09/02/2012 Daily Politics

Good afternoon, folks bs welcome to the Daily Politics. In a few

minutes, we expect to hear that interest rates are on hold yet

again for the 36th month in a row and that the Bank of England is

going to print yet more money to buy up Government debt, all in the

hope of stimulating growth. If or when it happens, you will be the

first to know. Fabio Capello resigns as England

football manager, the Football Association is holding a press

conference right now. Should his replacement be an

Englishman? Ken Livingstone is no stranger to

controversy but now he's gone and said the Tory party is or was

riddled with gays. There's outrage. Yes, there is

outrage! Is any of it genuine?

And politicians love their bikes and now there's news from France

that cyclers there will be allowed to jump red lights. What's new? Is

that the sort of thing you would like to see her?

-- see here? Drivers jump red lights in Paris,

why shouldn't cyclists. cyclists do here anyway. All that

in the next hour of public service broadcasting at its finest.

With us for the duration, the leader of the UK Independence Party,

Nigel Farage. Welcome to back to the programme. Thank you.

comments or thoughts or just got nothing else to do and you want to

say something about what we are going to discuss, you can tweet

your comments. # DP. Most of you watching yesterday will

remember that the Prime Minister is currently wrapped up at a Nordic

summit in Sweden. Now what he said there this morning is that he was

looking for measures to accelerate the number of women working for top

British firms, saying he wants a target of around 30%. He's also

said he won't rule out quotas as a way of getting there. But not just

yet. A good idea, Nigel Farage? It's not his idea, of course. The

yarpblt voted for this in principle and legislation, we are told, will

be brought forward shortly. The 30% quota won't be a Government

decision but something imposed on us from Brussels. Is it a good idea

though? No, I don't believe in quotas. While it may seem unfair

that fewer women reach FTSE company, the fact is that there are not as

many women who want to do the very demanding sfen day a week jobs. A

lot of women have children and it's difficult in the corporate jungle

to get to the top if you have to take time off two or three times in

your career. If you look at parental leave and flexible working

hours and flexible pay in other countries, that would make it

easier? Yes, they have a different approach and the state is very

happy to kfr all of the Cos for maternity believe and things like

this -- cover. The point is, I talk about the corporate jungle. The

people that get to the top utterly dedicate themselves to these jobs

year after year after year and if you take six months off, you are

disadvantaged. It's just as simple as that. So the status quo would

change if there weren't these quotas and you say that would be

fine because it's too difficult? Not because it's difficult but lots

of women make other life choices. How many female UKIP MEPs are there

in your party? We have two. The party director is female. Indeed on

our assembly list for London for the elections in May we have got

female barristers and brokers, but I don't believe in quotas and

certainly in UKIP, if people get on, they do so on ability. The Prime

Minister says it would help the economy, there is an economic

reason to have the quotas? I don't know where he gets that from.

say the Government figures that say... He's spouting the EU line.

This is what the recommendation in the European Parliament that we

voted for. I didn't vote for it, but that is what it said.

Now, while Jo was doing that, we have discovered the Bank of England

has frozen interest rates. They are still at 0.5%, that's not

surprising. It's also extending its programme of what is called

technically quantitive easing, basically the creating of the new

money. It will be �50 billion. A little less than the City thought.

They were thinking maybe up to �75 billion. It began with �75 billion,

it got up to �200 billion, then did another �75 billion, it's now added

another �50 billion, that takes total printing of money up to �3 25

billion. We've never had that before, Jo.

No. Thank you for setting out the No. Thank you for setting out the

firs. The Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee cut

interest rates to 0.5% in March 2009, a record low. Since then they

haven't shift ford almost three years. The bank began its programme

of quantitive easing at the same time, creating new money to buy

financials a setss with the - QE has been increased at several

stages to �275 billion in October last year and now with a further

�50blt announced today, creating new money and keeping interest

rates down would be expected to cause inflation.

At a time when the Consumer Prices Index is well above target at 4.2%,

you might wonder why the bank is sticking with the programme.

The reason is the continuing problem facing the economy. It

shrank by 0.2% in the fourth quarter of last year. But whilst

low interest rates might help the economy and people with big

mortgages, they're bad for savers. In one recent poll, just 23% of

people said low rates are good for their personal finances compared to

36% who said they are bad. Thanks Jo. We are joined by the

Conservative MP, Matthew Hancock, he's a former economist at the Bank

of England so maybe he can tell us why out of the last 68 forecasts of

inflation they got 59 wrong. He was the adviser to Chancellor George

Osborne and then became an MP. We are joined also by the Shadow

economic secretary to the Treasury, Chris Lesley who I don't think has

made any forecasts on inflation. Matthew Hancock, do you accept that

one of the main consequences of QE is to transfer wealth from savers

is to transfer wealth from savers to borrowers?

No, I don't think that's one of the main points. It keeps interest

rates low? Yes, but we manage our macro economy by altering interest

rates and of course it has different impacts on different

people. The most important impact of QE is to try to make sure this

de-leveraging in the banking system goes at a pace that doesn't damage

the wider economy more than the difficulties that we are trying to

get through. We've always had this position. We've got these debts,

we've talked about them around this programme a lot, and our argument's

always been, you want fiscal responsibility and monetary

activism where the monetary side keeps the economy going once you do

the difficult stuff. But it's difficult to finance the debt?

the Bank of England is, well it's not technically printing money but

it's carrying out quantitive easing. Hold on. The Government issued �17

billion worth of gilts in October last year, the bank bought �17

billion worth of gilts in November the government issued �12 billion

worth of gilts and the bank bought �24 billion worth of gilts. In 2012

so far, the Government's issued �16 worth of debt, the bank's bought

�24 billion. You are monetising the debt? What was wrong with what I

said there? The key point in that is that the Bank of England is

independent and what's crucial is that in these very difficult

economic times when we have got the debt deficit we need to deal with -

some people don't agree with that - we do, we have also got to keep the

economy going and when rates get close to 0p%, the way you help the

economy is more quantitive easing. It's difficult, I understand that,

but the consequence of this is to help keep the economy going. As we

saw, inflation is still above target but it's coming down.

Manufacturing figures this morning 1% growth in December, that's good.

Our trade deficit is at its smallest since 2003. So there is

some good news. You say the Bank of England is independent. George

Osborne cheerleads the bank in doing this, he's invented this

phrase dtion monetary activism". -- "monetary activism". I come back to

the point that you are monetising the debt. You are borrowing money

paid for by money printed by the bank? Absolutely not. The bank is

independent. Monetary activism. Doesn't matter whether they are

independent or not, they are buying the debt. Of course it matters, you

don't want politicians setting interest rates. What monetary

activism means is you give the Bank of England the space to manage the

economy by having a credible fiscal plan so everybody knows that we

have the political will to deal with our debts as a country. Chris,

I suspect if Labour was in power, you would be doing the same?

not sure that we'd be in this particular hole. We are following

the system set out by Alistair Darling. You have had a fair run

now, Matthew. Do you support this? Anything that can support the

economy. So you do? My point is, I don't think there's an ability to

continue printing your way out of this particular hole. It's pretty

desperate stuff when you end up having to have the Bank of England

bailing out the Chancellor for his failure on growth and the key thing

I think is this, Matthew says well printing money has a small effect

on interest rates. As you said, it's absolutely the determinate of

the low interest rates you've got printing your way to low interest

rates is not a sustainable way forward. The difficulty with this

point about saying the Bank of England are independent, well yes,

they choose the amount of quantitive easing, but the

Chancellor has to sign off the policy as well. Expecting the Bank

of England to do all the heavy lifting on saving our economy and

getting growth done, it's t not going to work. You are pushing on a

string. Mr Hancock? I have o to respond to the partisan point. The

system for ensuring that the Bank of England has the independence to

take these decisions was set up by independence by Gordon Brown and

then the independence over QE by Alistair Darling and that hasn't

been changed. But that's been signed off by the Chancellor?

Chancellor's always, whether Alistair Darling or George Osborne,

has always signed off... A very important point. I'm not saying

there isn't a place from time to time for quantitive easing, but the

key they think is this. When we first had to do this back in 2009,

George Osborne said that printing money was "the last resort of a

desperate government". You were his Chief of Staff at the time. Did you

advise him to stay that? We were in a desperate situation. Nobody

really cares what he said then. was quite important. I don't care

and I ask the questions. OK, well I care. As a Conservative,

meant to encourage people to save, to build up their own property, a

party that aspouzs a property- owning democracy, are you

comfortable as a Conservative with a policy which is effectively

state-imposed negative real interest rates? -- aspouses.

state always has a role in the level of interest rates... Are you

comfortable? The rates are not imposed by the state but the bond

market, whether we like it or not. This is all level economics we are

trying to teach you. Hardly. Do I think it's good that we have long-

term interest rates at record lows? Yes I do because it's the biggest

stimulus our economy could get and it would be under threat if we gave

our... It's not stimulating the economy, we had �75 billion in

October and our economy went into reverse in that quarter. You left

us in a great big hole. Let me bring in Nigel Farage. Where are

you on this? I understood why back in 08-08 09, QE was used because

there was a real serious scare about the banks which has now gone.

The savers are getting a rotten deal and the real problem is we are

not dealing with the size of the debt. I know it's difficult, but we

are not having any serious groth in the UK economy. They are the real

problems that need to be addressed -- growth. You have some people

saying we are cutting too fast, some people saying we are stum

lating the economy. We are not cutting. -- stimulating. Some say

you are not cutting enough, some say you are cutting too much. If

you are criticised from both sides, you are normally in the right place.

We are borrowing more than we are earning every year. Which must mean

you are all wrong. We have an extreme over here, one over there

and we are broadly down the middle and I feel comfortable in that

place. Are you comfortable? Are you comfortable with Government

spending, yes or no? No, no Government spending. Can I just

point out that the several months ago, the Bank of England snuck out

in small print of six point type that the effect of its quantitive

easing so far had been to raise inflation by anything between 1 and

2.6%. I think we can take it that it's closer to the 2.6 because the

bank wanted to downplay the real effect. Are you comfortable with

that? Inflation hits the poorest so you are squeezing savers in Middle

England and hitting the poorest by putting that up? That's not what

the Bank of England report said. I don't know whether you have read

the report. Of course I have. showed that it boosted the economy.

It also said it put up inflation by up to 2.5%, the same as the

increase in VAT? So do you want the Bank of England not to manage the

economy or do you want the Bank of England to manage the economy?

want you to answer my question. These are difficult trade-offs. You

can't ignore the debt. The same report was instructive because all

the claims about low interest rates being caused by George Osborne was

blown out of the water when the Bank of England said that around 1%

of that low interest rate was caused by the printing of money.

Printing of money, does it sound sustainable to you? We'll leave it

there. The distinguished economic Editor of the Scotsman says this

morning that the bank may end up I am going to leave with you now

because Jo is about to do a story of which I have no interest! I am

glad you stated your position there, Andrew. Was the England football

managerks Fabio Capello right to rescission? I am an -- resign. I am

an expert on this. This morning David Cameron said he was sorry to

see Mr Capello Go, but the Sports Minister sounded less optimistic.

The FA had no option, but to strip John Terry of the captaincy, not to

prejudge the court case, but because it would have been

impossible for him to discharge his responsibilities as captain of the

England team with that hanging over him. It is a great shame that Fabio

Capello has acted in the way that he has. If a player in his team had

behaved in the way that he has behaved to the FA, he would have

taken the toughest possible action and I'm delighted that the FA

agreed with him that he should no longer be manager.

David Thompson is in the House of Commons. David.

Well, look forget about deficit reduction, what MPs want to talk

about, who should be the next England manager and I am joined by

Damien Collins, and Sir Bob Russell, Lib Dem and keen football fan.

Damien, in a sense you have been part of this process and you were

one of the first people to say that you thought that John Terry should

be stripped of the captaincy while the court case was pending, are you

happy with where we are now? Well, it was Fabio Capello's decision to

resign. If he couldn't accept that John Terry's position had become

untenable, it was right for him to go. Footballers and football, they

are part of society. It is not just a sport. The England manager, just

like the England captain is a public figure and we expect things

of them and where we are maybe regrettable to many fans, but it

has become inevitable and it was Capello's decision.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of that case, we are four months away

from a major European tournament without a manager. Have the FA

handled this well? The FA don't handle anything well. The Football

Association in this country is pretty useless and the way they

have handled the last two England managers and this affair in

particular, establish and confirms that the FA are a useless bunch.

What should they do? They should never have had a foreign manager in

the first place. The FA are not up to the job.

OK. Do you think now that given we have had Svens and Fabios, do you

think it is time for the manager to be if not English, from the British

Isles? Their job is to a coach who has developed his career through

the English coaching system. That would be a good thing. Someone who

should understand the culture of football in our country maybe

better than a coach brought inside particularly one that has never had

any managerial experience in the UK. We need an English manager, we have

got coalition consensus on something at least. Over to you.

Consensus, I don't know, I'm moving on. Is that good or bad? I don't

know. Consensus, what about you, do you think it should be an

Englishman? I was astonished when this chap Capello was appointed. He

earnt �24 million quid and he couldn't speak the English. Why

don't we have somebody English running the English football team?

Nobody could have done a worse job. I think Redknapp will be the next

man, and good. OK, we have consensus. Everyone

wants Harry, I think! Our guest of the day, Nigel Farage

is the leader of the UK Independence Party still. He gave

up the job for a bit when he stood against the Speaker John better cue

at the -- Bercow at the last election. His successor wasn't seen

as a runaway suck success. Who could we send to investigate, Giles,

of course, our own Nigel looky Even before Nigel Farage first

became leader of UKIP in 2006, a party he was involved in founding

in the early 90s, people whispered the party was something of a one

man show. As they built themselves to a regular feature of the

political landscape, they, he would argue however flattering it is not

true. A one time party candidate, now a Conservative MP disagrees.

There is a cult around Nigel Farage and always has been for the last

ten years. They follow him. They think he is a charismatic leader

and his approach and manner is something that appeals to them.

It is a reality, UKIP have become an electoral thorn in other parties

sides. Nigel Farage led them and UKIP got the highest share of the

vote. His attacks are praised and damned. You have the charisma of a

damp rag and the appearance of a low grade bank clerk. The question

I want to ask - who are you? I never heard of you. Nobody in

Europe heard of you. He stood down as leader to fight

the general election in John Bercow's seat. The leadership

election show cased five candidates no one heard of and who Nigel

wanted, Nigel gets. Only one of of them is a serious credible

candidate and that's Lord Pearson. A year later he failed to win the

Parliamentary seat and by enough to make some question his judgement.

He was involved in an accident that shook him and fired him up for

taking the leadership back. I have survived an aeroplane crash and if

before that you thought I was bold, well I'm fearless now. I'm up for

it, I want the job again. He won. His job will be to keep

UKIP a political force in the face of growing Conservative scepticism.

In the 90s they had serious thinking people on board who were

trying to get an issue on the agenda in a sensible way and didn't

see UKIP as a long-term project, saw it as a short-term thing.

Their opponents may snigger, but there are people in UKIP who are

smart and people who are charismatic and people who know how

to stay on the right side of being a professional politician. The fact

that Nigel Farage can do all three at a time when the party might be

under pressure means they probably need him more than ever.

No, thank you. I'm always told I Come to think of it, you don't.

So you are a one-man band? Absolute nonsense.

No one heard of anyone else in the party? Last week one of your guests

is in UKIP. I was looking this morning...

not a politician. He bankrolls you. He used to bankroll the Tories.

He bankrolled William Hague. When people like that take on senior

roles, it says we are far more than a one-man band. We have women and

women, barristers, shipbrokers, professional and competent people.

There has been a change in UKIP. How many are standing in the

elections? 25 in all. I'm confident that on our message,

jobs and growth interestingly, we are so ham strung by EU law that we

are not able to go out there and create jobs that we will do well.

Giles said, "A party under pressure." Look in 2011 we made a

lot of progress in the opinion polls. We started off at 2.5% to 3%,

we finished at 7% to 7.5%. Public sees and you rate quite well

in the polls as a leader, but the public sees you as a one-man band

leading a one issue party? Well, that's unfair. I think... That's

how they see you? There are people like my deputy who is only 34, a a

Scouser who is is beginning to appear on more and more BBC

programmes. There is three our four names.

But not the younger ones in the party? Well, you know, get him on

and we will get people elected to that London Assembly who are bright

and young. You said in 2011 that had been

amazing year and you went through your successes. What's the target

for 2012? What will be another amazing year for you if you achieve

what? Well, the thing we have to do this year, we have to win seats in

the London Assembly. If we fail to do that, then 2012 will have been a

failure. That's the big objective is to get people elected there. We

will be continuing to fight by- elections, local elections, and you

know, in Barnsley last year, we came second in the by-election in

in Barnsley and I would look for that trend in the opinion polls to

continue. We were up until the summit, where Cameron was thought

to have vetoed something, we were running neck in neck with the Lib

Dems and I I expect that trend to continue and I think we will get

past them. Even The Greens have their MP in

Brighton, you haven't managed that? Our support is is spread across the

country. We don't have... Aren't the Greens spread across the

country thinly? Absolutely not. The Greens do well in three or four

big cities and poorly everywhere else. We tend to do respectively

everywhere. We have got to built up -- build up a local base. There are

areas where we have district and county councillors and those are

the areas we have to work on. Like the Greens and the Lib Dems,

you have to build that up from the ground up, that's more difficult?

It is a heck of a job and I'm not pretending it is easy, but we are

making progress. Let's look at the policy and beyond

the one that you are famous for. What of an English Parliament? The

Scots have a Parliament. The Welsh have a Parliament, what about an

English assembly? Absolutely. We said we as a party believe in an

English Parliament and I believe in a federal structure for the United

Kingdom. Where would you put the English

Parliament? It should be in the House of Commons. That's the

British Parliament? I don't see any need for Scottish or Welsh or

Northern Irish MPs to debate things that are English only issues and

most of the business that is conducted there, tends to be on

Irish only issues. We need to have a separate Parliament and the

country if it stays a United Kingdom after the Scottish

referendum, comes together in Westminster which will be the

imperial Parliament for the UK? proposal that we are debating, it

is not party policy is the House of Commons would be the English

Parliament and the House of Lords which is in need of reform would

become a union Parliament. That's the way we're going.

Wouldn't it be good for regional policy if you put it in York?

don't think there is there is appetite for yet more buildings and

more MPs. What about High Speed Two, are you

in favour of that? I am opposed to T it is a ridiculous price and it

is the wrong route and it is astonishing that all three parties

support it. I know this was agreed to in Brussels many, many years ago.

I would have thought we could spend a fraction of the money upgrading

the existing lines. Come the Scottish referendum if the

question is along the the lines of do you think Scotland should be

independent, how will you advice advice your supporters to vote?

There has to be a debate in Scotland. Alex Salmond got away

with murder. This idea that Scotland could be independent and

part of a European Union, let's have that debate.

How are you going to vote? I don't want the United Kingdom to break up,

but I want it to change. Right, but you are the United

Kingdom independence party, so you must be in favour of the United

Kingdom? I am in favour of devolved powers. I don't see any

inconsistency with that. The geny is is out of the bottle.

We have more to discuss including Ken Livingstone and gays.

We welcome viewers to BBC Scotland, they have been watching First

Minister's Questions and they join the Daily Politics and we can bring

you the news that in London, Ken Livingstone caused outrage. In an

interview New Statesman magazine. He has been talk being the

Conservative Party's attitude to Great English! The best English, Mr

Livingstone. We get your drift. Well, it's caused a row, as many

things Mr Livingstone says. We are joined by Labour's Chris Bryant and

the Conservative Mike Freer. Mike Freer, you first, he says it was a

joke, he's known for shooting from the hip, you maybe make a mistake

if you take him too seriously? Let's hope London doesn't make that

mistake twice. On BBC this morning, he was asked did he use the wrong

word. The local London talk station? Yes. Other than "riddled"?

Yes. People always said "riddled with what". But on LBC he said no,

he wouldn't change the word, he stood by the word so he didn't

misspeak, he wasn't shooting from the hip, I think he knew exactly

what he was saying. Chris Bryant, what's your take on it? The word

"riddled" is pretty daft. I've read the full interview and it reads

oddly. I'm not sure whether he's talking about hypocrisy riddling

the Conservative Party in relation to... Or If you read it, he does

mean gay. He actually says when people came out, they became

ministers and that was great. He says that. I'm not a fan of this

word "riddled" at all. It's unpleasant. However, I would say

there is a bit of Fawkes outrage here because Mike was banging on

yesterday about how terrible this was. I remember when Boris Johnson

said that if two men should be allowed the marry, why not three

men or for that matter three men and a dog. Mike Tweeted to said

that was Ken that said that, it wasn't, it was Boris. I didn't say

that's what condition said, I said it didn't sound like Boris --

that's what when said. We are talking about Boris. What Boris

said is that he said he doesn't care that the state determines what

marriage is, basically he said two men, three men, one man and a dog,

he doesn't care. How offensive is that. Homosexuality is the same as

beastiality. He's saying he doesn't care. If Boris made these remarks

of Ken, there would be a lot more outrage? Mike, you are a hypocrite

because you are not prepared to own up to the fact you got this wrong

yesterday. But what about this point? Boris said the Tory party

used to be riddled with gays in the closet, if he said that, what would

you feel? I dislike the word "riddled", however it's true that

there were, I think it was horrible for many years in the Conservative

Party as a gay man, we know that there are several men who've now

come out who weren't able to do so, had to pretend to be something

different and some of those have subsequently said they had to vote

the wrong way against what they wanted to. Is that true? That was

hypocrisy. The difficulty is, if you are a gai MP, previously as a

Conservative, it was difficult. The Conservative Party couldn't run

apart from gay men, it practically ran for Central Office, so there's

a bit of let's balance the books. That's a bit suggestive. Chris is

very good at standing up and accusing other people of homophobia.

I want him to stand up to the home Phoebes in his own party, starting

with Ken Livingstone. Livingstone is not a home Phoebe. I

disagree with Ken using the word requests riddled" but he's not a

home Phoebe. He's battled for LGTB rights for years, even when it was

- he's been there all the way through. Can I put a wider point to

you that, almost every time a politician on the left or the right

now goes kind of off piste in their language, they get slapped down.

They get dragged on to this programme by you. We haven't got

any of them on. Riddled or dragged, not too sure, just be careful. The

point I'm making is if we carry on like this on the left and the right,

we'll end up with politicss who sound like I speak your weight

machines. You have heard that from either of us this morning have you?

I'm tired of, if one of my party says something stupid, I'll stand

up and shout them down, but the Labour Party expect them to be

sacked, you know. That's a lie, that's a direct lie. Yesterday, you

were saying that can't have been Boris that said about the equating

homosexuality with beastiality. But you didn't then reply, did you?

me bring in... I wonder whether voters in London are having this

furious debate. They'll say, it's Ken Livingstone, he's been saying

silly inoffensive things since the '70s. I think Ken likes to shock,

offend, there's no need phone an argument. Isn't the truth that Ken

Livingstone is wrong on both accounts, that just because you

came out as lesbian or gay, you did not automatically get a job. That's

definitely wrong as you will know. And although undoubtedly there were

gay MPs in the Conservative Party who felt that they couldn't be

openly gay, the party, to use his unfortunate word, wasn't "riddled"

which implies 80-90% were gay, there were a minority and times

were difficult for them so he's factually wrong on both. It's the

contagion of riddled. We all don't like riddled. Shall we end on that

agreement then? I don't think he was intending to shock anybody.

Listen, he's looking at... going to give Mike Freer the final

word because he's been the quitest. When the world is looking at London

for the Olympics, the Paralympics, world pride, do we need

Sanctimonious. I'm not, I've let you speak. Do we give a stuff what

Ken Livingstone says outside London? I don't. Boris is the real

homophobic one. Thanks for joining us and I think we should move on.

Do you think that row would drag on, to use that unfortunate phrase?

I don't think that got us anywhere, but it was good. Pretty much every

local authority in the country is having to tighten the purse strings

and find savings. But the BBC's found that many of them are also

forking out millions in fines because they've missed their

European targets on recycling. It's bin day on this estate in

Worcester. Last week, it was recycling. This week, there's only

one place the city's rubbish is heading. The landfill site on the

edge of town is home to 180,000 tonnes a year.

But growing mountains of rubbish like these are costing the councils

dear. All local authorities have to pay landfill taxes, essentially a

Government fine to encourage them to hit European recycling rates.

The problem is, despite the fact our councils are throwing less to

landfill, the fines are rising. Even though more and more of us are

recycling our rubbish, it's not enough to keep Brussels happy.

you just look at the headline figure, you will see we are paying

more tax there so we must be failing, but we are not, we are

actually on track, we are managing to wean ourselves off it. The waste,

it's a long-term plan, you can't change the system overnight but

need to have a clear and positive strategy which we are working to

year on year. And with budgets under more and more pressure, the

landfill tax is proving a real headache. In the financial year

2005-0106, Worcestershire County Council sent 262,000 tonnes to

landfill and paid �3.4 million in tax.

In 2010-2011, that waste fell to 127,000 tonnes, but the fine shot

up to �5.8 million. At the same time, Shropshire paid �4.2 million

and Gloucestershire, �7 million. The figures have caught the eye of

MEPs on the continue net. It should be a matter for the Westminster

Government and not for Brussels. We should be able to spend our money

in a meaningful way and not be fined by the EU.

But the reality is, if we are going to reduce our carbon emission and

catch up with your European neighbours, the answer doesn't lie

with holes in the ground. If people had understood earlier

the drivers behind sustainability and taken on the Green Party

message a bit more, then we could have avoided a lot of the pain of

landfill tax. Whilst most agree landfill isn't

the way forward, unless our councils stop burying rub Nish the

ground, then they'll continue to throw away good money after bad.

Natalie Bennett is a Green Party member and a journalist and she

joins us now. It's the fines isn't it, in a time like this when there

are massive cuts, should councils be paying fines if they miss their

targets? The massive cuts are absolutely dreadful, that's hitting

social services and those issues. So they shouldn't be fined? But the

issue of waste is a separate issue that simply has to be dealt with.

The situation is, it's the UK Government that decided what level

these fines should be at and it's the UK Government that has to deal

with this problem on a national level. We are going to run out of

landfill spaces in eight years' time, there's nowhere to put it, we

are using an area the size of Warwick to dump waste on which is

great for seagulls but not humans. What we have also got to do is, the

councils have to do better. they've made big improvements,

they've been successful at reducing landfill which begs the question

should they face fines of �64 a tonne, rising to �80 a tonne in

2014. Worcestershire County Council faced a fine of almost �6 million

last year, people will say at a time when libraries are closing,

that is not a good use of money? But that council and the others

with it have a chance to do much better. The councils being fined

are the ones doing very poorly generally. There is a huge Sarah

yoution between the council doing best with 66% and the worst at 14%,

so the councils have a lot of this in their hand -- huge variation.

What is the point of it all? This legislation was brought in to deal

with the landfill question in areas like Belgium and the Netherlands

which were in many cases below the water table. That's why the

legislation? Brussels was put into place. It was never relevant or

popt for the UK. -- appropriate. When we are going to run out in

eight years? There are plenty of landfill sites out there, no

mistake about that. What's happened is, because of the threat of fines,

we have put people on to fortnightly bin collections across

most of the UK and if we don't use landfill, we move towards

incinerators which people will object to even more strongly.

to your point that there isn't a need for it in the UK. Does this

mean that there is? We can argue about how much landfill sites there

are. Even if they came from Europe or the UK, surely they have to do

something to reduce the amount of waste? The point is, this

legislation was designed to deal with water table problems in the

low countries, we are applying it to the enth degree, it isn't

relevant to the UK, we should say to hell with it. We have a picture

behind us at the moment, not sure viewers can see what a landfill

looks like. It's an unpleasant nasty place good for seagulls, not

humans. We want to reduce waste, that is a good target to have, it

will improve our lives, no reason why we shouldn't be saying improve

things. Fines are the way? We have to look also at a plastic bag tax.

More taxs? And forcing the supermarkets to reduce the

wonderful packages, where you get a piece of meet with plastic and

container and more wrapping. You have to change the way we do those

sorts of things and reduce to a lower waste. Thank you very much.

I'm presuming you wouldn't support that either? No, I wouldn't. Funny.

The Government Bill to reform the NHS in England is still causing

ministers sleepless nights. For the lazier ones, it's causing them

sleepless afternoons. Yesterday there was another defeat in the

Lord's and if you were watching Prime Minister's Questions, you

THE SPEAKER: Ed pland Miliband. Speaker, isn't this interesting

because he says this is all about reform. The Tory reform group has

come out against these proposals. I have to say, Mr Speaker, it comes

to something when even the Tories don't trust the Tories on the NHS.

Let's look at the figures. 100,000 patients treated more every month,

4,000 extra doctors since the NHS, the number of clinical staff up,

the level of hospital acquired infections down, the number of

people who are in mixed sex wards down by 94%. That is what is

happening because you have got a combination of money going in and

reform. He knows in his heart of hearts

this is a complete disaster this Bill. That's why his aides are

saying the Health Secretary should be taken out and shot because they

know it's a disaster. I've got to tell him, the career prospects for

my right honourable friend are a Nik Darlington speaks for the Tory

reform group and he joins us now. Mr Lansley seems like a man

clinging to a timebomb that he can only not hear ticking? I didn't

publish the article. The article was written by an independent

contributor to the blog which I edit.

You published it this then? Miliband miss represent that had

article, -- misrepresent that had article. The article which was

written by Craig Barratt is is pro reform.

It said it was a timebomb where Mr Lansley couldn't hear ticking?

believe in debate. Any party will have different opinions and it was

right to put it on the blog. We have a disclaimer over the blog

saying that the opinions of the individual contributors are not

those of the Tory reform group. We released a statement saying we are

pro reform. We want to introduce more competition to the NHS and

Labour had 18 years to reform the NHS and did nothing. Ed Miliband

misrepresented the article and misrepresented the Tory reform

group's position. So you can say anything you want on

the blog and it is not anything to do with the tOrm or the re-- Tory

Party or the reform group? They are not the opinions of the Tory reform

group. We want it there for a forum for debate. That happens in any

party. I want people to have their opinion. I think that opinion

deserved to be heard. Did you really flag it up as this,

"Was not the view of the Tory reform group.". Yes.

Where can I find out where the views of the Tory reform group?

TRG is in favour of reforms. We support David Cameron and the

coalition coalition and we were the first group to express support.

I was looking on your website and I couldn't find it. I could find the

attack, but not the support? attack was made by an individual

contributor. . Where is the support bit? We we

haven't had any reason to run anything on it in the month leading

up to it. How many members has the Tory

reform group got? I don't have that information with me.

I thought that's who you represented? I am the editor of the

Tory reform group blog. You don't know if it is thousands

of people or a man and a dog in a back room in Battersea.? I can

assure you it is not a man and a dog.

Two dogs. It is a sizable organisation.

I would suggest you send Mr Miliband a crate of champagne

because you have had publicity? has been an interesting day. It

shows the power of plit political blogs. I can't say it was

comfortable to see it used in that forum, but I defend the right to

publish it and I think that people have a right to be heard in a free

debate. If other people in the Conservative Party don't want

debate then they shouldn't criticise people like like Ken

Clarke. Maybe you will get more members.

There has been speculation about whether Andrew Lansley will end up

paying for this with his job. Mehdi Hasan joins us now. Is it wise to

misrepresent in that way on a subject that Labour Labour seems to

be doing well in? Not at all. It led to a great line about the

Tories not believing the Tories on health. Let's talk about NHS

misrepresentation in debates. David Cameron misrepresented Labour's

position on private income for hospitals. He said waiting lists

were down when they are up. It is fair game? It is understandable

game. What about looking at Andrew

Lansley, the Government gets its Hillary Clinton Bill through,

patched -- Health Bill through, patched up and with its amendments

and there is a reshovel. Is there - - reshuffle. Is there any point of

getting rid of Andrew Lansley? there is a point.

If your argument is that Lansley has done badly because he hasn't

communicated this is the line in the briefings take him out and

shoot him, you could argue it doesn't make sense because the Bill

is through. But if you think the problem is the Bill and the chaos

that it is going to bring to the NHS, the only way you can try and

have some fresh start when the problems start kicking in from

increased bureaucracy, from closing hospitals and people complaining

about postcode Lottery, the thing is to get rid of the man who

authorised the Bill. If it is about a lack of

communication, that doesn't mean that the Prime Minister doesn't

support the essence of the Bill and the essence of reform. I put to you

again, I know what you think, but it is not worth David Cameron

sacrificing his Health Secretary when he agrees with the essence of

reform? If this Bill creates chaos as some suspect it will, in the NHS,

then the Prime Minister, he is at his most ruthless and decisive when

he is saving his own skin. I think he will get rid of Lansley. Health

secretaries don't have long life expectancy.

Nigel Farage, let's go back to the Bill. Is there there going to be a

U-turn. Everyone says we have gone too far, do you agree? I think they

will continue with this reform, whether it is good or bad, I'm not

sure. I think we need a bigger debate about the NHS, about the

fact that since Labour came to power and made the increases in the

increase in money, we put more money, we haven't got an increased

service and I wonder whether the real debate we need is whether it

is time for us to move towards an insurance based system.

The real terms increase is eroded and whether it will be a real terms

increase is yet to be seen over the years... We don't know that yet. It

is about money in the sense that we are trying to squeeze �20 billion

in efficiency between now and 2015 and at that time, you are carrying

out a costly �3 billion reorganisation which you said you

wouldn't. On the point about U- turns, the Health Service Journal

editor who came out against this, says he hears from senior civil

servants they are considering a Plan B, something that has not been

written down. If there is a Plan B, the man who identified Plan A,

condition be the -- can't be the one who pushed it out. I can't see

Andrew Lansley being the man carrying out Plan B.

The European Central Bank kept interest rates at 1% too. So no

change there either. The same with the Bank of England keeping ours at

0.5%. What is it about politicians and their bikes? It is a beautiful

day for a bike ride. So was yesterday, I thought.

# I'm going to ride my bike until I get home

# I'm going to ride my bike until I get home #

Yes, there is not much that stops the Prime Minister as he whizzes

down Whitehall, pedestrians diving for cover. Every politician wants

to enhance their fitness and green credentials by being at least

photographed with one! There is news from Paris that cyclists are

going to have freedom that none of this lot dreamed of. They will be

allowed to skip red lights completely. Well, with me now Tony

Armstrong from Living Street a charity that stands up for

pedestrian rights. And the London editor of the Telegraph, a keen

cyclist, Andrew Gilligan. Given most schoolists I see, what's

the change? It is recognising reality, isn't it? Cyclists go

through red lights. I go through them. I went through a couple on

the way here. I I hope you crawled through.

zoom through a couple, but only when there is no pedestrians.

How did you know there wasn't a car coming? Well, because you can see.

You look before you cross. Many said that and ended up in the

hospital. It is safer in lots of cases to go through red lights if

you are a cyclist because you don't get caught up in the crossing

traffic. Isn't there a danger of hitting a

pedestrian stood on the road and across me comes a cyclist through

the red light. And that's wrong. I wouldn't do that if it was a

pedestrian. You don't always know when they are

stepping out. What do you think Just because it

exists at the moment, doesn't make it right to officialise it and

institutionalise it. The fear for pedestrians is something that is a

major concern. Lots of our supporters get in touch and say

they feel fearful about crossing the streets because cyclists just

zoom. On the way into work this morning, I was cycling and a

cyclist went past three through a pedestrian green man phase. It is

not in the name of safety, but purely because they can't be

bothered to stop. I dispute that. If you are caught

up in traffic from a red light and you are a cyclist and you are small

and vulnerable. If you go ahead of the light then you are not caught

up in that traffic. So you would like to see a trial... I would love

to see a trial of what happens in Paris and what the reason the par

Parisan authorities, they recognise the safety arguments of cyclist

outweigh the dangers to pedestrians. You describe people being afraid.

There is little data on cyclist being hit by pedestrians who go

through red lights. Cyclists are more menaced by other vehicles than

we menace pedestrians. You are shaking your head.

I have to say, I'm irritated with cyclists. I live in a small country

lane on the North Downs it used to be lovely on Sundays, now we have

people wearing a colourful kit cycling around the place which is

fine, but they go two abreast in the road and think they own the

place and when you try and overtake them, they abuse you. I get a

feeling that cyclist in the country and in the town think they have a

different set of laws that apply to them and this would be the wrong

signal to send out. I think they should be tougher on cyclists and

the way they behave. You would be against a trial?

would be against a trial. Lots of things can be put in place to

improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists and this won't do this. We

need to bring manners and civil yilt on to our streets and people

just feel as if everyone is in it for themselves. What about

pedestrians going through the red man? If you are on a vehicle, if

you are on a car, you have more responsibility if you are moving at

speed. What about going through a red man?

It is about respect. Everyone should look where they are going.

Should people be prevented from doing that? People on foot aren't

travelling at speed, whereas people on vehicles are. We need to re-

educate people on cycles and motor vehicles as well.

Where would you dot best? I would have a rule if a pedestrian

crossing was red and there were no no pedestrians crossing and you

could do it. The prench did in -- the French did it in Strasbourg and

Nante. What is it about these capital cities, "not many, dead, we

shall try it.". On a road near me, some of the of the traffic lights

shouldn't be there. There are pedestrian crossings when there are

no pedestrians crossing. Time to put you out of your misery and pick

a winner for yesterday's Guess the Year competition. 1953 was the

answer. Nigel, make somebody's day, they will win a mug.

Lucky them. Lucky, lucky, lucky. It is Richard Batstone from

Warrington. . You win a Daily Politics mug!

That can't be bad, can it? We thank all our guests. Thank you to Nigel