13/09/2011 Daily Politics

Afternoon, folks, and welcome to the Daily Politics of. The row over

the government scheme to change its planning policy is hotting up. The

coalition promised to put communities in the driving seat,

critics say the plan could cause irreversible damage to England's

green and pleasant land. Who is right?

Just how united is the United Kingdom? We will take a look at why

the Unionist parties in Scotland are doing so badly. Together, on

Ed Miliband has just made a speech to the TUC, promising to be a

critical friend of the unions. You can hear how much they like his

criticism! We will look at how he did. And they have had their

expenses cut, their pay frozen, and now some of them can lose their

constituencies. We will be speaking to some MPs facing an uncertain

future following the proposed The aim man who knows what it was

like to be a Labour politician who was successful in Scotland, Jack

McConnell. Welcome to the programme. Let's take a look at his leader, Ed

Miliband, who has been addressing Despite being heckled over his

decision not to back strikes for pension reform and his support for

academy schools, Mr Miliband warned the union should not be "the

enemies of change". Of course the right to indust reel action will be

necessary and is important as a As you know better than I do, just

15% of the private sector workforce is represented by trade unions. You

know that you need to change if that is to change. That was Ed

Miliband. He was heckled... His grasp of Education and Grammar...

We will get letters about that. We will send them to the Labour leader.

Now, he was heckled there, perhaps unsurprisingly, because he said it

was a mistake, the strikes in the summer, but Mark Serwotka, the

leader of the public services union, said the speech was a misjudgment.

Was he right? It seems to me that sometimes Labour leaders like to be

heckled at the TUC because it gives them a wider appeal outside that

forum. Was his top language the right language to use? Is it time

to distance himself from the union's first marked from what I

saw, he was probably trying to strike the right tone. He said

there would be times when we would work together and times when we

would disagree, and we would have to live at that. The bigger

challenge on these occasions is to lay out a vision for the country. I

have not seen the whole speech, I am not sure whether he attempt to

that. Arguably, he owes his leadership to the unions. To what

extent is he in their pockets? don't think he is in the pockets of

everybody. Is he not? I think the result last September left him with

a problem in terms of where support from the unions was. He needs to

make sure he is working for the wider appeal and not just returning

to the base, because the base is not big enough to win an election,

and it is not right in principle. But has he got a problem, though?

He may want to distance himself, but does he have the power to

reform the unions? They give 80% 7 -- 87% of donations to the Labour

Party. They can determine the results of the leadership election.

Haven't they got him? I think he probably does. I was surprised when

he managed to secured the change to the Shadow Cabinet elections. I

thought that was quite a brave move, a controversial one, and he

achieved it quite easily. I think a new leader, and he is relatively

new, as a lot of power and momentum. The question is how he will use it.

The challenge is to move on from the record of the last two years

and used it positively to lay out a vision for the future, not to get

stuck in what happened in the past. Thank you. Why we were talking, we

have just heard from the House of Commons that James Murdoch will be

recalled to the Culture Select Committee while they continue his

interrogation. You will remember we carry that live on the Daily

Politics, his appearance with his father. They will have him back a

loan at the lawyer's seemingly contradicted his evidence. -- Be

alone. Could Jack McConnell's period in Scotland be the last time

a Labour politician holds the pose while Scotland is still in the

United Kingdom? Alex Salmond has promised a referendum on

independence, but not quite now, perhaps because most polls show

that an independent vote would be a gamble for the nationalists. Even

so, the SNP's own ratings are well above the union parties, and in a

moment we would get the thoughts of Jack McConnell and Murdo Fraser,

the guy in the running to become the next leader of the Scottish

Conservatives. He is campaigning to wind them up, which is an

interesting way to become leader. But first, here is Adam Fleming.

These Scottish National Party's most recent victory, preventing the

nation's favourite fizzy drink being watered down by the EU when

they considered limits on how much colouring you could put in one

product. The issue of independence is still bubbling away as well.

When Alex Salmond led the SNP to one unprecedented majority in the

elections to the Scottish parliament in May, it became

inevitable that there would be a referendum on whether Scotland

should stay part of the UK. When the referendum happens, the

campaign will be run by this Westminster MP, reckons that

history is on his side. 20 years ago, people said there would not

even the devolution, and then we had a referendum and there was. And

then people said, there is a Scottish parliament, but there will

never be an SNP government, and now there is. People say there will

never be an independence referendum, but there will be. What are the

tastes of the Scottish public? A poll for the Herald found that 39%

agreed with independence, 38% disagree, the first time it has

ever been that way around in this series. Their mind that lead of 1%

is well within the margin of error. -- bear in mind. The nationalists

will not be swapping to champagne just yet, but they are celebrating

that their opponents are losing their fears. Since the election,

the leaders of Labour, the Lib Dems and the Tories in Scotland have all

stood down or announced they are going to, meaning that focus has

been on campaigns for the leadership rather than for a future

referendum. Scotland's only Tory MP, also a Scotland Office minister,

says it is now time to toughen up the message. The Government is

already making the case for the union. We are not neutral on the

issue of Scottish independence, but I think it is clear that we need to

set out more clearly to people in Scotland exactly what the UK

government does in Scottish terms. David Cameron's preferred solution

is the Scotland Bill, currently going through the -- currently

going through Westminster, which would give more tax-raising powers

to Holyrood. Jack McConnell, as you have seen,

is in the studio with as in Westminster, and Murdo Fraser, the

deputy leader of the Conservative Party, he is, by the look of that

Crane, in Glasgow. That is right. How does separating the Scottish

Conservatives from the UK Conservatives make the case against

separatism? Because we need a stronger centre-right Unionist

Party in Scotland, and what we currently have, the reality is that

there are many people and Scotland who share our political values on

issues like enterprise, taxation and law and order and so on, but

they do not on to vote for the Conservative Party, because we have

a huge identity problem. People think we are controlled from London

and we do not but Scotland first. I think the best way to save the

Union is to have a strong centre- right Unionist Party taking on the

SNP and campaigning for Scotland's place in the UK. We have to accept

that the Conservative Party in Scotland has not done that well. I

think it is a disgrace that in the last three general elections, we

have only managed to return one member of parliament to Westminster.

Unless we change drastically, the prospects for the future are not

looking very good. Other than changing a name, what else would

change? First of all, this is not a name change. It is not disbanding

of rebranding. You would still be the Scottish Conservatives?

would, of course have a new name, but we are having a new party, and

we will have a relationship with the UK Conservative Party, in the

same way that the Conservatives in Bavaria have a relationship with

the Christian Democrats in the rest of Germany. We would be Sister

parties. That would allow us to articulate the Scottish interest. I

think the key difference at the heart are the party would be a

belief in devolution and decentralisation of power. In the

past, the Conservative Party was always hostile to devolution. That

has allowed power of bonus to paint us as anti-Scottish, and that has

led to our vote slipping away. We have been champion devolution and

decentralisation as a way to defeat nationalism. You mentioned Bavaria.

Can I point out that Bavaria is the richest part of Germany? It is also

the most right-wing part of Germany, and it is not looking for

independence. What does it have in common with Scotland? Scotland has

many natural resources, as you probably know, and a lot of

industries that are doing pretty well at the moment. It is the most

left-wing part of Britain and per- capita incomes are a percentage of

those in Bavaria. There is no evidence at all that Scotland is

the most left-wing part of Britain. People may vote for parties of the

left, but if you look at social attitudes, people's opinions are

very similar to those in the rest of the UK, and it is a sign of the

failure of the Scottish Conservative Party in recent years

that the only party of the centre- right in Scotland has not been able

to attract the votes are lots of people who share our political

values. That is why we need to change. Do you buy that plan?

think it is interesting, but it is... It may be part of the

solution. Their biggest problems since 1997 is a complete lack of

confidence. I think they have failed, in some ways, similar to

some of the labour difficulties more recently in Scotland, they

have failed to articulate a series of policies that came together as a

centre-right vision for Scotland. I think in many ways both main

parties allowed the nationalists to fill both their spaces by appearing

to be more both Social Democrat and centre-right, because both main

parties were failing to declare a vision for Scotland that was in

that space. To get to fundamentals, isn't it hard for his centre-right

party in Scotland, whatever it is called for its links with the

Conservatives here, it is hard for it to prosper because of the very

devolution settlement that you agreed to? You agreed to a

parliament that spend �30 billion a year and doesn't raise one penny of

that money. It all comes in a grand. I think that makes it very hard for

a centre-right party to get anywhere, because the centre-right

message all over the world is you have to balance tax and spending,

spending and tax. We could have done that anyway. I think the

taxation changes in Scotland will improve that situation and a return

to at least more normal politics, but at any one of the last four

Scottish elections the Scottish Conservatives could have proposed a

cut in income tax and a cut in public expenditure. They were not

brave enough to do it, and they paid a price for that. There is

space for a centre-right party, but they need to fill that space

aggressively. Murdo Fraser, the accent that Jack McConnell has said

the unionist parties have been asleep on the job? -- do you

accept? Will you join with Jack McConnell, who wants to try and put

together a broadly based movement to save the Union? It is essential

we have a broadly based movement to save the Union. That needs to be

across all political parties and reach beyond politics and reach out

to people in the business community and in civic Scotland who share our

view. I am in no doubt about that, and that is something we want to

support broader. As far as his criticism goes, I think the problem

for our party has been, even when we have had good policy ideas that

the public have agreed with, because they have been such a

barrier in their mind to voting for a party with a Conservative

identity, they have not been prepared to listen to what we have

got to say. Changing the party as I propose, setting up a new party is

not a silver bullet, because we are still going to have to have the

right policies and the right personalities and the right

communication and the right message. What it will do for the first time

in probably 20 years in Scotland is it will give as a foot in the dock,

and people might start listening to what we have to say. Unfortunately,

you know, they have not been doing that in recent days. Alex Salmond

will lead the case for independence. Who will be the case for the union?

I think that is still to be determined. There needs to be a

figure of popular appeal, perhaps out with the parties. I think there

is a need to redirect the whole strategy. I think the strategy that

was used in the past by some to try and almost impose a 1950s

Britishness and Scotland failed. Gordon Brown's efforts? I think the

strategy... I'll take that as a yes. The idea of threatening people

economically, although there are big worries about it, it does not

work. We need a positive strategy that actually articulate why

Scotland is a stronger and better place inside the UK. Are you going

to be the next leader of what may be called the Scottish

All I can tell you is since I made my proposal public last weekend, I

have had a tremendous and positive response from members of the party

and perhaps more important, people who are not members of the party,

people interested in coming and joining our new project. If members

of the party have ambition for the future, they will support my

leadership bid. We got the message. Keep us posted. Thank you. Anyone

who's tried to find housing in the last couple of years, particularly

in the south-east of England, won't be surprised to hear that we're in

dire need of more homes. That most people kind of agree on. However

deciding where to build is trickier. The Government is consulting on a

new planning policy which it claims will make the system less

bureaucratic, simpler and so on. But it's got a lot of people hot

under the collar. Jo's got more. Yes, just before the election, the

Conservatives promised a radical reboot, claiming that the planning

system was broken and pledging to put local communities in the

driving seat. The new coalition swept away leb's regional spatial

stratjids, which the previous government used to determine house

building targets. Over the summer, the ministers announced their new

national policy framework, simplified from 1,000 pages to 52,

with the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Opposition

soon mounted from the narblg trust, the RSPB and the Cambaign to

Protect Rural England, who described the proposal and a -- as

a threat tot countryside. Bob Neil said it was a smear campaign by

left-wingers. George Osborne and Eric Pickles pledges to plough on,

saying the current system is an arbitrary break on growth. Let's

speak to Shaun Spiers from the Cambaign to Protect Rural England.

The Government has tried to make clear that what's it's doing is

giving local more power in terms of planning putting them in the

driving seat. Is that wrong? It's not wrong in principle. What

they've come up with is a document which has knighted all developers

in favour of it. Every environmental group I've come

across is deeply alarmed by what they're proposing. Far from putting

local communities in the driving suit this is the state siding with

developers. Do you accept the planning system had to be

simplified and that in the current situation we're in, we have to do

something to promote growth and let planning go through? We certainly

agree that the system should be simplified in principle, theres no

problem with shrinking down from 1,000 pages to 50 and so on.

Clearly we need lots more houses. But the planning system was

delivering 207,000 houses, a net increase of 207,000 houses, in 2008.

The curve was rising. Then the housing slump happened. Same with

growth, you know, strong economies in Europe have strong planning

systems. What the Government is proposing is to move from a German

or Scandinavian style planning system to a grok or Spanish style.

It was on the curve upwards before the slump, now they're trying to

regain the house building an the growth that had started beforehand.

You can see why people would say this is any more byism, they don't

want that sort of growth happening. CPRE has been outspoken in our

support for more affordable rural housing. There's no evidence that

it's the planning system that is holding back house building. The

Government has cut its own social house prog Graeme for reasons we

understand about controlling the deficit, and people aren't buying

and the banks aren't lending. That's why houses aren't being

built. Shaun Spiers, thank you. We're joined bit planning minister,

Greg Clark. Welcome tot Daily Politics. The Government has said

that local people will be in the driving seat with this new set of

planning proposals, but it also says "That local authorities should

approve all individual proposal wherever possible". If you read on,

it says if there isn't a local plan, the local plan must be sovereign,

if there isn't a local plan you should have a means of deciding.

Any development that is prose -- proposed has to be sustainable. It

can build on the green belt. It has time prove the design standards.

the green belt will remain as sacrosanct after the chaifrpgz as

it is now? It's strengthened. At the moment the regional strategies

which we are getting rid of, impose reviews to delete or adjust some of

these green belts. We're taking that threat away and giving a new

protection that communities will have to designate green space that

they value within towns and cities, so that they'll be able to protect

them for the future. It's really important that the planning system

should be unchanged in its commitment to protect the ordinary

space that's we value. In your draft here, the words are all in

favour of development, I mean it's planning, presumption in favour of

development, you add the word sustainable, because every

politician does these days. Local plans, you need to respond to rapid

shifts in demand. You need to approve development proposal that

accord with statutory plans. Grant permission where the plan is absent,

silent or indeterminate. It weighs things in favour of development.

don't think it does. It sets out the conditions that have to apply

if you have that presumption. They say you can't damage the green belt.

You must promote higher standards of design and can't damage town

centres. There's a whole list of problems that could present

themselves for which the planning system, as it always has done, is

there to stop happening. We all agree that we need a simpler

planning system. If you have 1300 pages, only the specialists then

can get a handle on it. We're trying to, by getting rid of the

imposition, give power to local people, but to do that you need it

make it intelligible to people. Have you urged property developers

to lobby the Prime Minister on this? I've said to anyone who

speaks to me that they should make their views known. This is a debate.

It's good that we're having a debate. If you had 1300 pages of

planning policy, it's very difficult for people to have a

debate. You've urged the British Property Federation to lobbery.

Prime Minister on this? No I haven't. Can I quote the theme from

their policy officer, Greg Clark and his officials are deeply

concerned that the level of opposition provoked, worried that

Number Ten might be spooked by this mobilisation of Middle England and

do a U-turn like forestry. I've never had any concern about that.

Why did she write that? I don't know. The whole Government has said

in its manifesto and before that it's really important that we start

to unlock the planning system, to be able to build the homes we need.

If you have a situation in which the first-time buyer, without

parental support is now in their late 30s, we're taking from the

next generation the opportunities that my generation and your

generation had to own a home in which to bring up a family. We

agree, Shaun Spiers and I had a conversation a few days ago, we

agree the system needs to be simplified. I think it's important

that we reassert that the fundamental purpose of the planning

system to balance growth with the protection for our natural and

historic environment is not going to change. That is there in black

and white. Can you see why people are nervous when someone like John

Rhodes says "It's not meant to be the opportunity for communities to

resist development. It's meant to be part of a strategy which

encourages greater development." So much for localism. Our analysis is

if you impose on people from above, this raises their hackles and

people, quite rightly, impose the imposition of hundreds of identicut

homes in which they have no say. If you trust local people to assess

what they need, design the homes in collaboration with the local

community, I I you can get tot situation we all want to see in

which communities are providing homes for the future but doing so

in a way that enhances the local environment. When I used to travel

around Scotland, planning was a huge issue. Businesses felt they

couldn't get the proper planning permissions. You did something

about that. Interestingly we did it pretty much with all-party

agreement. Within the last six months or so as mine time as First

Minister in 2007, we passed new laws, then the Nationalist

government then enacted them and pursued the regulations, broadly

with all-party support. The main objective was to speed up decision

making, not just to deal with some of the issues around how many

regulations there were, but actually how efficient were the

local planning departments. My experience, one of the biggest

problems for everybody, both local people and businesses, is the

bureaucracy and lack of speed when making decisions. If we get the

overall framework right, I think the Government is not necessarily

way off the mark here, then that's one thing. Actually making the

whole system more efficient seems to be absolutely key. And if you

get your new planning proposals and development is agreed under these

new proposals, we will not see the hypocritical spectacle of Cabinet

ministers opposing development in their own constituencys. It's

always reasonable to oppose bad verplt. I covered that. If you go

through all this, if they oppose development in their own backyard.

The decision will be made bit local Council. That's how it should have

been over the last few years. shall watch with interest. Greg

Clark, thank you for coming in today.

It's a tough time to be an MP. Yesterday the Boundary Commission

proposed a shake up of Britain's electoral map, the plan is to cut

the number of MPs, equalise the Parliamentary constituencies and

end Labour's built-in advantage. So far we've had the plans for England

and Northern Ireland. Scotland and Wales come later. They seem to have

worried MPs of all parties. Who is facing the biggest upset? From the

Conservatives, Ken Clarke and Iain Duncan Smith face the most

disruption. For the Liberal Democrats, senior figures including

Chris Huhne and Vince Cable will have to win redrawn seats. Labour

faces the biggest upheaval with Ed Balls and Andy Burnham looking

vulnerable. I'm joined from central lobby by two new MPs expecting a

big change in their parts of the country, Andrew Percy from the

Conservatives and Alison McGovern for Labour. Thanks for joining us

on the programme. How likely is it that you could lose, you'll lose

your constituency and you'll have to fight for your seat? My seat

will be divided up three ways on the first maps. In the past when

they've done boundary reviews do change. I've been in a situation

where my constituency goes three ways. It could leave me looking for

one of those three or without a seat. You could be looking for a

new job? Very well. If you know of anything going, let me know.

will! I suppose one thooz ask, why did you support the proposal in the

first place snfrplt I did and I didn't. The principle is right of

reducing down the number of MPs. We do have a very heavily numbered

legislature in this country. We have big variation. The principle

is right. You can argue whether or not we should have put the Boundary

Commission in quite it strait jacket we have. It is about

fairness isn't it, it's about having more similar sized

constituencies with votes having more equal weighting. You can't

disagree, can you? The problem with this billuals set from the very

start, as Andrew was saying, with the strait jacket on the Boundary

Commission in terms of numbers. No regard is being taken of

communities in my constituency now who are going to be faced with

being represented by an MP with a huge constituency, place that's

take 90 minutes to drive to. So it's really some of the options

that has been thrown up yesterday are unsustainable in terms of the

tradition with the constituency link. That's why people are as

cross as they are about it. Briefly, across the country people would

think 50 fewer seats is a good thing. It costs less. Interestingly,

we have got lots more members of the House of Lords, there's a

disparity with what's going on in Parliament. I think the thing that

people are really cross about is the inability of the Boundary

Commission to take care of local community links. That's what the

debate will be about. I have to stop you there. Thank you both.

That's it for today. Special thanks to Jack McConnell for being our