09/02/2014 Sunday Politics South East

morning, folks, welcome to the Sunday Politics. Rising flood water,

a battered coastline, the winter storms forced the Government to take

control. Is it hanging the Environment Agency out to dry?

Embarrassment for the Government is the Immigration Minister resigns

after he discovered he was employing a cleaner with no right to work here

for seven years. Ed Miliband promised an end to what he called

In the south`east, who should pay in the Labour Party,

In the south`east, who should pay for our children to get to school?

We look at the Kent bus pass In London after two days of

disruption in the capital the Mayor Boris Johnson will be talking to ask

about strife on the Underground All of that and after a week of very

public coalition spats can David Cameron and Nick Clegg keep the

coalition show on the road? Two senior party figures will go head to

head. And with me, Helen Lewis, Nick Watt and Iain Martin who would not

know they Somerset Levels from their Norfolk Broads, but that will not

stop them tweeting their thoughts. We start with the strange Case of

the Immigration Minister, his cleaner and some lost documents

Yesterday Mark Harper tendered his resignation, telling the media he

had discovered the cleaner who worked for him for seven years did

not have the right to work in the UK. The Communities Secretary Eric

Pickles said he had done the honourable thing. I was sad to see

him go, he was a strong minister. Had he been a member of the public

he would not have done anything wrong, but he set himself a very

high standard and he felt that standard and honourably stood down.

This would seem like a good resignation, maybe unlike the

Baroness Scotland one years ago on a similar issue, but have we been told

the full story? We wait to see that. Labour have picked up saying he is

an honourable man, that the reason why he resigned is these very owners

checks that landlords and employers will have to perform on employees

over their documentation. The most interesting line is that, we do not

require them to be experts or spot anything other than an obvious

forgery. The suggestion that there is the document he was presented

with originality, which he lost was on home office paper and was perhaps

not entirely accurate. That is the embarrassment. He is the minister

putting through a bill that will demand tougher checks on people and

he himself did not do enough checks to discover she was illegal. There

is an odd bit where he involves the home office later to check her out

as well. He writes a resignation letter and he has to hold himself to

pay higher standard. He has done the David Laws approach to this, resign

quickly and he can come back. David Cameron wants him to return swiftly

to the frontbenchers. He is a state school educated lad. He is the kind

of Tory that the Tories are in short supply of. He is a rising star. I

would caution on this idea that it is customary that whenever anyone

resigns, it is always thought they will come straight back into office.

If only the outside world worked like that. It is not, in a company

if the HR person resigns, he is such a great chap he will be back next

week. There is a silver lining for David Cameron is he has been able to

move Harriet Bond up as he moves everyone up. But nobody will see her

in the whips office because she is not allowed to appear on television.

And if you three want to resign Do not hate you are coming back next

week. But we will do it with honour. It has been a hellish week for

residents of coastal areas with more storms bringing more flooding and

after Prince Charles visited the Somerset Levels on Tuesday the

Government has been keen to show it has got a grip on the situation at

last. For last weekend's Sunday Politics I

made the watery journey to the village of Muchelney, cut off for a

whole month. Now everyone has been dropping in. First it was Prince

Charles on a park bench pulled by a tractor. He waded into the row about

how the floods have been handled. Next it was the chair of the

Environment Agency, Lord Smith, who faced angry residents. Sought the

river is out. That is precisely what we are going to do. Where he faced,

a resident, he did not need that many. David Cameron went for a look

as well and gave the region what it wanted, more pumps, more money and

in the long-term the return of dredging. There are lessons to

learn. The pause in bridging that took place from the late 1990s was

wrong and we need to get dredging again. When the water levels come

down and it is safe to dredge, we will dredging to make sure these

rivers and stitches can carry a better capacity. The Environment

Secretary Owen Paterson has not been seen again because he is recovering

from emergency eye surgery. In the meantime the floodwaters rose ever

higher. Some residents were told to evacuate. In Devon the railway was

washed away by the waves leaving a big gap in the network. Look at the

weather this weekend. If you can believe it, the storms keep rolling

in. What is the long-term solution for flood prone areas of the

country? I am joined from Oxford by the editor of The Ecologist

magazine, Oliver Tickell, and by local MP Tessa Munt. Tessa, let me

come to you first. What do you now want the Government to do? I want it

to make sure it does exactly as it promises and delivers what every

farmer and landowner around here knows should have been done for

years. First, to solve the problems we have right now, but to make sure

there is money in the bank for us to carry on doing the maintenance that

is necessary. Was it a mistake not to do the dredging? When the waters

start to subside does dredging become a key part of this? Yes, of

course. It is something the farmers have been asking for four years

When you wander along a footpath by a river and you see trees growing

and there is 60% of the capacity only because there is silt, it needs

to have a pretty dramatic action right now and then we need to make

sure the maintenance is ongoing Oliver Tickell, was it a mistake to

stop the dredging? If the dredging had happened, the land would not be

covered in water for so long? Clearly it is necessary to do at

least some dredging on these rivers and in particular because these

rivers are well above ground level. They are carrying water that comes

down off the hills well above the level of the flood plain on the

Somerset Levels. They naturally tend to silt up. But the key thing is

that is only a small part of the overall solution. What we need is a

catchment wide approach to improve infiltration upstream and you also

need to manage the flood plain on the levels and upstream so as to

have active flood plain that can store water. This idea it is just

about dredging is erroneous. Dredging is a part of it, but it is

a catchment wide solution. Dredging is only a small part of the solution

he says. Yes, of course it is. But look here. With the farmer is

locally, the landowners, they know this land will carry water for a few

weeks of the year, that is not a problem. But this water has to be

taken away and there is a very good system of drainage and it works

perfectly well. In my area there are serious problems because the

dredging has not taken place. There are lunatic regulations around were

when they do do some of dredging, the Environment Agency is asked to

take it away because it is considered toxic waste. This is

barmy. We need to take the stuff out of the rivers and build the banks up

so we create protection in the future. We have to make sure the

dredging is done but make sure the drainage works well and we have

pumps in places and we have floodgates put onto the rivers. We

need to make sure repairs are done more quickly. All right, let me go

back to Oliver Tickell. Is it not the case a lot of people on your

side of the argument would like to see lands like the Somerset Levels

return to natural habitat? Looe I would like a degree of that, but

that does not mean the whole place needs to turn into wilderness so it

will remain agricultural landscape. Everybody, all the interested

parties who signed up to a document called vision 2034 the Somerset

Levels envisages most of the area of the Somerset Levels being turned

over to extensive grassland and that is what it is best suited for. Let

me put that to Tessa Munt. Have you signed up to this where you will end

up with extensive grassland? I have seen it, but grass does not grow if

water is sitting on this land for weeks and weeks. What you have to

remember is a lot of the levels are managed very carefully and they are

conservation land and that means cattle are allowed to go out at

certain times of the year and in certain numbers. It is well managed.

Do you accept it should return to grassland? Grassland, fine, but you

cannot call land grassland in the flipping water is on it so long that

nothing grows. It is no good at doing that. You have got to make

sure it is managed properly. Drainage has been taking place on

this land for centuries. It is the case the system is there, but it

needs to be maintained properly and we have to have fewer ridiculous

regulations that stop action. Last year the flooding minister agreed

dredging should take place and everything stopped. Now we have got

the promise from the Prime Minister and I thank Prince Charles for that.

Is it not time to let the local people run their land rather than

being told what to do by the Environment Agency, central

Government and the European Union? The internal drainage boards have

considerable power in all of this. They wanted to dredge and they were

not allowed to. The farmers want to dredge that is what is going to

happen, but they have signed up to a comprehensive vision of catchment

management and of environmental improvement turning the Somerset

Levels into a world-class haven for wildlife. It is not much good if

your house is underwater. The farmers themselves, the RSPB, the

drainage boards, they have all signed up to this. The real question

now is how do we implement that vision? You give the money to the

drainage boards. At the moment they pay 27% of their money and have been

doing so for years and years and this is farmers' money and it has

been going to the drainage boards and they pay the Environment Agency

who are meant to be dredging and that has not happened. We have to

leave it there. We have run out of time.

Last week saw the Labour Party adopts an historic change with its

relationship with the unions. Changes to the rules that propelled

Ed Miliband to the top. Ed Miliband was elected Labour leader in 20 0 by

the electoral college system which gives unions, party members and MPs

one third of votes each. This would be changed into a simpler one

member, one vote system. A union member would have to become an

affiliated member of the party. They would have to opt in and pay ?3 a

year. But the unions would have 50% of the vote at the conference and

around one third of the seats on the National executive committee. The

proposals are a financial gamble as well. It is estimated the party

could face a drop in funding of up to ?5 million a year when the

changes are fully implemented in five years. The leader of the Unite

trade union has welcomed the report saying it is music to his ears. The

package will be voted on at a special one of conference in March.

And the Shadow Business Secretary Chuka Umunna joins me now for the

Sunday Interview. Welcome back. In what way will the unions have less

power and influence in the Labour Party? This is about ensuring

individual trade union members have a direct relationship with the

Labour Party. At the moment the monies that come to us are decided

at a top level, the general secretaries determine this, whether

the individual members want us to be in receipt of those monies or not so

we are going to change that so that affiliation fees follow the consent

of individual members. Secondly we want to make sure the individual

trade union members, people who teach our children, power via -

fantastic British businesses, we want them to make an active choice,

and we are also recognising that in this day and age not everybody wants

to become a member of a political party. We haven't got much time The

unions still have 50% of the vote at Labour conferences, there will be

the single most important vote, more member -- union members will vote

than nonunion members, their power has not diminished at all, has it?

In relation to the other parts of the group of people who will be

voting in a future leadership contest, we are seeking to move

towards more of a one member, one vote process. At the moment we have

the absurd situation where I, as a member of Parliament, my vote will

count for 1000. MPs are losing. . They still have a lot of power. I am

a member of the GMB union and the Unite union, also a member of the

Fabians as well so I get free votes on top of my vote as a member of

Parliament. We are moving to a system where I will have one vote

and that is an important part of this. You asked how many people

would be casting their votes. The last time around, under the

old system, up to 2.8 million ballot papers were sent out with prepaid

envelopes for people to return their papers were sent out with prepaid

turnout. The idea that you are going to see a big change... Even if

your individual party members. In one vital way, your purse strings,

your individual party members. In the unions will be more powerful

than ever because at the moment they have to hand over 8 million to

than ever because at the moment they fraction of that now. They will get

to keep that money, but then come the election you go to them and give

them a lot of money -- and they will have you then. They won't have us,

as you put it! The idea that individual trade union members don't

have their own view, their own voice, and just do what their

general secretaries do is absurd. They will make their own decision,

and we want them to make that and not have their leadership decide

that for them. Let me go to the money. The Labour Party manifesto

will be reflecting the interests of Britain, and the idea that somehow

people can say we are not going to give you this money unless you do

this or that, we will give you a policy agenda which is appropriate

for the British people, regardless of what implications that may have

financially. They will have more seats than anybody else in the NEC

and they will hold the purse strings. They will be the

determining factor. They won't be. Unite is advocating a 70% rate of

income tax, there is no way we will have that in our manifesto. Unite is

advocating taking back contracts and no compensation basis, we would not

-- there is no way we would do that. How many chief executives of the

FTSE 100 are backing Labour? We have lots of chief executives backing

Labour. I don't know the exact number. Ed Miliband has just placed

an important business person in the House of Lords, the former chief

executive of the ITV, Bill Grimsey. How many? You can only name one

Bill Grimsey, there is also John Mills. Anyone who is currently

chairman of the chief executive With the greatest respect, you are

talking about less than half the percent of business leaders in our

country, we have almost 5 million businesses, not all FTSE 100

businesses, not all listed, and we are trying to get people from across

the country of all different shapes and sizes. Let's widen it to the

FTSE 250. That is 250 out of 5 million companies. The largest ones,

they make the profits and provide the jobs. Two thirds of private

sector jobs in this country come from small and medium-sized

businesses, and small and medium-sized businesses are an

important part of a large companies supply chains. So you cannot name a

single chairman from the FTSE 2 0, correct? I don't know all the

chairman. Are you going to fight the next election without a single boss

of a FTSE 250 company? I have named some important business people, but

the most important thing is that we are not coming out with a manifesto

for particular interests, but for broader interest. Let me show you,

Digby Jones says Labour's policy is, "if it creates wealth, let's kick

it" . Another quote, that it borders on predatory taxation. They think

you are anti-business. I don't agree with them. One of the interesting

things about Sir Stuart's comments on the predatory taxation and I

think he was referring to the 5 p rate of tax is that he made some

comments arguing against the reduction of the top rate of tax

from 50p. He is saying something different now. Digby of course has

his own opinions, he has never been a member of the Labour Party. Let me

come onto this business of the top rate of tax, do you accept or don't

you that there is a point when higher rates of income tax become

counter-productive? Ultimately you want to have the lowest tax rates

possible. Do you accept there is a certain level you actually get less

money? I think ultimately there is a level beyond you could go which

would be counter-productive, for example the 75% rate of tax I

mentioned earlier, being advocated by Unite in France. Most French

higher earners will pay less tax than under your plans. I beg your

pardon, with the 50p? Under your proposals, people here will pay more

tax than French higher earners. If you are asking if in terms of the

level, you asked the question and I answered it, do I think if you reach

a level beyond which the tax burden becomes counter-productive, can I

give you a number what that would be, I cannot but let me explain -

the reason we have sought to increase its two 50p is that we can

get in revenue to reduce the deficit. In an ideal world you

wouldn't need a 50p rate of tax which is why during our time in

office we didn't have one, because we didn't have those issues. Sure,

though you cannot tell me how much the 50p will raise. In the three

years of operation we think it raised ?10 billion. You think. That

was based on extrapolation from the British library. It is at least

possible I would suggest, for the sake of argument, that when you

promise to take over half people's income, which is what you will do if

you get your way, the richest 1 currently account for 70 5% of all

tax revenues. -- 75%. Is it not a danger that if you take more out of

them, they will just go? I don't think so, we are talking about the

top 1% here. If you look at the directors of sub 5 million turnover

companies, the average managing director of that gets around

?87,000. Let me narrow it down to something else. Let's take the .1%

of top taxpayers, down to fewer than 30,000 people. They account for over

14% of all of the income tax revenues. Only 29,000 people. If

they go because you are going to take over half their income, you

have lost a huge chunk of your tax base. They could easily go, at

tipping point they could go. What we are advocating here is not

controversial. Those with the broadest shoulders, it is not

unreasonable to ask them to share the heavier burden. Can you name one

other major economy that subscribes to this? Across Europe, for example

in Sweden they have higher tax rates than us. Can you name one major

economy? I couldn't pluck one out of the air, I can see where you are

coming from, I don't agree with it. I think most people subscribe to the

fact that those with wider shoulders should carry the heavy a burden We

have run out of time but thank you for being here.

Over the past week it seems that Nick Clegg has activated a new Lib

Dem strategy - 'Get Gove'. After a very public spat over who should

head up the schools inspection service Ofsted, Lib Dem sources have

continued to needle away at the Education Secretary. And other

senior Lib Dems have also taken aim at their coalition partners. Here's

Giles Dilnot. It's unlikely the polite welcome of these school

children to Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg and his party colleague

schools minister David Laws would be so forthcoming right now from the

man in charge of schools Conservative Michael Gove. Mr Laws

is said to have been furious with The Education secretary over the

decision to remove Sally Morgan as chair of Ofsted. But those who know

the inner working of the Lib Dems say that's just understandable. When

you have the department not being consulted, it would be possible for

him to not publicly comment. The remarkable thing would be if he

hadn't said anything at all. We should be careful to understand this

is not always part of a preplanned decision. There is a growing sense

that inside Number Ten this is a concerted Lib Dem strategy, we also

understand there is no love lost between Nick Clegg and Michael Gove

to say the least, and a growing frustration that if the Lib Dems

think such so-called yellow and blue attacks can help them with the

election, they can also damage the long-term prospects of the Coalition

post 2015. One spat does not a divorce make but perhaps even more

significant has been Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander s

recent newspaper interview firmly spiking any room for George Osborne

to manoeuvre on lowering the highest income tax rate to 40p. All this

builds on the inclusion in Government at the reshuffle of

people like Norman Baker at the Home Office and Simon Hughes at Justice

people who are happier to publically express doubt on Conservative

policy, unlike say Jeremy Browne who was removed and who has made plain

his views on Coalition. It is difficult for us to demonstrate that

we are more socialist than an Ed Miliband Labour led party. Even if

we did wish to demonstrate it, doing it in coalition with the

Conservatives would be harder still. Nonetheless a differentiation

strategy was always likely as 2 15 approached, so is there evidence it

works? Or of the work we publish shows the Lib Dems have a huge

problem in terms of their distinctiveness, so attacking their

coalition partners or the Labour Party is helpful in showing what

they are against, but there are bigger problem is showing what they

are for. And one Conservative MP with access to Number Ten as part of

the PM's policy board says yellow on blue attacks are misplaced and

irresponsible. At this stage when all the hard work is being done and

the country is back on its feet the Lib Dems are choosing the time to

step away from the coalition. That is your position, but do you suspect

coming up to the next election we will see more of this? I think the

Lib Dems are about as hard to pin down as a weasel in Vaseline. And

with the public's view of politicians right now, and wants to

be seen as slicker than a well oiled weasel? And we have Lib Dem peer

Matthew Oakeshott and senior Conservative backbencher Bernard

Jenkin. Matthew, the Lib Dems are now picking fights with the Tories

on a range of issues, some of them trivial. Is this a Pirelli used to

Lib Dem withdrawal from the coalition? I do not know, I am not

privy to Nick Clegg's in strategy. Some of us have been independent for

some time. I resigned over treatment of the banks. That is now being

sorted out. But what is significant is we have seen a string of attacks,

almost an enemy within strategy When you have Nick Clegg, David Laws

and Danny Alexander, the three key people closest to the Conservatives,

when you see all of them attacking, and this morning Nick Clegg has had

a go at the Conservatives over drug policy. There is a string of

policies where something is going on. It is difficult to do an enemy

within strategy. I believe as many Lib Dems do that we should withdraw

from the coalition six months to one year before the election so we can

put our positive policies across rather than having this tricky

strategy of trying to do it from within. Why does David Cameron need

the Lib Dems? He probably does not. The country generally favoured the

coalition to start with. Voters like to see politicians are working

together and far more of that goes on in Westminster then we see. Most

of my committee reports are unanimous reports from all parties.

Why does he need them? I do not think he does. You would be happy to

see the Lib Dems go? I would always be happy to see a single minority

Government because it would be easier for legislation. The

legislation you could not get through would not get through

whether we were in coalition or not. The 40p tax rate, there

probably is not a majority in the House of Commons at the moment,

despite what Nick Clegg originally said. It does not make much

difference. What makes a difference from the perspective of the

committee I chair is historically we have had single party Government

that have collective responsibility and clarity. The reason that is

important is because nothing gets done if everybody is at sixes and

sevens in the Government. Everything stops, there is paralysis as the row

goes on. Civil servants do not know who they are working for. If it

carries on getting fractures, there is a bigger argument to get out If

it continues at this level of intensity of the enemy within

strategy as you have described it, can the coalition survived another

16 months of this? It is also a question should they. I never

thought I would say this, I agree with Bernard. Interestingly earlier

Chuka Umunna missed the point talking about business support.

Business is worried about this anti-European rhetoric and that is a

deep split between the Liberal Democrats and the UKIP wing of the

Tory party. That is really damaging and that is something we need to

make our own case separately on Do you get fed up when you hear

constant Lib Dem attacks on you What makes me fed up is my own party

cannot respond in kind because we are in coalition. I would love to

have this much more open debate I would like to see my own party

leader, for example as he did in the House of Commons, it was the Liberal

Democrats who blocked the referendum on the house of lords and if we want

to get this bill through it should be a Government bill. We know we can

get it through the Commons, but we need to get the Liberals out of the

Government so they stop blocking the Government putting forward a

referendum bill. And put millions of jobs at risk? I am not going down

the European road today. It strikes me that given that the attacks from

the Lib Dems are now coming from the left attacking the Tories, is this a

representative of the failure of Nick Clegg's strategy to rebuild a

centrist Liberal party and he now accepts the only way he can save as

many seats as he can do is to get the disillusioned left Lib Dem

voters to come back to the fold The site is we have lost over half our

vote at the last election and at the moment there is no sign in the polls

of it coming back and we are getting very close to the next election I

welcome it if Nick Clegg is starting to address that problem, but talking

about the centre is not the answer. Most Liberal Democrat voters at the

last election are radical, progressive people who want to see a

much fairer Britain and a much less divided society and we must make

sure we maximise our vote from there. We know what both of you

want, but what do you think will happen? Do you think this coalition

will survive all the way to the election or will it break up

beforehand? I think it will break up beforehand. Our long-term economic

plan is working. The further changes in policies we want to implement to

sustain that plan are being held back by the Liberal Democrats. When

will they break up? It has lasted longer than I thought it would, but

it must break up at least six months before the election. Do you think it

will survive or not? The coalition has delivered a great deal in many

ways, but it is running out of steam. It depends what happens in

the May elections. If the Liberal Democrats do not do better than we

have done in the last three, there will be very strong pressure from

the inside. You both agree. Television history has been made.

You are watching the Sunday Politics. Coming up: I will be

looking at the Hello. I'm Julia George. Thhs is the

Sunday politics in the South East. Coming up, should 16`year`olds and

17`year`olds get the vote. We hear from the teenager who is delanding

just that. With me is Stephdn Lloyd, Liberal Democrat MP for Eastbourne

and Greg Clark, cities minister and Conservative MP for Tunbridge Wells.

Our very own South East coalition. Thank you both for joining ts. In

one moment we will talk abott attempts to shave money frol a

transport budget. The other option is to increase council tax, but a

rise of 2% triggers a referdndum. One of your colleagues, Greg Clark,

the Communities Minister, Eric Pickles, would like that reduced to

1.5%, because he doesn't want councils to go over that before a

Conservative comes about. Hd's calling councils like Medwax and

East Sussex democracy dodgers, because they're just under 2%.

Shouldn't democracy be about the voters making a decision, not about

a minister imposing something? It isn't. I took the Bill throtgh

Parliament that scraps the capping system that was there. It used to be

the case that councils were told how much they could increase by and that

was it. We have said, get rhd of that and replace it with a

referendum. It seems reason`ble to me, as is happening in Brighton

There is a difference betwedn the Conservatives and Liberal Ddmocrats

about where that should be. Eric Pickles wanted it to fall to 1. %.

In real terms ` I'm not surd there is. You have to set it to what the

threshold would be. There is a discussion if Government and you

come up with a level and 2% has been settled on. You are not in `greement

with Eric Pickles that it should be lower? I would like it to bd frozen.

Let me be clear about that. It's a big bill for people and we have

provided the funds to freezd it It doubled under Labour and I think if

reductions can be made ` Percentages aren't very helpful. Medway, band E,

increased by 1.99% it's 43 pence a week and East Sussex is the same on

1.5% increase. All the grandstanding about standing up for peopld and the

cost of living, a penny on the minimum wage, that would achieve

almost the same thing? I wotld say ever little helps. Everyone is

feeling cash strapped. It's important that across all sdctors we

look to make economies. This coalition has been successftl in

providing funds to freeze council tax where they did double under

Labour and the council tax hs a big bill for people and I think it's

right to be economical. Stephen Lloyd, should councils have to run a

referendum at all, why not let them set their taxes and they will be

judged by the people at the next election? I think the counchls are a

complete staplebles. Eastbotrne Borough Council is capping ht. We

are not putting it up. I'm disappointing that East Sussex are

choosing to put it up. 43 pdnce a week, is it worth senior ministers

giving councils a hard time and calling them democracy dodgdrs over

43 pence a week? I think on such an issue, Eastbourne is not putting it

up and I think it's good. It's zero council tax. Eastbourne is half as

much again as for example mx own council here in Tunbridge wdll

wells, so it's `` Tunbridge Wells, so it's quite high. Eastbourne is

only ?220 a year for band E. The key thing to remember here is that

actually a lot of our Conservative colleagues agree with us th`t Eric

Pickles did overstep the mark. I don't think it's unreasonable to

hold 2%. CeG put the Bill through Parliament and I reiterate,

Eastbourne it's not going up at all in April. We'll take a look at what

council tax pays for. We'll look oT what pays for our children to get to

school. In Kent there is a generous bus pass, funded by local t`xpayers,

children get unlimited bus travel for under ?100 a year, but to save

money the Kent County Counchl decided on drastic changes, which

meant some parents would be seriously out of pocket. Sole

parents and heads got angry and many lined up to sign petitions, but then

this week in a surprise movd, crehad a change of heart.

This is the bus pass that's caused a political storm in Kent. 13`year`old

Alliah uses her Freedom Pass to get to school ten miles away. For ? 00

it gives 11`16`year`olds unlimited travel throughout the countx, but

plans to scrap the card and replace it with another scheme could have

cost some Kent families an dxtra ?1,000 a year to get their kids to

school. Alliah's mum began ` campaign against the changes, a

Conservative District Counchl lore. ?1,000 to send children to school is

a lot of money. The fact th`t there was no consultation. Nobody knew

about it, I believe if you can spoken to parents and spoken to the

schools we may have been able to come up with a much better hdea of

what people actually want. The Freedom Pass is hugely popular, used

by 29,000 young people. It's a discretionary service, the only one

of its kind in the country, but it's expensive, costing ?13.5 million a

year. As the campaign gained momentum, headteachers encotraged

parents to back it and 9,000 people signed on`line petations ``

petitions. Then came the surprise news Kent County Council, who were

facing mounting anger from thousands of parents, have made a U`ttrn on

plans to change the Freedom Pass used by schoolchildren. Out of the

blue, the council seemed to buckle under the weight of popular opinion

and announced revised plans for a new transport scheme for yotng

people. It's twice the cost of the original pass at ?200, for tnlimited

week`day travel from 8.00pm. Opposition parties have said it s a

humiliation for the Conserv`tive`led council and another critic says KC C

has egg on its face, but wh`t do campaigners think? It's going to

cost me now ?400 to get the two children to school. It would have

cost ?1,000 with the previots proposal. Yes, it's a U`turn and I

am very happy with what thex've done. With Kent's selective school

system and many rural villages, thousands of children take the bus.

corner, looking to claw back ?2 3 corner, looking to claw back ?2 3

million over the next three years. Something has to give. But ht's the

lack of consultation that's upset many people. The section rightly or

wrongly that KCC have had the discussion behind closed doors. That

actually this is not a decision that has been taking place in full

council, with proper scrutiny. Public transport will always be an

emotive issue. It affects pdople's lives, but some political p`rties

believe there was never any need to meddle with the Freedom Pass. To put

it foo context, the amount that the council is trying to save from the

move is dwarfed by some of the individual road projects. It's a

very car`centric council and when you are looking at where thd

priorities might be, you cotld look at taking out one of the ro`d

projects around the county `nd that would pay for the pass over three or

four years. Ten and 11`year`olds will find out which secondary school

they'll be going to next month. Parents just want reassurance that

they will be able to afford to get their kids to school and sthll

there's uncertainty, becausd the new scheme is only a proposal. Will this

idea get backing? We'll find out at a council meeting this week. Joining

me now is David Brady, in charge of transport policy and the ch`nge of

heart. Opposition parties h`ve described this as a humiliation Do

you feel you've got egg on xour face? Not in the least. We were

asked by our financial people to find a ?5 million saving in the

Freedom Pass and three months ago we create add a scheme involving the

pre`loaded smart card that would give people the best deal possible

at the time for the money wd could afford. Interestingly, the bus

companies, who are private sector, profit`centred, realised th`t that

scheme was going to hurt thdir revenue. Whereas we maintain

relations with the bus comp`nies at all times, they came to us `nd said,

well, this is going to hurt us. This is all about the bus companhes and

benefitting them, nothing to do with the parents in their many thousands

who have signed petitions who say it's unfair? We obviously lhsten. We

predicted that people would not like this scheme. If this isn't for `` is

for the sake of the bus companies, taxpayers' money is going to support

the bus companies. Is that acceptable? We obviously pahd

considerable amounts of mondy to the bus companies to provide thd Freedom

Pass. There's a deal there. There's a contract there. We don't pay the

full fares to the bus companies That's the point of the contract

that we have with them. We remunerate them at an agreed rate.

Aren't they rather holding xou to hostage. This is discretion`ry. No

other council offers anything as generous as this, even the secondary

position you have fallen back to. I'm just corious to know whx this is

being done for the benefit of the bus companies? No, it hasn't. We

have had the bus companies come to the table and we have, betwden us,

hammered out a scheme which doesn't protect their position. Thex will

lose revenue, but it will provide a better deal for the public. I still

get the same level of savings, so there's no U`turn there. Well, there

is, because there's a U`turn on provision for 16`18`year`olds. The

County Council had made it clear there would be provision for them to

school and college. That has gone. That is a U`turn. Not at all. What

we were able to provide for 16`plus students with the smart card scheme

was low access. It was ?100, but we were only able to load the smart

card with ?250 credit. You have even taken that away? We have reduced the

cost of the existing travel card. How much do they have to pax now?

?400, which gives them a benefit of ?380 per card and that is pretty

good value and don't forget, it s discretionary as well. We don't have

to provide it and we get no funding from the Government. Why do it at

all then? This is discretionary No other council offers somethhng as

generous as this. We are in cash`strapped times, so it seems as

though some sharp`elbowed pdople and I was assuming it was the p`rents,

but it turns out it's the bts companies, have persuaded you to do

something differently? Becatse we could. You can't now. The fhnances,

you have to savings hundreds of millions over the next few xears?

That's right. The Freedom P`ss was devised in 2007 when the financial

situation was very different. Obviously, people make commhtments

about their children's educ`tion, based on the assumption that the

Freedom Pass will be there for them during the period of their time at

secondary school. You pit ptll it at some point in the future? It would

be the last thing I would w`nt to do. Thank you very much for joining

us. A commitment there to continuing an

expensive discretionary service which councils are under prdssure to

cut back and keep council t`x low. Stephen, what do you think what is

going on, because you don't have this level of subsidy? We don't I

wish we could. I think all power to democracy and all power to the

parents who clearly have julped up and down. It was the bus colpanies.

I know. I think that the parents ran a very effective campaign and all

power to them. It's good for their children and I think they'vd got a

very good deal, so congratulations democracy. CeG Clark, given all of

this started with a campaign to bring in subsidised bus travel and

the one thing we have ended up with is not that, would you say the

Conservative`led Kent Countx Council have made a hash of this? As you

said in your report, this is the only council in the south`e`st and

the only council in the country apart from London, where for young

people, going to school and college, you can get a free transport. I m

asking you not about the orhginal idea, which has been running for

years, but the way they've handled changing it has been a complete

mess? They've listened to consultation. I think ` I h`d a very

good session with some of md constituents last Friday in a school

and they said this is a really important scheme and they v`lue it

and it gives testimony the chance to get to school. Why not come up with

the idea. They didn't listen. They didn't listen to parents. You heard

it in the report. The schemd hasn't chand yet. They are just making the

change in the weeks ahead. Taf listened. I think `` they'vd

listened. I think they've come up with a exclusion. Which doesn't

provide what they set out in the first place. It provides a great

deal for young people, for teenagers across Kent that isn't available

anywhere else. I think it's a tribute to the innovation that Kent

is capable of and the excellent service that on one of the lower

council taxes in country thdy manage to pri this service that is valued

by young people in my consthtuency. Why are pensioners more serve

deserving in this country of entirely free bus travel and

children could can't work and bring if their own wages and who have to

go to school every day are not, have we got it the wrong way arotnd in I

don't think it's more deserving I think historically now nor ` number

of years there's been an acceptance that pensioners have paid in for

many, many years and there hs across parties a strong view that free

services also help retain independence for the longer term.

The challenge in the whole `usterity programme and we know we ard coming

through it, but the reality is that we are still short of money out

there. I think it is going to be something that is going to be

debated at the general election I suspect that the parties ard going

to come forward with some dhfferent views. My own strong view is that I

do think younger people, people seeking work should, I think, get

some sort of support, perhaps that pensioners get and young people

don't. We'll bring a young person in, because we are joined bx a

17`year`old old to talk abott the voting age, but Solomon Curtis, you

live in Hastings and travel to Tunbridge Wells every day. Who pays

for it? Well, my family pay for it. I think just in terms of wh`t

Stephen and ceG `` Greg werd saying, it seems like bus companies have

been influential in that and in terms of older people, I thhnk young

people and elderly people h`ve the same needs. You think you should get

free transport to school or subsidised? I feel sympathetic for

local authorities because they've been imposed with this austdrity

programme and they've got to make cuts, but I think actually when you

see profit`making companies you have to look at them and say is there

some form of corporate responsibility? The ?13.5 mhllion

that Kent County Council ard paying, would it it just be easier to

completely subsidise and renationalise it? We'll comd on to

the real reason you're here, but thank you for that. Solomon Curtis

here to talk for votes for 16`17`year`olds. You are up to

Westminster to lobby MPs. Why should you get the vote? Well, there's this

saying, which I was brought up with, and it was no taxation without

representation. The fact is 16`year`olds are able to pax tax.

There's that simple fact and I think it's antidemocratic not to support

giving a 16`year`old a vote, but we have the most educated generation in

history. We have fixed`term elections now which means that some

people pay not vote until a day before their 23rd birthday hn a

general election. That's five really important years. You talk about

taxation. Five`year`olds wotld earn money, and some do performing, they

pay tax, so we should give them a vote? They don't pay tax as

individuals. That goes into a pot, which I believe if it is taxed isn't

paid by them, because five`xear`olds pay VAT. We are all charged tax at

the same level, whatever our age. Absolutely, but are we directly

taxed? 16`year`olds are dirdctly taxed. I think that's the m`in

thing. We'll see what these guys. Greg, we expect young peopld to

serve their country and thex can marry and pay tax, so why not vote?

18 has been the age. When it comes to tax, as you said, everyone pays

VAT and it doesn't carry an entitlement to vote. On the council

tax, 16 and 17`year`olds ard excluded from paying it. I think

that argument about paying tax doesn't work. I think there are

strong arguments for this. H spend a lot of time talking to sixth formers

and I agree, there is a high degree of interest in political issues I'm

sure Stephen and I find in our post bag that a long of young people are

engaged with big campaigns, so I don't think the taxation issue is

the best course. Why doesn't David Cameron agree? You seem sympathetic,

but when Downing Street spoke about it last year, they said that the

Government has to plans to change the law. What does that say about

the Government's attitude to young people? It shows that the argument

that Solomon is making, there are a number of people making it. It's a

live debate and a lot of people `` You could be persuaded? Yeah. I can

understand the arguments for it For example, political parties, we all

want to have young members, and members of parties who are 06 are

allowed to vote in the affahrs of political parties, so that hs

accepted by them. I think a particular example you talkdd about

16`19`year`olds with the Kent Freedom Pass, but the cuts to that

would not have been that silple if 16`year`olds had the vote. Let me

quote Polly Toynbee. But thhs is what she says, "Don't vote `nd you

don't count. Democracy forgdts and you know one cares what you think

and the Government will spend lesson you and your ilk." I think `bout the

Kent Freedom Pass, if that were true, they don't have the vote, but

the County Council introducdd, without any requirement to do so, a

free travel card costing ?1.5 million, because it's `` ?13.5

million, because it's the rhght thing to do. The party that I'm a

member of obviously wants to think about the next general election

Stephen, do you support votds for 16`17`year`olds? I do. It's not a

huge priority of mine and I'll give you an example why. I was speaking

to a group of young people who came to my constituency last week.

They're doing some interview for the college. One of the `` one of them

med made a strong `` of thel made a strong point, at this age wd are

studying politics and we ard at college and it's actually a live

issue. We are quite interested. What we found with a lot of our older

brothers and sisters, who are 2 and 22 they have fallen into thd Russell

Brand nonsense of there's no point if voting because they're all

thieves, so an argument for younger people is that you catch thdm. Are

you persuaded? We didn't get a question from Greg, but we got, "I

can see the arguments." Hopdfully he will come on Wednesday and we can

lobby him. Thank you very mtch indeed for coming in. Nice to meet

you. Now for a round`up of the other events you might have missed this

week. Over to James Fitzger`ld. The weather is not normal. The

conditions aren't normal and life isn't normal. Another week of wild

weather. Government released ?1 0 million of emergency money, but

there's still no`one scheme planned for the South East. The Envhronment

Agency says the flood barridr can't protect Tunbridge. Dover wants to

revive the western docks, creating hundreds of jobs. The MP welcomed

the news, but is desperate for more details. It's important to `nswer

how they'll get the money and what their plan is. Gatwick Airport is

extending the reach of a nohse compensation scheme, which gives out

thousands to homeowners needing to installment loft instalation. Helen

Grant, Maidstone MP says shd will be sounding a triumphant fanfare a

century after World War One. Drn said last year that commemoration of

conflict could be a celebration of sorts. Clear clear The flooding goes

on. Nigel Farage says we should divert foreign aid. Do you `gree?

David Cameron has said that ?13 million is going to go to this, so

the action has been taken. No, I don't. It's classic Farage tsing a

subject that affects a lot of people for political gain. I think it's

wrong and he's right. The Government is giving money which is important.

Thank you. We will have to leave it there. Thank you very much hndeed

for watching. Natalie is back next week with more.

Londoners who otherwise may not have a voice. Both of you, thank you so

much. Andrew, it is back to you Can David Cameron get a grip on the

floods? Can UKIP push the Conservatives into third place in

the Wythenshawe by-election on Thursday? Is the speaker in the

House of Commons in danger of overheating? All questions over the

weekend. Let's look at the politics of the flooding. Let me show you a

clip from Eric Pickles, the Communities Secretary, earlier on

the BBC this morning. We perhaps relied too much on the Environment

Agency's advice. I apologise. I apologise unreservedly and I am

really sorry we took the advice of what we thought we were doing was

the best. The Environment Agency is being hung out to dry by the

Government and the Government has taken over the running of the

environmental mess in the Somerset Levels. It is turning into a serious

crisis by the Government and even more so for the people who are

dealing with the flooding. There is no doubt that what has been revealed

is it is not just about what the Government did or did not do six

months ago. What is being exposed is an entire culture within the

Environment Agency, fuelled often by European directives about dredging

and all manner of other things, a culture grew up in which plants were

put ahead of people if you like All of that is collapsing in very

difficult circumstances by the Government and it is difficult for

them to manage. Chris Smith would save the Environment Agency is

acting under a law set by this Government and previous governments

and the first priority is the protection of life, second property

and third agricultural land and he is saying we are working within that

framework. It is an edifying spectacle, they are setting up Lord

Smith to be the fall guy. His term of office comes at the end of the

summer and they will find something new. But the point Lord Smith is

making is that dredging is important and it was a mistake not to dredge,

but it is a bigger picture than that. I am no expert, but you need a

whole skill solution that is looking not just bad dredging, but at the

whole catchment area looking at the production of maize. It is harvested

in autumn and then the water runs off the topsoil. You see the

pictures of the flooding, it is all topsoil flooding through those

towns. What you have got to have in the uplands is some land that can

absorb that water and there are really big questions about the way

we carry out farming. Chris Smith was meant to appear on the Andrew

Marr show this morning, but pulled back at the last minute. There must

be doubts as to whether he can survive to the summer. Where is the

chief executive of the Environment Agency? I agree with Nick that Chris

Smith has been setup in this situation. David Cameron went to the

Somerset Levels on Friday for about half an hour, in and out, with no

angry people shouting at him. You to a farm. It is agreed he has had good

crisis. But we are seen as being a London media class who does not

understand the countryside. You can imagine David Cameron in a pair of

wellies. If this was happening in Guildford, it would not have dragged

on for so long. Looe it is interesting how they are saying the

Environment Agency has put words in front of everything else. The

great-great-grandson of Queen Victoria thinks people should be

sacked at the whim. He is talking about how the Environment Agency

spent ?31 million on a bird sanctuary. It turns out the bird

sanctuary was an attempt to put up a flood defence system for a village

which has worked. That village has been saved. They compensated some

farmers for the farmland they were not going to be able to farm and put

a flood defence system further back to protect this village and then

they built a bird sanctuary. It was not ?31 million to create a bird

sanctuary, it was to save a village and it worked. But in 2008 the

Environment Agency was talking about dynamiting every pumping agency

There was a metropolitan mindset on the part of that agency. If it does

what Owen Paterson, who is now off in an eye operation, suggested a

plan to fix this, they will find a lot of what they want or need to do

will be in contravention of European directives. The Wythenshawe

by-election. There is no question Labour is going to win, probably

incredibly convincingly, one poll showing 60% plus of the vote. It

would be surprising if Labour was in any threat up there. The issue is,

does UKIP beat the Tories and if so, by how much? The latest poll was

showing it in second place as nip and tuck, but the feeling I have is

UKIP will do better. And they have got a great local candidate. The

Tories have not parachuted somebody in and they have got a local man in

and that will help them. We have all been waiting to see if the Tories

lose their head, but they might go chicken earlier than that. Will UKIP

come second? It looks like that A poll this week showed that Labour is

way ahead and UKIP possibly second. But it is an important by-election

for UKIP. If they do well in the European elections, they should

still be on a roll. They did really well in by-elections last year. If

they do not do well, is it because they are not on payroll? Or in

Manchester they have a fantastic leader of the council? Will UKIP

come a good second? I think they will and if they do not, it might

suggest Nigel Farage is losing its slightly. One thing to look out for

is how little Labour are attacking UKIP. Their election strategy relies

a lot on UKIP taking Tory votes But it could also take Labour votes

Particularly in the north and we shall see. The results will be out

on Thursday night. The Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bird ,

his interventions have become more frequent and something was strange.

Have a look. I am grateful to the honourable gentleman. Order, the

Government Chief Whip has absolutely no business whatsoever shouting from

a sedentary position. Order, the honourable gentleman will remain in

the chamber. If we could tackle this problem. I say to the honourable

member for Bridgwater, be quiet if you cannot be quiet, get out, it is

rude, stupid and pompous and it needs to stop. Michael Gove. Order.

You really... Order. You are a very over excitable individual. You need

to write out 1000 times, I will behave myself at Prime Minister 's

questions. He was talking to the Education Secretary and it is not

1000 lines, it is 100 lines, at least it was in my day. Is he

beginning to make a fool of himself? There was only one over excitable

person there and that was the speaker and he is losing the

confidence of the Conservative MPs, but he never had that in the first

place. But he is an incredibly reforming speaker. He has this

strange idea that Parliament should hold the Government to account. It

will never catch on. It means very frequently there are urgent

questions. The other day he called a backbench amendment on the

deportation of foreign criminals. He could have found a way not to call

that. He is a real reformer and the executive do not like that. That is

true and he has allowed Parliament to flourish which has given us room

to breathe at a time of a coalition Government when Parliament has more

power. That is all that enough to overcome these increasingly mannered

and some of them may be preplanned interventions? The last one was last

week, and last week the speaker had a rather stressful week with the

tabloids. Something is clearly up. I think it is a real shame. I think

many of us when he was elected did not think he would make a great

speaker and there are people like Douglas Carswell and Tory rebels who

have said he is a fantastic speaker. He has given the Commons room to

breathe and he has called on ministers to be held to account when

they do not want to be. What do you think? He is seen as anti-government

and he is pro-backbencher and that is what people do not like. People

like Douglas Carswell are actually very strongly in support of him We

carry the interventions every week on Prime Minister 's questions and

we see them every week and they are getting a bit more eccentric. If I

was having to keep that under control, I would be driven slowly

mad. But his job is easier than mine. But if you look at his

deputy, Eleanor Laing, she is very robust, but she is calm. Chap who

does the budget is excellent. We are on throughout the week at midday on

BBC Two. We will be back next Sunday at 11. If it is Sunday, it is the

Sunday Politics.