22/01/2012 Sunday Politics South

Coming up in Sunday Politics South: �150 million to help secure almost

2000 jobs. The scheme that will bring bigger

Apology for the loss of subtitles for 1762 seconds

Welcome to Sunday Politics South. I'm Peter Henley. On today's show:

A �150 million upgrade to Southampton docks looks like it's

got the go-ahead and could save hundreds of jobs, but why did it

take so long? More Matin a few minutes. Joining

me are two of the region's MPs. Dr Julian Lewis is the MP for New

Forest East. Let us first talk about the employ menus we had this

week. The port is part of that. Do you think, Julian, that the South

is escaping well out of this problem with the economy? I do not

think anybody can rely on escaping well out of this problem because it

is something of such magnitude that the whole of the country will be

affected to a greater or lesser degree. The South, I think, is as

well placed as any other part of the country to write some of these

storms but, we must not kid ourselves that it is a very

difficult situation. John, new figures come out tomorrow and

Reading was in the top five to whether the economic storm, is that

likely to be the same? Southampton, Portsmouth, Gosport,

Hastings, Brighton, the unemployment figures are looking

much more like you're seeing in the Midlands and the north so while

there are parts of the South that are not doing too badly, other

parts are being hit hard. 18 months ago unemployment was coming down

and the economy was growing. That has been thrown into reverse.

Unemployment is going up and long- term youth unemployment is going up.

The kind of schemes that used to be in place to help people out have

all disappeared so it is a grim situation if you do not have a job.

The reason some of these things were thrown into reverse is that we

were spending money that we did not have. The Government is having to

take a grip on it and make the books balance. Most people feel

that says that having someone working and paying taxes is better

than having somebody out of work and relying on tax payers to pay

the benefits bill. That is where borrowing is going up. Real jobs

you mention there. Good news for Southampton this week as it looks

like a proposed investment in the port could get the go-ahead.

The upgrade to two of the birds could allow a new generation of

larger container ships to dock but Associated British Ports have been

prevented from spending the money because of the threat of legal

action from rival ports and it was claimed that government departments

were unable to talk to each other. On Wednesday the minister promised

to bang heads together. We need to be in step with a market that is

world-leading. We have been world leaders in this for many years and

we stepped back from that with the last government. They did not take

it seriously but I do. Doug Morrison is here on the programme.

You must have been relieved to hear the tone of what was said in

Parliament this week. You must be frustrated that it did not happen

until now. It was a five-year process. We started the process

back in 2007 and it has been a long and tortuous route. This was a key

that was already there. When you go back through the history, this was

the original container berth back in the 1960s. Really, what we want

to do is use it again for containers. To do that, you have to

deepen the birth and we have to strengthen the key. To be waiting

five years for a favourable decision is frankly ridiculous.

Ridiculous from both governments. It was just politicians in general

holding things up. I do not know if we can blame the politicians

sitting across from here but it was really down to the officials and

incompetence at times. I do nothing that is unfair. The minister

referred to it as a cock-up so why do not think incompetence is too

strong a word. Do you believe him that he will get on the case now?

It is not his department's, so what we really want to do is... We are

where we are. We have - but we cannot resolve that mistakes of the

past but all we can do is make sure that there are no a necessary Mogg

delays. In the New Forest, you are opposed the development of a bay.

Looking back, that things difficult and that is told in the port of

Southampton back. It is absolutely vindicated, even dead Morrison is

giving me a smile and nod of camera. It has been an absolute pleasure

for wants to be able to support Associated British Ports on an

issue of this sort because we always said when breed waged our

successful campaign at Dibden Bay on our side of Southampton Water,

arguing that it should not be a container port, we always said

there was great scope for development of container port

facilities within the existing footprint of Associated British

Ports's estate. That is what I have been trying to do and what they

have been wrongly blocked from doing by the failure of these

agencies to do their job properly. That is why people like John and I

have been able to sing from the same song sheet and say get on with

it. This prevents the risk of anywhere like Dibden Bay being

spoiled. John, you have run these departments, why is it that things

just do not happen when up the pair politicians at the top one them to

happen. It is what has just been said. Sometimes people make

mistakes, they are human. Five years! What happens is that the

people that were dealing with this did not see the significance of

what was at stake and they became terribly worried about getting it

all right. There was a legal challenge from the people who ran

Felixstowe out of naked commercial interest trying to hold up the

project. I got involved with this with Doug Morrison and other

colleagues and the feeling you got was that the people in these

departments did not realise that actually if they did not get this

through soon, the whole project could suffer and the port of

Southampton could suffer. What we were able to do as politicians this

week, with ministers, was actually say that this has got to be sorted

out. The day after we had the big debate on Wednesday, two of us were

at question time the next day and got the minister whose actual

response was to promise after that we would get all have the resources

and expertise that we needed. not a very good reflection on a

government that were trying to make sure that they were in charge and

speeding things up in terms of the Civil Service. According to my

mathematics, we are a government that has been in place for 18

months or less and this has reached -- this dispute has rumbled on for

a much longer period and we are now taking it by the scruff of the neck

and to getting on with it. All credit to job -- all credit to John

for getting on with it. One of the big things about last week was we

could have got nowhere by having a fascinating debate about whose

fault it was. That would have got us nowhere. Something went wrong

deep in the depth of the machine, a million miles from party politics.

Actually it was much better for us all to come together and sorted out

and not worry about who was in charge and whose fault it was.

have asked if you are confident it will go through but there are also

worries about the cruise ship trade given the accident in Italy. There

is also the threat from Liverpool which we have talked at -- about at

the past. Are you more optimistic than you have been? I think that

the cruise ship situation, the minister expressed it very well in

the debate, our heartfelt condolences go at to everyone who

was affected but 16 million people crews during 2011 and we have to

put it in perspective that there are very few incidents of that kind.

I do not see the cruise-ship business being affected but there

is also always the threat -- there is always the threat of Liverpool.

We did 0.2 some of the Liverpool MPs that were there and pointed out

that if they paid the money back there would be no argument. That

has always been our point. We want all of the money paid back so there

is a level playing field. Are you worried this could be a concession

and you may use the cruise ship trade because this is a concession.

I do not think they are connected. These are two different issues. The

other one is a commercial operator doing everything they can to block

a development. Thank you very much. Religion and politics don't mix

they say. Well, increasingly that's simply not true. As Tristan Pascoe

reports, senior clergy have been lining up to bend the government's

ear over things political - but the question is, should they?

The Archbishop of Canterbury used his Christmas sermon to warn that

the financial crisis led to a financial breakdown... What the

government is proposing in Wales... As every good student in history

knows, in the 12th century Henry wanted to get rid of a turbulent

priest. Loyalists interpreted it as a command and the Archbishop of

Canterbury was brutally murdered on the steps of the cathedral.

Hundreds of churches today bear his name. Things are a little more

civilised nowadays. The last political confrontation between

church and state was probably the Archbishop of Canterbury Robert

Runcie preaching forgiveness for the Argentine forces during the

Falklands contact -- Falklands conflict. Now the church is caught

up its own political storm, right at its front door. Despite that,

senior church leaders by the Bishop of Salisbury are not put off from

entering the political fray. There is marvellous work with homeless

people in Salisbury. The church is deeply connected with it. It is one

of the areas where I am entitled to comment because there are so many

Christians doing it and involved in it. He has got form. In a previous

post he led a campaign to oppose the election of a BNP candidate.

Do you have a moral imperative to speak out against government

policy? Of course there was a moral imperative to speak out on behalf

of people who are vulnerable and not so good at articulating things

for themselves. The Church will always come along on the side of

the people of those who were in the grated need. There are humanists

and secularists that think the Church has no place meddling with

government policy. Bishops in the House of Lords come from the Church

of England and only represent the Church of England and did not the

views of Islam, Hinduism and of course the many non-religious

people in the country. They can comment if they like and that is up

to them but to have a say in what happens in government, they should

have to be elected and the public should have to choose that they be

in government. Nowadays more and more people are non-religious. 10

times more people watch EastEnders every week and go to church. It is

really an unrepresentative portion of society. But intervene they do.

Last year the Bishop of Sherborne road to council leaders asking them

not to let the unprecedented levels of spending cuts affect the elderly

and vulnerable. Why did you want to get involved in social policy

locally? Locally the church is embedded in the community. Simon

Jenkins wrote a very good article in the Guardian last year saying

that there are a lot of little societies and they are mostly under

spires. Most churches have been embedded in the community for

centuries. When something happens the local vicar is involved with

local politicians and the bishop is involved with county ones. The New

Forest MP straddles both camps. He is part of David Cameron's inner

circle and also a lay preacher. I am asked to preach I sweat for

some time before hand. I find it much more difficult.

consultation on gay marriage in a few weeks could provoke an almighty

row. The Church has to recognise that it does not own marriage.

Marriage predates Christianity and it is a secular institution. What

the churches believe about marriage is entirely up to them. We would

not dream of interfering in their belief about marriage. But there

are many people who get married who do not share those beliefs and the

law must address their needs. church leaders can only scrutinise,

not make or shape policy, what can they contribute? It is important

that there are different principles for taking part in politics as

Christian leaders. One of them is that you bring a moral dimension

and that includes housing and defence as well as things like

abortion and divorce. They have an insight into standards and morality.

I do not think they have expertise in terms of government policy.

the current climate, that is not going to stop the church from

trying. What is going on at the moment is that because there is an

economic problem, because there is a government policy of cuts and we

are into a pretty poor steered time, there is a real concern that the

most vulnerable in our community are carrying a disproportionate

amount of the cost of what is happening to us as a whole

community. John, when you were Secretary of State for community,

building cohesion, you were talking about the marginalisation of faith

at that stage. You felt churches had a voice but do you think they

are now having too much of a boy's? I do not think so. I think it is

important that people in government respect people in faith as they

respect or people in their community. It is important to

understand a dissection of the population, probably a man not --

probably a minority, for whom a fate shared their life more

importantly than anything else. It is a voice that should be heard. I

am always very clear that their views should not have a privileged

position and they should not veto other people's... But they do!

practice I am not sure that that is what happens. The boys should be

there and it should be one of a number of voices in a democratic

society but I do not agree with the hardline atheist who say they do

not want to hear the voice of anybody with faith in government. I

think that is shutting out the views of a very sincere section of

the electorate. Would you give an equal Islamic Boys'? I think it is

very important. Those thoughts were going through my mind when I

listened to what John was saying. The reality is that every group in

society has an entitlement to make its voice heard and the Church of

England, and I must say that I come from a minority religious

background myself, although I am not a terribly religious person,

that every church has the right to have its voice heard and every fate

has the right to have its voice heard. It does not have a right to

dictate what the outcome should be. It must always remember one thing.

We are operating in a democratic society where we all have

institutions and access to those institutions to get those issues

debated. In a dictatorship, it is more important that church leaders

speak out because no one else can. Our regular round-up of the

political news from the south and 60 seconds.

-- in a 60 seconds. The latest wave of redundancies hit

the Navy at the start of the week. Portsmouth got off lightly. It

seems many sailors have already jumped ship.

Bournemouth council leader was forced to walk the plank by

Conservative colleagues, resigning after a vote of no confidence.

Olympic rowers were pulling together on Dorney Lake in

Berkshire. The security plan was released on Wednesday with the

biggest police operation the county has ever seen. Perhaps that is

something that could be recorded in a museum of Berkshire life.

The Bracknell MP is looking for cultural input into his town's

redevelopment. I think feeding the soul is just as important as be in

the stomach. He would appreciate the problems archives, letters and

photos of India left to the nation's instead of paying

inheritance tax. Sorry George Osborne, we will enjoy them.

Inheritance tax, that is a tricky subject. John, do you think that

there may be a change on her rise and there with Conservatives in

government? I do not think it should be a priority of this

government to hand out money to people who get more than �1 million

when so many people are struggling. Do you think they would like to?

know that they would. Their instincts are always towards the

best off in the society to project that -- protect the majority. But

they would be ill-advised to go down that route with so many people

with a lot less money being so up against it. We made changes in

government that made the system fairer and covered most people who

had bought their own home through their own efforts who thought they

were being penalised through the system but I do not think there was

a case for pushing it further. is your take? I seem to remember it

was a pledge by George Osborne to raise the threshold for inheritance

tax that frightens the a Labour Party so Gordon Brown would not go

to the country. It would be a popular move. The moment we can

afford it I would like to see it happen. What I would also like to

see his the Government being willing to take something that is a

valuable to the whole nation in low of inheritance tax because then we

can take the benefit of that Herr - - history. Thank you very much for