politics.

It will save some money by definition but it is mainly about

fairness. Everybody needs to make decisions about whether they can

afford to have children. Lots of people make that decision but some

people are not making that decision. They are free to have as many

children as they like, get more and more in benefits, pay for a bigger

House than they have, and other people cannot afford to decide that.

Those people making those decisions are having to put their hand deeper

into their pockets in taxation to pay for those who do not make those

decisions. We really need to tackle some of the messier. There is a

tiny proportion of families on out- of-work benefits to have more than

two children. 95% of them have two children are less. The other thing

is, when you have your children you do not know what will happen to you.

We just came out of a double-dip recession, many people lost their

jobs, they did not expect to be bringing up children on benefits,

should we be penalising them on that? The point about that his

people need to take responsibility for their own decisions and their

own lives. They cannot expect other people do forever pick up the tab

on the back of their decisions. We all know the world is not safe for

people in their jobs, jobs are vulnerable, they are decisions we

need to take ourselves, we need to take responsibility. We cannot

expect the taxpayer to pay more in benefits to pick up the tab

whatever people's circumstances, people need to make more

responsible decisions. The welfare budget has grown massively over the

last 10 or 15 years. We need to make decisions that make it fairer.

I suppose those on the side of the argument say the welfare system is

providing a perverse incentive for people on benefit to have more

children. There is absolutely no evidence that is going on. The

Department for Work and Pensions look into this a few years ago, it

produced a report and found there was minimal or no effect of welfare

on fertility, so this idea of a perverse incentive, we have no

evidence. When Iain Duncan Smith speaks about at clustering of large

families at the lowest incomes, he has no evidence for that? We have

not seen the numbers. Whereas the evidence? We do see this happening,

we read reports in the papers of families with eight or 10 kids on

benefits, expecting to be housed in bigger Houses. My constituents come

to me and talk about these people living down the street from them.

It builds up resentment among many working-class walkers who are going

out. -- working-class voters. They see other people in the same street

not making the stuff decisions. They are sitting back and expecting

the taxpayer to pick up the tab. That is simply unfair. It is really

important that in emotive areas we make the policy based on evidence,

not rumours are a one-off story in the papers. The vast majority of

families on benefits have two or less children. We also know that

most people stay on Jobseeker's Allowance for less than a year, 90%

arrived of work for less than a year. The idea that we have people

on benefits having more and more children is just a myth. What if a

moderate -- what if a mother of three subtly becomes widowed, what

would happen to her? The details need to be ironed out. It is quite

an important detail. People who already have a child might have

twins. Those things can be dealt with by exception. Exceptions can

be dealt with in the benefits system, but we should have a set

policy that is the norm. We can deal with exceptions when they come

along in individual cases. But I think Iain Duncan Smith is

absolutely right. He has observed a problem that lots of my

constituents think is undermining the welfare state and he is

bringing forward a sensible policy that would restore confidence.

results we have in this suggest that most people think what he says

his spare. Again, we have met said there. People are mistaken? It is

really important to look at the evidence. The idea that people on

benefits having extra children, it is a myth. There is lots of

insecurity, everyone is worried about where their money is going,

but to have these policies that target people and ultimately the

effect is to target children. That is not the right way to goal.

of the welfare budget is spent on the elderly, so here you are

targeting child related benefits but you continue to pay winter fuel

payments to millionaire pensioners. That is a different issue. It is

the same. It is spareness. We are trying to reward people who do the

right thing and penalise people who do the wrong thing. The welfare

system at the moment disincentive for people to do the wrong thing

and penalises those doing the right thing. What Iain Duncan Smith has

been doing, what he is proposing is to rebalance the welfare system to

reward those who make responsible decisions and does not reward those

who take irresponsible decisions. This will penalise children whose

parents are unlucky enough to lose their jobs. Thank you. Coming up in

20 minutes, I will be looking at the week ahead with the political

panel. Until then, the Sunday Politics across the UK.

Welcome to Sunday Politics in the capital. Coming up, our

redevelopment of Earls Court will bring jobs and schools to the area,

but were the people living on estates due for demolition unduly

pressurised into supporting the demands? They said we could be put

anywhere in London, Clapham, Croydon, other places. He said we

could even be put in a hotel, and that scared me. With me is the

Conservative MP for Calders cream, and the Liberal Democrat former

health minister. -- Golders Green. Is the NHS in London safe in the

government's hands? There are plans to rationalise healthcare across

the capital. It is clear there are mighty battles ahead. At a party

that is the plan to have you were large centres of excellence. -- at

the heart of it. Around the capital, health service chiefs are facing

growing calls rethink in the face of mergers and closures. In July,

the South London Healthcare Trust, which includes the Queen Mary's in

Sidcup, became the first trust to be put into administration by the

Government. They ran up debts of �150 million. The administrators

will announce their plans on Monday. Meanwhile, NHS south-west London,

they have put up a local panel that will close to local maternity unit

at St Hellier us. The former health minister has attacked it. He said

it is dangerous. It is north-west London where it glazers -- the

scale is most dramatic. They will close four out of nine Accident and

Emergency units. In Ealing, the plan comes after a year in which

admissions have gone up 22%. NHS chiefs argue it is about creating

fewer large centres, they say this Let's doctor our political

correspondent. This is clearly a minefield. What happens next?

a minefield are a time bomb. We have competing demands, clinicians

are saying they need change, there is an ageing population, we need to

save �5 billion across London. We cannot carry on. Compare that to

what local people are saying, they say they do not want the local

services to disappear, it is difficult. The timebomb factor, in

April, the London health authority will be abolished and replaced.

These decisions come to ahead in February, when Jeremy Hunt will

have all these consultations on his desk. Can this be characterised as

the rational against the emotional? What would make sense for the whole

of London against what people feel about their local hospital? Yes, it

can. The NHS says it cannot go on, the need to make savings otherwise

things will fall over. We will have accident and emergency units closed

overnight because there is a lack of staff. On the other hand you

have people saying if they take things away they will get worse

care. It is a simple argument but for the politicians it is really

difficult, because there is no good enclosing services. In north-west

London, does it make sense to have so much here? If you were designing

north-west London you would put three or four hospitals, not nine.

London has grown up in an odd way over the years and people have got

used to having major hospitals next to them. The NHS say that cannot go

on. A final point on a different crisis, in south-east London.

special trust administrator who went in will make his announcement

on Monday. He will look at the whole of south London from what we

understand, and he will suggest that another accident and emergency

in Lewisham is going to have to close. That is the source of a

growing campaign among MPs in all parties. Thank you. I enjoyed by

daughter Spencer, part of the group that came up with the plan to close

four accident and emergency units in London. That would mean an age

year -- an area the size of Leeds left without an accident and

emergency. That is a gross exaggeration. We have just finished

consultation, we are analysing the results. If you look at our

hospitals we are closing, Charing Cross is two miles from Westminster,

Ealing Hospital is 3.5 miles. They do not leave the population without

local services. We needed because admissions to Ealing accident and

emergency are up by 20%. We are fully aware we need local services,

and we are recommending urgent care centres, most of that growth is in

those that go to those centres. That is people who cannot go to the

GP, they are not going to major trauma. How can you convince

people? Petitions are coming, you know what is happening. What we are

describing is investing and making hospitals bigger and better, the

services we have is variable, some of the accident and emergency units

have no paediatrics, general surgery, behind the front door.

People assume they have everything and that is not the case. We need a

consistent, large major hospital that provides better care. How much

our politicians helping or hindering? They do not want these

hospital closures either. It is difficult for politicians, I hope

they will get on board and explained that very rational

changes we are making. We can demonstrate we're going to save

lives and improve care. In the past, centralised services, we save lives

every year through changes, and it was opposed by politicians.

Clinicians said it was the best thing to do. I hope politicians

will listen to us. Kenya reassure - - can you reassure you go stages

that these changes are necessary? would be prepared to make the case,

but the problem is on the evidence, the case does not stand up. They

say they can take 60% of people out of south-west London, I did those

units, it is not deliverable. You're losing one hospital out of

four. The clinicians are saying it is possible. Why do you know

better? The advisory team, who are clinic team, looked at the

proposals, they said that underpinning them is the idea that

60% going to accident and emergency do not need to be there, that has

never been achieved anywhere in the country, it is not safe. I these

undeliverable? I am not across all the details but the fatal flaw in

these reconfiguration of health care is the lack credible

leadership and they do not offer a credible leadership vision. It is

the Strategic Health Authority looking at London as a whole and

you are protecting local interests. You are putting that ahead of what

is best for London. I am looking at the facts and the bases of the

evidence suggests they do not add up. Across London, these are not

about -- these are about getting alongside community leaders, seen

the case for change and making that case. Most reconfiguration has

You were Health Minister. Due shi it should shall torn up across

London -- do you think? I can talk as a condition constituencycy MP

looking in great local detail at my local were posals, and on the

grounds of fact... -- proposals. So you think they should be rolled out

across London You have to look at the facts and the merits on the

ground. That's what NHS London is looking, at London at a whole and

there will be uncomfortable decisions? In my assessment in

south-west London, we have had chaos reign because of the way they

have run a demerger of my local trust which has been derailed

because of the of the attempt to close an A&E department Dhas knead

uncertain and unclear. Morale has been undermined -- -- it has made

it uncertain and unclear. Case Farm is closing, you are happy to see

that happening. There is a strange conundrum. Six months ago when we

were debating NHS reforms, the public say the trust the doctors.

The doctors are now saying we need to consolidate health services and

we are saying don't trust them. There is a conuntrum there. The

starting point is, -- conundru. But you are right, NHS London has a

strategic view. But they don't sell the vision or the rational. When

you had Ruth Kranel a few weeks ago in a high-handed manner saying that

politicians get in the way and have no role to play it, shows a high-

handed manner. But we have too many hospitals. I don't say we have that,

I don't have a problem with consolidation as long as clinicians

spend time explaining why it is good for patient health care. I got

it wrong. I opposed a unit. I was wrong but they didn't explain it.

I'm happy to explain it if clinicians get off their high horse.

Paul bur sko is speaking of a different area. -- Paul Burscough.

What do you say about to the clinicians. For north-west London,

this has been led by all the GPs and medical trusts, whether they

are under risk of changes or not. So we think tgs clinically-led. Our

experience and analysis of urgent care and A&E attendances is that 60

people are going urgent care centres and not A&E which has been

put in place over the last several years. Thank you for joining us. It

is one of the largest building projects in the capital, an �8

billion redevelopment the Earls Court but in the determination to

get this huge scheme under way, have people living on two estates,

which will have to be demolished, been subjected to undue pressure to

back it. Hammersmith and Fulham council launched an investigation

that residents were offered priority housing in exchange for

their support during the public consultation process. This is the

master plan, an art igs's impression of the future of Earls

Court. -- artist's impression. It is one of the capital's largest and

most important building projects. But at the moment it is home to

these estates, earmarked for demolition. Earlier this year Tommy,

a resident, said a man in a suit knocked on his door and told him

there would be consequences if he didn't put down a positive response

on the council's consultation. said they were going to knock them

down and you could be put anywhere in London, he mentioned Clapham and

Croydon and other places. He said, "You could even be put into a

hotel." That got me scared. As a result, Tommy said he said yes to

demolition but looking back, he isn't sure who his visitor was?.

knocked a at my neighbour's door. She told him to go away. He has

been around a lot of people. There are lots of people he has been to,

offering them flats. I don't know who he is. Other residents talk

about the existence of an early- movers' list, a compilation of

supporters of the demolition who had been promised a priority move

out of the estate. This man says he was one of them. Once I found out

the early movers' list was being taken seriously by the council, for

a while it played in my mind, am I on it, should I be on it? I had to

think about it. I said to an officer - am I on the list? And I

was told by that officer - yes, of course you are, Richard. That was a

council officer. Yes. He later resigned from the steering group,

saying he believed the list to be immoral. It was offering residents

an early move on to the Sea grove Road in exchange for support for

the statutory consultation that took place. Last month the

Metropolitan Police were handed this document by local campaigners,

they say it is aaway based on interviews with 20 residents all of

who talk about the existence of an early movers' list. The police have

told us they are considering whether it merits launching an

investigation. This week the council launched an investigation

of their own into the allegations and it is hoped to report back

before Christmas. Whatever the result it may not be enough to

please some opponents of the redevelopment. We invited

Hammersmith and Fulham council to come on to the programme but they

said they didn't want to prejudice the outcome of the investigation

but provide us with a statement in I'm joined by the Labour Leader of

the Labour Group at Hammersmith and Fulham, councillor Steve Cowan,

welcome to you. This is a decision now, anyway this planning decision

and the wider picture thau, can't overturn. I mean it's happening. --

that you can't overturn. What are you trying to achieve? There is a

case going through the High Court on the consultation and the bit of

saw in your film, the allegations of what happened, what happened

during the period of the statutory consultation. So I think there may

well be way that is this can be blocked. The central issue is that

the allegations that council officers were involved in and

partners were involved in making homes for support offers, appeared

in January of this year. And at no point in the nine months did the

council take those allegations seriously, despite them being made

by a former alIan partner of theirs. So your view leshes wanting to know

exactly what was it that stopped the council investigating it. -- so

your viewers will be wanting to know. But valid for a council to

employ people, or the council officers to be going around talking

about the benefits of regenerating, knocking down this estate and

knocking on peep's doors. That would be valid. -- on people's

doors. That would be valid. Initially that's what the council

said it was doing. Then I asked if they had been involved in anyway in

putting together a VVIP list or early movers' list. They said it

was their partners in the scheme. Now in your film and your

introduction you read out a bit that the council says it was doing

the collection of the early movers' list. That does raise questions

about what impression that created for people being offered the new

homes and does that pollute the statutory consultation that it

undertook during that period. this is a scheme that is going to

bring so much economic good to this area, isn't it? If you were elected

and you were running that council in 2014, would you try to stop this

development? We would. This investment coming?. We would. We

are not against redevelopment. Labour has developed and

regenerated whole areas, Westfield was done under Labour's watch. What

we are against is if you are going to develop 7,500 homes, only 760 of

those are generally affordable. And of those there is no compunction on

the developer to build any for the first ten years. You have to ask

yourself is this coming to the strategic needs of a borough in

addressing the London housing crisis or is it the benefit of a

Tory ideological programme But the reality is, if there are legal

challenges, there is nothing you can do about it, plans are plans.

Well there are things you could do. There are legal contracts, you

could be sued. We would came to do that. Contracts are contracts, we

will have to see what happens with that. You have to remember that

Conservative members of the council flew to the French Riviera in 2008

to meet with the developer about this site. So this is a scheme long

in running, it's been put together by private meetings, most of which

they have denied throughout the time. I think it was on your

programme in 2009 they denied it and when they come about putting

together a programme, they don't give a ballot. They do a

consultation where four to one of residents consulted vote against

and even then they drive ahead. It doesn't sound democratic. Neither

of you two are going to know the details but on the principle, what

you have heard, the possibility of offering people priority housing if

they agree to support it? I'm not sure about priority housing, I was

leader when Brent Cross Cricklewood went through. There is nothing

unusual about part of the consultation saying you will be

rehoused in better or larger properties. What about getting

early or priority moving I think that has yet to be proved. As far

as I can tell, Deloittes have been appointed to look into this. The

Leader of the Opposition on hammer Smith let the cat out of the bag,

the real objective here is out of 7,000 new homes only 700, the

existing ten rants being rehoused, the objective is gentification. I

think that underlines the opposition. And Paul bur sko on the

principle of offering an incentive It goes to the motivation behind

that. I think that is a legitimate issue. If the motivation was to say

- we will give you first move, would that be acceptable? I think

there needs to be investigations. I don't need it hear the details.

What I have heard raises questions in my mind about what the

objectives where with this development. Well thank you very

much for joining us today. It is your chance to review some of the

other stories making the news this week, here's that week in 60

At 8.92 billion the Olympics reached the finishing line on time

and under Budget according to the Sports Minister. It was also

revealed a total of �1 billion had been giving to private company

LOCOG to organise the games. Car manufacturer Ford announced it is

to close a number of factories, including a plant in dagna. Unions

are warning up to 1,000 jobs are on the line -- Dagenham. There has

been a nearly 60% increase in people needing few handouts

according to Fairshare. The charity is currently helping to feed 5,000

people a day in London. It is a green light for bus on Oxford

Street. Campaigners want to get rid of the wall of red double Deccers

on Europe's busiest shopping route. But transport bosses say they are

going nowhere. The mayor has promised �600,000 for the London

annual gay pride waipbts community groups to take over its running.

After financial troubles last year, the future of gay pride now looks

in the pink. We are told that we finally have

come out of recession in the capital and then we see what

happens in Dagenham. We are not out of the woods, are we? I would

always say that statistically we are out of recession but I don't

think the recession will be a straightline recoverry. I think it

will be a bumpy ride. Some sectors will do well. Others not so well.

Retail sales doing really. Restaurants are doing well but

house something still difficult. It will be bumpy and patchy. Paul,

give me an example of something locally that independent kailgts to

you that we are seeing those shoots -- indicates Well in my

constituency we have seen unemployment fall month-by-month.

We have the highest employment rate anywhere in London and Sutton is

identified as one of the places people want to move to because of

good employment opportunities and good education. Full-time jobs.

Full-time and part-time. This is a very difficult recovery. Mervyn

King the chairman of the Bank of England made it clear at the outset

of this administration, that whoever was in power now, because

of the mess they inherited from Labour, they had a choppy future.

We are told because of the Olympics and the London effect, it's