13/04/2014 Sunday Politics South East

Aternoon folks, and welcome to the Sunday Politics. As MPs head off for

their Easter break, campaigning for the European elections in six weeks'

time gets underway. In a Sunday Politics special, we'll debate the

issues at stake on May 22nd with senior party figures from the

Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats, and UKIP. And as ever

we'll be discussing the week ahead with our panel of top political

commentators. with our panel of top political

And in the South East: From Turners to Constables ` many councils hold

substantial art collections. Should they sell up in tough financial

times, or get more art newspapers which some claim are

politically slanted and not impartial about informing people of

local services. So all that to come between now and

quarter to four and for the next thirty minutes or so we'll be

debating the European elections Here in the studio we have Syed

Kamall, leader of the Conservatives in the European Parliament, Richard

Howitt, chair of the Labour group of MEPs, Sarah Ludford, deputy leader

of the Lib Dems in Europe, and Patrick O'Flynn, UKIP's director of

communications. Welcome to you all. In a moment, all four will give us

their opening pitch for the elections. A little earlier they

drew lots to decide who'll go first. And that privilege goes to Syed

Before that, though, here's a quick reminder of what all the fuss is

about. The vote to choose members of the

European Parliament takes place on Thursday the 22nd of May. The same

day as local elections are held in England and Northern Ireland. The UK

sends 73 England and Northern Ireland. The UK

sends NTP is to Brussels. And the vote is a form of proportional

representation. In total, there are 751 MEPs from the 28 member states.

What do they do all day? The European Parliament's power has

grown. A vet of the EU commissioners and they can amend, approve or

reject nearly all EU legislation and the EU budget. Some laws MEPs have

been responsible for include price caps on mobile phone chargers,

banking regulation and cover food regulation two -- labelling.

Syed Kamall, you have 30 seconds. Europe cannot go on as it is. Europe

needs to change. And our relationship with Europe needs to

change. Only the Conservatives have a plan to deliver that change and of

the British people and in-out referendum. Labour and the Lib Dems

will not and UKIP simply cannot Only the Conservatives will offer

the three yards, with Conservative MEPs working alongside a

conservative Prime Minister. For, really is and above all a

referendum. Sarah Ludford is next. Your choice is simple. If you think

Britain is better off in Europe vote for the Liberal Democrats. The

Lib Dems are the only party of Ian, fighting to keep Britain in Europe

and in work. There is nothing patriotic about UKIP's desire to

pull-out. That is playing Russian roulette with Britain's economy and

jobs. The Conservatives are flirting with exit and Labour lacks the

courage to speak up. Thought Liberal Democrat on May the 22nd to say in

Europe for jobs and security. Sarah Ludford. Next, Richard Howitt from

Labour. The European elections are about who represents you. They are

not a referendum on a referendum. Labour MEPs believe in putting jobs

and growth first. A guarantee to help young people into work,

reforming energy markets so that bills are brought down for good

Labour believes in reform in Europe, but within. It is David Cameron who

is risking your job and Britain s prosperity because of divisions in

his own party. Labour MEPs put British interests first. Our fourth

opening statement from Patrick O'Flynn. The EU is old hat. It is a

declining regional trade bloc in an era of global trade. It is a

20th-century political project designed to prevent conflict in

Europe that is now reawakening old hostilities. It is an attempt to

force on the European people European this as their primary

collective identity. It has hollowed out British democracy and now we do

not even control our own borders. That is why you should vote UKIP.

That is the opening statements. Let's get on with the debate. Why

should people vote in the selections? If you vote UKIP, we can

deliver an earthquake that will rock the foundations of British politics

and the European political class. We can send a signal to Europe that

Britain has had enough, that Britain wants to retain its nation state

status and regain political power and the ability to forge trading

deals across the world. Britain leading Europe to freedom twice in

the last century through bloodshed. We feel that a UKIP win in those

elections could help Britain set an example to lead European nation

states back to free assembly again. Syed Kamall, isn't it the case that

many Tory voters will vote you clip to keep you honest, to keep your

feet to the fire? Whatever you think of the European Parliament or the

EU, the fact is that the European Parliament as equal power with the

28 governments of the EU. When David Cameron delivered the first cut to

the EU budget, the first ever cut, he needed a strong team of

Conservative MEPs working alongside him. But many of your supporters

will vote for UKIP for the reasons I gave. Many will vote Liberal

Democrat. Not very many. Many of our supporters will vote for us because

we are the only party trying to change the EU and offer reform. We

have offered renegotiation and a referendum. And how would you vote

in such a referendum? We have no idea whether he would vote yes or

no. Let him answer. I will answer that question. If the EU continues

on this road, towards a United States of Europe, and if there was

no change at the time of the referendum, then I would probably

vote to leave. You have no confidence in David Cameron? We

Javier Culson opportunity to read negotiate our relationship with

Europe and the Conservatives are at the forefront of that agenda. David

Cameron have not given a list of demands. He said that if things do

not change, he will probably vote to leave, is that right? If at the time

of the referendum, things had not changed, I would vote to leave and

we have a golden opportunity to perform the agenda. Richard, the

last time the British people had a say on this was over 40 years ago.

Under a Labour government. Which was deeply divided on the issue. And

that was a say on the common market. Today's EU is a very different

animal from the common market. Why can we not, under another Labour

government, have another vote? First of all, we want it to be more than a

free trading area. We make no apologies about that. But in the

elections because this is half of Britain's exports and investment. If

you care about your job and business, you cannot hear from the

party of government that they probably want you to leave because

the CBI, the engineering employees in Federation and the chimp of

commerce, 80% of them say it is necessary to stay in. So why not

give us a vote? When David Cameron says he wants to repatriate social

powers, he means takeaway maternity rights and holidays. If the case is

so strong, why not give us an in-out vote? David Miliband has said that

there will be a referendum if there was a proposal to change powers Why

wait? This is based on a series of reforms. Labour has a set of

reforms. David Cameron is silent about what they would be. That is

because he knows that if he put them forward, they would either be

unsatisfactory to his Eurosceptic backbenchers and he would be out of

a job, or they would be unacceptable to European leaders. Why is your

leader missing in action? Ed Miliband is unable to say even the

positive things that you are saying. He has run away from the argument.

He actually said there would not be a referendum in his time.

For a conservative to say they will have a referendum but not give the

reforms, it is a mistake. Nick Clegg gave Nigel Farage a huge opportunity

in that debate. He said that the Eurosceptic view was to leave

Britain like Billy no mates. I can say that he is the best qualified

person to say that. Sarah Ludford, you have said that lots of people

are going to vote Lib Dem but that is not what the polls are saying.

You are 7% in two polls this morning. Eclectic's decision to

champion Europe has been a disaster for you. You face wet out. We swayed

a lot of people our way with Nick Clegg's debate. Where is the

evidence? We are the only party that is completely united, saying that we

are wanting to stay in. It is essential because formally and jobs

are supported by our trade with the EU. Linked to the EU. We are finding

a lot of moderate conservative voters are actually fed up with the

Tories being split and divided all over the place. Syed Kamall saying

that we might vote in rout. -- in or out. We are consistent. A poll in

London showed that 18% would vote for us. I am delighted about that.

London is not the whole country it may surprise you. We need to move on

to immigration, an important issue. We are a member of the EU and the

rules say that with a few caveats, our fellow EU citizens are free to

come here if they want. Why can we not just accept that? Britain has a

proud record when it comes to immigration. We have been open to

people across the world for centuries. But we welcome people who

come to our country to contribute to pay taxes and two wards are a

society positively. But there are three real concerns that we have to

address. The first one is numbers, and secondly people who may come

here not to work but for benefits, and thirdly, getting a hang of the

numbers. I think it is shameful that only this week the office for

National said that they did not collect sufficient figures under a

Labour government. 350,000 extra people came in and they did not

count the numbers. That is the size of a city like Cardiff. That is

shameful. 350,000 came from all over the place. Do you accept the free

movement of peoples within the EU? I accept and am open to people who

want to come here and contribute. In the same way... Do you accept the

free movement of peoples within the EU? In our manifesto, we have said

it is an issue for reform. We have to make sure that people are coming

here to work and contribute positively, not simply to come here

and take advantage of the system. I will tell you what else is

shameful. What is shameful is David Cameron making a pledge to the

British people on an issue that they really care about, to bring net

immigration down to the tens of thousands a year, having no means of

fulfilling that pledge. And we see now it is back up to 212,000 a year

because we have no volume control and no quality control from

immigration from our neighbours And that is a disgrace. How could UKIP

address that issue? Because we would leave the EU. How? Tell me how. You

do not have a single member of Parliament. He will not get a single

member of Parliament. How are you... ? TUC are hoping to get an

MEP. What do you say? -- he is here today hoping to get an MEP. All of

-- almost 2 million Brits live and work in the rest of the EU. Is that

worth having? The majority are wealthy, retired people. Why do not

object to bilateral agreements with countries with similar living

standards to us. France, the Netherlands, that works fine. But

these three people want Turkey to join the EU, 75 Na Li and people

running our country, only 10% of which... Syed Kamall is Michael year

to say whether they are in favour of free movement for work, not for

benefits... That is what I'm saying. You said you were unable to

be clear. That leaves 2 million British people absolutely unsure as

to whether they would have a right to continue to live in other

countries. It is a two-way street. You are putting those people in a

state of uncertainty. EU migrants have been good for the British

economy and contribute far more than they take out in services and

benefits. One in seven businesses were founded in -- by migrants. And

they cannot just turn up and claim benefits. The coalition government

has legislated to make sure that they cannot claim for three months.

They will not be able to claim for more than six months. Richard

Howitt, Jack Straw said it was A spectacular mistake for Labour to

allow EU migrants from Poland and Hungary to work in the UK from

2004." Why should we trust a party that makes spectacular mistakes and

hasn't apologised for it? We accept it is a mistake and I apologise We

make a firm commitment for new EU states we will put down transitional

controls. When I listen to the Conservatives and UKIP trying to

re-write history, saying immigration was out of control, uncontrolled,

open door, we hear it over and over again. It is not true. Anyone who

was around at the time... Come on, Richard. Hold on, you undercounted

by 350,000. You were letting 2 million in over the years, an

under-counted by 350,000 people you didn't know came in. You should have

tightened the benefit rules. The Conservative MEP today has, in four

years in government in Britain, is trying it blame the previous Labour

Government over the fact they won't count people in or people out.

Yvette Cooper - it is not easy for people to come to the country and

benefits are changing, changing the habitual residence test and we are

going to say that migrants can't come and claim child benefit if

their children are outside the country. Labour a has shown they

have listened to concerns but we say it is a stronger, better, country

because it is diverse and multicultural snoo.d this is fantasy

politics from all the Peters. They are committed to a system with no

volume control and no quality control. You talk about benefits as

if it is only out of work benefits. In work benefits cost a lot of money

for the British taxpayer. Big businesses bring in minimum wage

workers. It is ?5,000 per perschool place What are you going to do? Have

all the pensioners come back to Britain? How will will you fund the

health care? Do you really think Spain and pour tu ghal their current

situation, are going to turn their backs on British property owners

with wealth? -- Portugal. They might not wanting pensioners to use their

health service. Pensioners often come back to Britain to use the

health service. You have shown it represents wealthy people's

interests. A second Conservative Party. Hang on a minute... Blue

collar wages were down. They want it character for the National Health

Service, have cuts that go farther and comprehensive education. This is

a debate on the wider politics between Conservatives and UKIP and

Labour will... You can't both talk time. UKIP - they haven't thought it

through, thousand they will have trade access in the EU, hasn't

thought how they will have trade deals that the Liberal Democrats

support, like with the United States: Would you have a cap on

non-EU immigrants? We are not in favour of a cap. No cap on either.

No. Well it is a target. It is a moving feast, as it were. Would you

have a limit on non-EU limits? We have limits on quality. We have

people who are skilled migrants coming in. Lip its? . By quality,

not by quantity. -- Limits. How do you do that? We need to move

on to foreign affairs. Should we pool more sovereignty to

give the European Union more clout in foreign and defence matters? I'm

Labour's defence and foreign affairs spokesperson. No we don't need to

pull more powers into Europe. As we undertake this live debate there are

guns being fired in Ukraine as we speak. Europe is facing, for the

first time, since the end of the Second World War, Armies crossing

national borders and floatening peace. Doesn't it -- threatening

peace. Doesn't it need to come together of the We don't need more

powers. We need political will. With Vladimir Putin, in my view, he has

-- we have fallen short in the sanctions. But it is Europe, not

Britain. Remember Putin calling Britain little England a small

island with no influence. Labour doesn't agree with that. But if

that's the mindset that allows someone like Vladimir Putin to send

troops across borders threatening peace, it is worrying. And when we

have, in UKIP a party that say they admire Putin and support his

policies, that is no recipe for how Europe should be wrong. I was

waiting for that. Let me ask him. We don't admire Putin as a leader. .

Oh. No we don't. What Nigel Farage said, was he admired him as a

political operator. Testifies Franklin D Roosevelt who said a good

foreign policy was speaking softly but carrying a big stick. The EU

shouts its mouthed off while carrying a matchstick. It is fantasy

that you wiebl it stand up to Putin over the Ukraine. -- that you would

be able to stand up. Do you admire what Putin is doing in the Ukraine?

No. What matters in foreign policy is the outcould. We have a terrible

outcome in the Ukraine, like Syria, and Georgia... What would UKIP do?

What u skip would do, would be to keep our people safe -- UKIP.

How? And not commit our Foreign Office and troops Foreign wars.

Patrick O'Flynn. You brought up this issue of foreign wars. Now Nigel

Farage said in previous debates that Britain should leave the EU because,

"We have had enough of endless foreign wars." Which wars has the EU

taken us into? The EU has ban very important factor in the push towards

trying to get military intervention in Syria, for example. What wars has

the etch U taken us into it -- EU. Fortunately the EU doesn't have its

own army yet. It has wanted to sign up to an expansionist agenda. Did it

want Iraq? No, that was Labour. UKIP opposed Iraq, so did most of the

mainline Europeans. Germany was against Syria and Libya. No EU

policy. We had an Anglo French deal on Syria. A by lateral deal. A

European dimension. No, buy lateral. We have a European Union that wants

to expand ever-more into other people's spheres of influence. If we

are going to stand up to what Putin is do, which obviously Nigel Farage

has no intentions of doing, you have to get your act together on economic

sanctions and diplomatic force and in trade matters, in supporting

eastern European countries. Sayeria, who and whose army? And NATO and

working transatlanticically, is important through NATO. I will come

to you in a moment. Nick Clegg said that the idea of an EU Army was "A

dangerous fantasy that is simply not true ""Why then, are we already

working on etch U-owned and controlled drones -- EU-owned and

the President of the European Parliament has said that the

majority of MEPs want the EU to have "deployable troops." He is not

speaking for me or Liberal Democrats. The EU does not and will

not have an army. Our defence is mainly shaped through NATO. He is

President of the Parliament What we must do is to get equipment which

can operate together. We waste an awful lot of our spending in Europe

because we duplicate equipment. We don't get the bang for our bucks

that we should. It is a useful role for the EU, to get equipment working

together. That doesn't make sense. You say military equipment, a NATO

job. No, the EU, there is a kind of dimension of the EU members of NATO,

in working together on a common quument o o so they can talk to each

other -- on common equipment, so they can talk to each other. The EU

has a role but not an army. So a European defence agency, that helps

our defence industries and those jobs are extremely important and

would be threatened if the Conservatives and UKIP took us out

of Europe but it is 100 years since the start of the fist world war

Remember that Europe was set up to try to get a secure peace within

Europe T succeeded. Now look on Ukraine but also on the southern

borders to the Arab Spring countries in North Africa. It is more

important than ever that we work to keep keep peace and stability on our

borders. Can I say to Syed and the Conservative MEPs. You talk about

the three Rs, I have a fourth, retreat. If you take us out of the

European Union, it will be the worse retreat by Britain since Gallipoli.

Let him answer If he wants answers -- the British Parliament is the

right place with a British Foreign Secretary to decide our foreign

policy. You say that, but can I quote David Cameron, this is germain

to what you are saying, David Cameron said "There is no doubt that

we are more powerful than Washington, Beijing and Delhi,

because we are a powerful player in the European Union." Do you agree?

He is saying that there are times when it comes to international

foreign affairs when you have to cooperate with partners. Often they

are EU partners but often they are not. The problem we have...

Washington have made it very clear that it wants Britain to talk

through Brussels. No, not at all. Talk through the French and

Italians, come on, wake up? Through the EU collective. I'm vice chair of

the EU delegation. I hear it from the American counterparts. They want

the EU to get itself together and not least on Ukraine. Why should our

sovereignty be at the behest of .. ? I want to hear from Syed calm

amplgts the British Parliament is the right place to decide our

foreign poll sinchts sometimes we work with our European partners

sometimes we work with our non-European partners. It is our

choice to pull sovereign trito work together. G, we move on to our foirt

area. We hear a lot in this country about MPs expenses. Snted the real

scan dalt MEPs gravy train. -- isn't the real scandal, the MEPs gravy

train? You all have your snouts The trough? I don't think so. There is

transpancy. The way we use our expenses is online and anyone can

ask to examine those. We have actually voted to reform MEPs'

allowances. We regularly vote but unfortunately the majority in

Parliament don't. Have you voted to cut them? Yes. By how much? About

5%. A 5% We hoped to have economies I never fly except across the

Atlantic. Difficult to do it any other way. I didn't swim.

But we voted for economy flutes We voted for European Parliament policy

of transparency which other groups haven't. UKIP don't turn up to vote.

They don't earn their salaries. Dhoent do anything. They should hand

their salaries and allowances back. You can't ause UKIP of being on the

gravy train and the other that we don't claim our attendance allowance

because our MEPs are not there. Your attendance allowance is if you are

there, you are saying we don't turn up You are in the building and claim

the allowances. You are not an MEP, UKIP are so ashamed of what their

MEPs have done in Brussels, they didn't field a sitting MEP for

today's debate. I think each party decides who it wishes to field. I

have the honour of being the UKIP representative. I would say by going

in the past few weeks, xeeming to me saying - we are sick of the others.

-- people saying to me. : We are quite excited. Can I ask Patrick

O'Flynn. He says he touched a chord and his party is strong in the polls

today, between 18% and 20%. Haven't you also struck a chord with hip

crasscy. Two of your MEPs were jailed for expenses and benefits'

fraud. Two more asked to pay back ?37,000 for using European funds.

Nigel Farage has boosted about getting ?2 million in expenses and

he went on to employ his wife as a secretarial allowance after telling

other members not to People who do wrong and break the law, go to ja. I

have no time. -- go to jail. People who spend money they are not

entitled to should pay it back and that's right. But what UKIP does and

the good UKIP MEPs do, is use the allowances they are given to pursue

the political agenda they put up when elected which is to get Britain

out of this superstate. Instead of using it for parliamentary work

Very interesting. Richard Howitt. We were the first British political

party to have independent audits of our MEPs' expenses, from 1990, way

before the expenses crisis blew up. The Maria Miller scandal has of

course hit David Cameron and the Conservative Party hard as it should

do. But you are right, even in my own region you have UKIP candidates

and councillors who have been charged with fraudulently filling

out election papers and other shot lifting. Another independent inquiry

found he made racist comments. We had a European candidate last week

in Hertfordshire who got a parking ticket from the police and called

the police fascists. These people aren't here.

I'll let you have a quick reply We can bring up parochial cases. Let

him answer. Not so long ago a Liberal Democrat councillor was sent

down for firebombing, I don't say they are a bunch of arsonists, but

now I think, Nick Clegg might have burnt some cactuses, once. I'm glad

you pronounced that word carefully. Syed Kemal, the EU's auditors, they

are strongly critical of the EU s financials saying "Errors permist in

all main spending areas", the financials are poorly managed. It is

a shambles And that's something that all parties agree on. As we agree on

expenses, the British parties are at the forefront of transpancy. Every

year when we vote for the discharge of the budget, the Conservatives

also vote for it but we don't get enough MEPs from other countries to

investigate in favour. The Liberal Democrats have put forward to make

each Finance Minister, George Osborne and his counterpart to sign

a declaration to say all EU money is properly spent in my country.

Funnily enough they don't want to do that but I look forward to you

confirming that George Osborne will sign it. All the time we hear it is

about the money we pay in, about ?150 per family per year. What about

the money that comes back? ?1. billion that comes to Britain's

regions because of being in Europe. I myself helped to negotiate a fund

to help Britain's food banks to ensure so. Poorest and most

destitute people... Isn't it our money that went there first. Can I

tell you the Conservative-led Government have blocked us from

claiming that money. If you want to have the clearest choice at these

European elections, it is between... Tell us why. It affects our rebate.

Tony Blair gave away our rebate He is quite right. Lib Dems fought to

make sure that we apply for money to help with flooding. That is what the

Tories were blocking. If you want the clearest example at the European

elections, the Conservative Party and MEPs blocked the cap on bankers

bonuses, and then blocked a Labour victory to get money for free

banks. We need to move on to the future. It is important and people

are watching. The EU's Justice Minister says that we need to build

a United States of Europe with the commission as its government. Is she

right? Not at all. But the future, if we take the next ten years,

thinks about climate change and the fact that we are not going to hit of

the two degrees target. Europe has led and needs to lead towards

getting a new sustainable world It is the political will to use these

powers, so she is wrong. It is about the threats from abroad. Labour

reforms like getting a commissioner for growth and rebalancing the

budget, reforming the common agricultural policy, all of those

things will need to happen to make Europe more democratic and open But

against the rise of Brazil and China... We do not need more

treaties and powers. We need more action with more Labour MEPs. Sarah

Ludford, you would sign up to that? No. Unless they do not think that

should concentrate on institutional matters. What we need to do is

concentrate on making Europe progrowth and competitive and create

more jobs in a competitive world. We need more trade deals to open up our

exports, we need to streamline the EU. We need less red tape and

Liberal Democrats have done a lot on that. We need better scrutiny of EU

legislation at West Munster because the national parties... More powers

or less for the EU government? In some areas, I would like to see it

slimmed down. Including, I am not sure whether the EU should be

funding food banks. I think that is a national responsibility. Dearie

me. The EU have to concentrate on the economy and climate change. This

is the coalition talking. If we want to fritter away political capital on

things which are interfering in national matters, then we do not

have the support to tackle those big challenges. Would you still want to

join the Euro one-day? Now is not a good idea. We wanted the Eurozone to

still be sound, which is why... Did not ask you that. Do you want to

join the Euro one-day? If it is a success and it did the economy. Now

is not the time but in principle, the idea of a single currency has

advantages. That was a yes. We are not ruling it out for ever but not

in the foreseeable future. It is not on the horizon. What would our

relationship be with Europe in the future if UKIP got its way and we

left? We would be trading partners with Europe and we would seek

partnership in specific serious I'd tell you what, can I just say..

Would we be Norway? We would be stronger than Norway because we are

the biggest export market in the Eurozone. We can negotiate a bespoke

trading agreement reflecting our enormous importance. Not on

services, which make up 80% of the economy. We are the biggest export

market in the Eurozone. Our biggest exports are services and they would

have to agree to free trade and services. They still have not. Can I

read you something? Let me read you something. There would be a free

trade agreement in place the day after our exit. Germany would demand

no less. Who said that? Not somebody from UKIP, but Digby Jones. Mr

business. He is talking about goods, not services. Norway has that

and they have no say. You would have to accept the EU rules without any

say. No MEPs are commissioners. Let me give you another. Enough. One is

enough. Syed Kamall, is it not looking forward pretty much Mission:

Impossible for Mr Cameron to get anything like the repatriations of

powers that would satisfy your irreconcilables? My father was a bus

driver in the 50s and one of the reasons I am here today is because

he told me that you can achieve anything if you work hard. He said

to me, do not listen to the doubters. When people tell you that

something cannot be done, it is a sign of their limitations, not

yours. They said that we could not pull Britain out of the bailout

mechanism but we did it. He said we could not be to a -- veto European

treaty and we did that. They said we would never cut the budget and we

did that. The first ever. But overall, we are paying more into the

European budget. And they are not sticking to it. More, not less. They

say that we cannot achieve reform but we have achieved reform and we

are at the forefront of that. Science's father came to Britain

because Britain was open and looking outward. What the Conservatives now

have, with leaderless Cameron, is an inward looking attitude. They are

allowing the rise of UKIP. They are putting so much at risk. People

should vote Labour. We are going to have to stop now. No point talking

because we are about to finish. I think you all for a spirited debate.

I'm sure Nigel Fries and Mr Clegg will have learned a lot about how to

debate. -- Nigel Farage. It's just gone 3pm, and you're

watching the Sunday Politics. We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland who

leave us now for Sunday Politics Scotland. Coming up here in twenty

I'm Julia George and this is the minutes,

I'm Julia George and this is the Sunday Politics in the South East.

Coming up later: They carry a 50,000`volt charge and can cause

your muscles to contract uncontrollably. Anyone worrhed about

a dramatic increase in the tse of Tasers by Sussex Police?

Joining me in the studio today are the Liberal Democrat Home Office

Minister and MP for Lewes, Norman Baker, and Rehman Chishti,

Conservative MP for Gillingham and Rainham. Good afternoon to xou both.

Before we focus on Turners `nd Tasers, as we have a Home Office

Minister with us I would like to get a quick update on legal highs.

Norman Baker, you've begun ` review ` can you give any hope yet to

families who've seen loved ones hurt or killed by these drugs th`t

meaningful change is coming? The first thing I would say is that

I banned the term legal highs because it is misleading and implies

that they are illegal which they are not always and there are not always

safe. I call them chemical highs to try to educate people about the

dangers the substances possdss. The panel I set up in September has met

on a number of occasions. It is looking at breast practice `` best

practice are around the world. We have law enforcement and

psychologist looking at this. We will have a report with

recommendations and 46 weeks' time. What do you think of the nale

change? It is a good idea. There is nothing

illegal about them at all, the damage they caused to the lhves of

people as horrific. We must do everything we can to address this

issue. Bin collections, running libraries

and home care for elderly pdople ` just some of the services provided

by your local council. But hs it right that they also spend thousands

of pounds a year on art collections and exhibitions? This week, in a

special report, we take a closer look at some surprisingly hhgh`value

works of art. What are they worth and what should local authorities do

with them? Sara Neville has been investigating.

1500 oil paintings, 4000 water colours, works by iconic artists

like Turner and Constable. Ht is an enviable collection worth almost ?33

million belonging not to a wealthy private collector, but to

cash`strapped Brighton and Hove City Council. The actual fine art

collection and the whole cultural part of the city is incredibly

important. We have a very vhbrant visitor economy. It is worth over

?780 million to the local economy. It employs around 17,000 people So

it is vital for the survival of the city. And Brighton is not the only

council sitting on a fortund. An exclusive Sunday Politics Freedom of

Information request has revdaled that a number of authorities and the

South East have millions of pounds tied up just in their top tdn works

of art. Eastbourne Borough Council has 12

million worth. One thing and Maidstone both value their top ten

artworks at over ?2.2 million And Kent County Council reckons its most

valuable works come in at jtst under ?2 million. With many counchls being

forced to slash key public services, is it time to sell these gr`nd

collections? What do you say to people who

suggest local authorities should not have large art collections?

Do you want me to keep it polite? They are misguided, that is the best

I can say. If we strip out the cultural offer of a city, wd are

stripping part of the soul of the city away and the reason whx people

like to live here and visit here is the cultural offer. Most collections

are held in trust but the notion of cashing in on large price t`g items

continues to tantalise councils Tower Hamlets toyed with selling

this Henry Moore, meanwhile, Croydon Council raised `` raised ?9.5

million last year when it optioned some rare Chinese ceramic pheces.

This moon Flask alone fetchdd ? .2 million. It was a decision that had

the museum world up in arms. Other councils want to capitalise by

attracting more art and culture This is the Jerwood Gallery, a

private and paid for gallerx in Hastings. It opened two years ago at

a cost of ?4 million but it has no public funding. It is part of the

cultural regeneration plan for the town and the hope is that these

paintings will attract big spending visitors and 65,000 people came here

last year. What does that mdan for the Council's own museum collection,

? Can it compete with this? A collection of international renown?

Hastings does have a Turner, but what it needs is a boost to its

flagging economy. Working whth the Jerwood Gallery could hold the key.

We need `` we may need to work together better but the feeling is

that the Jerwood Gallery is one of the main reasons that peopld come to

Hastings. They come to see lany attractions and things like our

heritage, the castle, the mtseum and other art collections and artefacts

on what people come to see. For many authorities, just a fraction of what

they have is on public display while the rest lies in storage. It all

needs to be managed, maintahned restored and insured. No ond wants

to be seen to be a cultural Philistine but the suggestion that

councils should spend money on priceless pieces of artwork rather

than on amenities like bin collection, I think you know what

most residents would prefer the money being spent on.

Are these collections and asset or a burden? Can local authoritids

effectively harness them to the maximum benefit or should priceless

artworks we in the hands of local authorities at all?

The Jerwood Gallery in Hasthngs featured in Sara's report ` let s

talk to the man who runs it, David Pennock. You run a successftl

commercial gallery, it is not something for political amateurs?

That is correct, they are bdst run by people feel involved and art

galleries and who are committed to them. One of the difficultids is

when they are run by public authorities and the public

authorities have a large pool and their time and funds. In sole cases

the family silver as sold for short`term gain and that is a very

short`sighted view of the role of culture and art in many of our towns

and cities around the country. If you have a couple of fantastic

pieces, we heard about Croydon 0 piece for several millions of

pounds, if you cannot do it justice, I do not better selling it `nd using

the money for something in the areas that people would value? If you want

to sell something and use it on a short`term expenditure that is

highly undesirable. One of the solutions may be that were councils

and local authorities have valuable works of art they look at pttting

those into a separate charitable and not`for`profit trust so that they

can be protected over the long run. Frequently those things are being

given to the galleries by individuals who want them to be

there for the benefit of thd general public and it is perhaps

unreasonable for the councils to sell them off for short`terl

returns. Cantlie council re`lly compete, you said at the beginning

it was a serious and professional business, can the council m`naged to

run a very expensive art collection? I cannot give you figures for

Brighton but it is clear th`t each gallery takes an enormous alount of

resources to look after it. Standing entirely on our own it would not be

possible to survive and prosper unless we had a charge for dntry.

That is another solution th`t councils and local authorithes may

look at, that perhaps they should be charging to get some sort of return,

but remember, when you have a great gallery in somewhere like H`stings,

that brings people to the town and it adds to the economy of the likes

of Hastings and as to the ctltural economy as well so it would be a

great mistake for any local authority to give up on that really

very important cultural acthvity. Thank you, David. Well done for

coping with the heckling! Rehman Chishti, should men to be

keep its art collection or sell it, make sure it is all on display, what

is the best scenario? The art collection is valued at ?290,00 and

I would say that art is a kdy part of our heritage and of course, local

authorities should keep it `nd display it out in the public so

members of the public can vhew it. It could inspire future gendrations

who wants to be artists to say that they could do likewise and xears to

come. We do not think of our local authorities as being there for the

cultural experience, ?200,000, that would fill a few potholes, would it

not? Some local authorities balance this better than others. I think

made we does a really good job but I accept that we could look at doing

things differently were loc`l authorities work with galleries and

businesses to ensure that artists display their work and that there is

also revenue generated that can be put back into the art facilhties and

the local area. The cost of looking after this stuff could also be seen

as a burden. We have asked the local authorities to tell us the value of

the things that are in stor`ge, it is quite high. It adds great

vibrancy to a community. As Rehman Chishti says, there is the dconomic

benefit. My question has to be whether the local authority should

provide this or whether it can be done in a different way. As you have

said, many works of art are stored in basements and elsewhere that the

public has no access to. How can they justify this? It is re`lly

difficult for some local authorities, if they are holding

these items and public trust, they cannot sell it. That is correct

they should then pull the information and the items ott of

storage and sell it on somewhere. Perhaps through a charity where they

can display it. Works of art could also be held elsewhere, as long as

it is out of basements. Goodhart is very good for us, we all have

different tastes, but just how good is the artwork of our local

authorities? Will have diffdrent opinions, so it is difficult, there

is a diverse range. But I bdlieve that things can be done differently

to make sure that people can view the artwork. The problem cotld be

that you must always make stre it is for the benefit of the local

community. If you have a spdcial Chinese lies and it is worth ?2

million, you would think wh`t could I do with this money for Mike

Unity. Brighton and Hove Cotncil, they sold a number plate for one of

their mayor's cards but thex could have put that money back into public

service. They are assets held by councils that could be used better.

Another council sold off its hard for front line services. Thdy did

that to get funding. Thank xou both very much.

Now, here are two words you don t often hear in a political show `

neuromuscular incapacitation. That's the posh description for wh`t

happens when you're Tasered. Stun guns carry a 50,000`volt ch`rge and

they've been a key part of the armoury of our police forces for

some time now. But are they now being used too much? Figures

released by the Home Office this week show that Sussex Policd

recorded a significant year on year increase, from 30 to 164 usds. In

percentage terms, that's a 447% rise. Here's Chief Superintdndent

Paul Morrison of Sussex and Surrey Police responding to those figures

on BBC South East Today this week: it has added an extra option for

them to resolve incidents in the past where we would have to have

used restraint like batons or sprays.

It has given them another option. Because of the high compliance rate,

we are seeing only 13 times that it has been discharged.

Joining me now is Oliver Sprague from Amnesty International.

He says that Tasers are better than bad ones, do you agree? I think when

they were first introduced, Tasers were brought in to do with the type

of incidents that back lawns and CS spray could not do with effdctively.

We are talking about incidence of severe violence, knife crimd, and

the Taser offered a safer w`y to deal with those incidents. @nd the

purist sends the instant to that is yes. He also said that they are

effective and that they work, is that true? They come with Axris

Amnesty International is not against the police using Tasers, we

recognise they have a different court `` difficult job to do. You

mentioned 50,000 volts of electricity and your opening

remarks. The important thing is that the disruption to the musclds Hearts

Omagh it is agonising. For those five seconds you are under severe

pain. That is a concern to Jim and rights organisations. Has thought

point was that they work without it being deployed, the threat of a stun

gun or being red dotted with one were the aim it at you, that is

enough to work. One of our concerns is that Tasers were introduced for

serious violence, but the stggestion is that they could be getting used

for more minor incidents. When you draw out a Taser, it should operate

within the same rules as if you were using it. You should only bd drawing

the weapon in response to life`threatening or serious

situations. But what a wonddrful thing that a weapon can be tsed

without actually being fired. It must be undertaken control, however.

The problem is that when thd weapon is misused it can cost some tragic

incidents. You only have to look in the United States and they `re not

saying that we will go down the similar route, but since we have

been looking at that, since 199 Amnesty International has rdcorded

several hundred deaths to do with Taser incidents. When you look at

autopsy reports, and a signhficant number of those cases, medical

examiners point to the Taser as being a contributory factor to that

debt. Let me bring in Norman Baker, the Home Office Minister. Sdries

concerns about mortality rates. You were all for caution over T`sers in

the past, have you changed xour mind? I am still for caution, Tasers

must be controlled and monitored. It is important to point out that the

large number of entries is not mirrored by an increase in tsage.

That is correct, they were fired 13 times in 2013, the same as 2012 so

is there some hysteria? People are very concerned and there must be

proper controls. I went to the Home Office research unit to look at this

myself. I saw it fired into the body of the manic grin. It was

interesting to watch it happen because the barbs, when thex come

out of the gun, the hit parts of the body that are not quite so

sensitive. How can we know what it is like unless it is tested on

humans? 50,000 volts, you know that will not be pleasant! Let md give

you some assurances, every time a Taser is drawn it is recorddd by the

police. The Home Office has a record of every time a Taser is usdd. We

monitor all of the health implications for each time one is

fired. It is highly regulatdd, I appreciate that, but what about when

someone dies in this countrx after, I am not saying June in being

Tasered, even if it happens a few weeks later, that would change that

which changed the debate, would it not? They would have to find out

whether the police officer had behaved appropriately. You `re

surrounded by people who max be endangering your life as a police

officer, it is only right that you are able to defend yourself.

Sometimes if you draw the T`ser that is enough to prevent the problem.

But that is not always the case hence why it is observed by the Home

Office. Let us talk about the figures in Kent. The most striking

thing was that half of thosd Tasered were mentally ill. We have heard of

children being Tasered and sunny, vulnerable people being Tasdred

does that not worry you? We have to make sure that they are being used

properly. When the police ddcide to use them, they must look at the

strategy that they are employing. The key factor is that when you use

a Taser, it should be in relation to when there is violence or the threat

of violence. It used to just the firearm officers, they get three

months of training, no it is often officers who have had four days

training simply and using a Taser, that is a big difference, mtst we go

back to allowing only firearm officers to using what are very

dangerous weapons? It happened in 2000 and then when you had

specifically trained officers using Tasers. But we have seen thhs

increase in Sussex recently. Like Norman said, you have seen `n

increase in the drawing of these Tasers, but if you look at the use

of these Tasers, there was only 13 users, that shows the policd are

being reasonable and proportionate. Norman, would you prefer fire arms

officers only to use these? The training must be adequate. That is

the issue. A gun is a legal weapon, a Taser is a very dangerous weapon

used wrongly. We must make sure that officers are properly traindd. Thank

you all for joining me. And now for a round`up of the other

political events that you mhght have missed this week with James

Fitzgerald. Recipients of home care are worried

about Kent County Council's decision to strip back contracts to providers

to just 20 companies in orddr to provide better value for money.

Divya Talwar the must be better quality of care. The sports minister

visited Dover for a regener`ted people's port.

He is tried to give financi`l flexibility and invited loc`ls.

Charlie Elphicke crossed thd Channel to look at how illegal storhes tried

to enter the UK. He disappe`red `` he disagreed with French authorities

who said it was a problem for the British government. It is both our

concern. One Eurosceptic Kent MP. 4000

respondents voted in favour of leaving the EU.

Picking up on that referendtm point, the overwhelmingly popular

position for those that votdd was to come out of Europe, only UKHP can

offer that, five and a half weeks of the until the European elections,

Conservatives, are they scared of UKIP? The only party that is

offering the British public a referendum as the Conservathve

Party. Are you scared of thdm? We are the only party that can give the

British public the opportunhty to decide what kind of relationship

they want with Europe. We know that your leader went head`to`he`d with

Nigel Farage. As David Cameron scared of Nigel Farage? Not at all.

I think it is a case where Nick Clegg and Nigel Farage wantdd to

debate with two smaller parties going head`to`head. You say he has

avoided the opportunity to debate, he has never avoided the issue.

Thank you both very much indeed Lovely to have you both present

Parliament is not sitting, risk. We have run out of time. -

particular candidates. Back to you, Andrew.

The sun's out, Ed Balls has run the London Marathon, and MPs leave

Westminster for their Easter break. Let's discuss what's coming up in

the Week Ahead. We will get more of what we have

just seen. Let's look back on the debate. What did we learn from the

argument is? That it is going to bore and irritate whole lot of

people, this election campaign. Four parties shouting at each other about

things that most people do not know much about. They know very little

about how the European Parliament works, what an MEP is supposed to

do. A lot of heat and not a lot of light. I've updated well, all of

them, but the net effect is not going to encourage people to go out

and vote and not many do. One thing that struck me was that on Europe,

the Labour and Lib Dem positions are not that far apart. They are pretty

much the same. And yet the knocks lots of each other. I suppose they

feel that they had to do that because that is the format. I'd

agree with Polly. Their word UKIP and the Tories to attack two we try

to make it exciting, and we know the issues are important. But people out

there have not heard of these individuals. It is not very

exciting. That is worrying because these are huge national questions

for us. We need to find a way of making it more fun. People may not

know these MEPs, they may not know the detail of the debate, but it is

an issue on which people have strong opinions. It is a visceral thing for

many people. Especially on the immigration issue. The debate took

off and became more vociferous at that point. To a large extent, you

wonder whether not only this European election but the eventual

referendum will be a referendum on the issue of immigration and free

movement. If we did not learn much from the argument, the thing we did

learn is that the structure of these televised debate influences the

outcome. One of the reasons that Nigel Farage did well in the debate

is that in a two-man debate, each man has as good a chance as the

other. If it is four people, one man can be ganged up on. Patrick O'Flynn

did well for a man who is not an elected politician yet. At times, 40

came under attack and did not hold the line as well as you would

expect. Does that create a perverse incentive for the main parties to

agree to a four way debate before the general election? I do not think

the David Cameron has nearly as much to worry about from a televised

debate in the run-up to the elections than his spin doctors

believe. When you put him up against Ed Miliband, and we have not

actually seen Ed Miliband in that format, I think he will come off all

right. This is an election which the polls would have us believe that the

battle for first place is between UKIP and labour. It certainly is.

Obviously, it is neck and neck and we will not know until we are

closer. And it matters a lot to both of them. If Mr Miliband does not

come first, that is not good news for the main opposition at this

stage. Except to some extent all of the people will put it to one side

and say that this is a bizarre election. A plague on both your

houses, let's vote UKIP. It is not clear how much that translates into

the next election. It is not too disastrous for Labour. It would be

better if they came first. If Mr Miliband comes first, not a problem,

but it becomes second and UKIP soars away, what are the consequences I

think there is a widespread expectation already at Westminster

that UKIP is very likely to come first. If Ed Miliband fails to come

first, there will not be a great deal of shock in the West Mr

village. Else think what is remarkable about Ed Miliband is that

despite consistently poor personal leadership approval ratings, the

overall Labour poll is consistently very high. We have seen that budget

blip, it seems to have taken us back to where we were before. Leadership

is not everything. Mrs Thatcher was miles behind James Callaghan but in

the end, it was the party politics that mattered more. If Mr Cameron

comes third and the Tories come third, maybe a poor third, is it

headless chicken time on the Tory backbenchers? It has often been said

that the Tory Party has two modes, complacency and panic. You will see

them shift into panic mode. By June, I think. Many of the stories in the

sun will be about David Cameron s personal leadership and his grip on

the party. There will be pressure on conference by the time that comes

around. It is a natural consequence of being the incumbent party. The

Lib Dems are 7% in two of the polls today. It was widely thought that in

the first and second debates, Nigel Farage won both. In retrospect, was

the challenge strategy a disaster for Mr Clegg? I do not think it was

because he had nothing to lose. But he is lower in the polls than when

he started. He has not lost a great deal. The polls were quite often

that low. I think it was a good thing to do. It raised his profile.

It made him the leading party in. That may be a difficult place to

be. That is how you end up with 7% in the polls. The reason he is

fighting with Labour is that he knows very well that all he has to

do is to get his votes back that have gone to Labour and labour have

to fight hard to make sure that they do not go back. Every party looks to

where it is going to get it support. If it is a wipe-out for the

Lib Dems, and they lose all their MEPs, not saying that is going to

happen but you could not rule it out for, are we back in Nick Clegg

leadership crisis territory? One of the astonishing things about this

Parliament is the relative absence of leadership speculation about Nick

Clegg will stop at the first couple of years, his position seems

tricky, but maybe that is because Chris Hughton is gone and he was the

only plausible candidate. This cable is not getting any younger, to put

it delicately. That was not delegate at all! And we have reached a

desperate stage where Danny Alexander is talked about as a

candidate. That was not delegate either! Maybe he is holding onto

power the lack of alternatives. If they ended up with no MEPs at all,

and a less than double digits score... With Danny Alexander, it is

clear that Scotland, one way or another, will be moving further

away. You could not have the leader of a national party be a Scot. But

he does not have the following in the party. I'm glad you're liberal

attitudes to immigration extends to me. I would not have been here for

43 years. There will be leadership talk after that holes. It has been

bubbling in the background, but you have to talk to the grass roots

activists. -- after the polls. The grass roots activists are

despairing. If things are bad, they lose their network of activists who

they need to fight the next election. I think you mean, not that

you could have a Scot, but that it would be more difficult to have a

Scot from a Scottish constituency. Absolutely. I think a Scottish

constituency, so many things will be different. Or to hold the great

offices of state. Let's come onto the Crown Prosecution Service is. It

is an English institution. Where does the CPS and after losing yet

another high-profile case come this time Nigel Evans? They had nine

counts against him and they did not win on one. It is obviously very

embarrassing. They will have a bit of explain to do but I guess the

threshold for bringing these cases is high. There has to be considered

at least a 50-50 chance of actually winning the case. We do not know

what went on behind the scenes when they weighed up whether to bring the

case. Nigel Evans makes an interesting point about whether it

is legitimate to bundle together a number of stand-alone relatively

weak accusations, and when you put them together to militantly, the CPS

uses that to make a case. Is that a legitimate thing to do? He was a

high-profile figure, not just because he was a Tory MP. He was the

deputy speaker of the House. And yet the CPS are certainly the police, to

begin with they did not have that many people to testify against him.

And then they trawled for more. You wonder if they would have done that

if it was not for the fact that he was a public figure. The trouble is,

they are dammed if they do and dammed if they do not. Particularly

with politicians and the reputation they have these days, if there is

any suggestion that they let somebody off because they are a

high-profile politician, and they are saying that about Cyril Smith,

that is the accusation. A strange story. Most unlikely and very

bizarre. But that is the accusation. If there is any with of that, I can

see why the CPS says, we better let the courts try this one. Also, they

are in trouble overrated cases because their success rate on

bringing people to court for rape is so thin. When it looked as if his

accusers were not really accusing him, it looks quite weak. You cannot

help but feeling that they are falling over backwards now in

high-profile cases because of their abject and total failure over Jimmy

Savile. I think this is exactly the kind of case that happens when you

are trying to make a point or redeem a reputation or change a culture.

All of these big things. As opposed to what criminal justice is supposed

to be about, which is specific crimes and specific evidence

matching those crimes. The CPS has no copper a fleet joined in this

list of public and situations that has taken a fall over the past five

or six years. We have had Parliament, the newspapers, the

police will stop I think this is as bad a humiliation as any of those

because it is Innocent people suffering. You are the most recent,

being a lobby correspondent in Westminster, and we now see on

Channel 4 News that basically, Westminster is twinned with Sodom

and Gomorrah. Yes. I know. Is this true? It is all rather the red. I do

not move in those circles. And you were in the lobby at one stage? Not

that long ago. Is it right. Is it right to be twinned with Sodom and

Gomorrah? I'll ask him for his opinion. Being technically a member

of the lobby, I can observe some of this stuff. And what surprises me is

that journalists, when the complain about Sodom and Gomorrah, write

themselves out of it. It is as if it is just MPs. We are unalloyed and

unvarnished. Actually, the fact is it has always been a bit like Sodom

and tomorrow. Of course it has. Think about how we have had wave

after wave of stories and scandals. But less of it recently. It was I

think that attitudes have slightly changed. I'll also think that if you

get 650 people in any organisation and you put that much scrutiny on

them, you will find an awful lot going on in most people's officers

of a scurrilous nature. Even in the BBC

In 2013, the public voted for a portrait of

At times he's interesting, at times he's very funny,

My life is a very happy life and I'm a very happy person.

Will you feel nervous when this is unveiled?

I suppose being the centre of attention but for ever.