02/06/2013 Sunday Politics South

a �10,000 pay rise? Some of them already make "loadsamoney" with

Apology for the loss of subtitles for 2449 seconds

outside jobs - are we really all in I'm Peter Henley. Today: Should we

be paying our MPs more? They already make a tidy sum and many make

thousands more from outside work. But are they getting the going

rate? First, let's meet the politicians will be with me for the

next 20 minutes. Alan Whitehead is the Labour MP for Southampton Test

and Gerald Vernon-Jackson is the Liberal Democrat leader of

Portsmouth City Council. Portsmouth is in the news because of the

Portsmouth South MP Mike Hancock and the disciplinary committee that he

faces. You're a senior Liberal Democrat and have been around a long

time. Do you think what's happening with Mike is a fallout from the

questions inquiry? Are Liberal Democrat stealing badly with women

or is it just down to this one case? I think what's in the news is

the opening of the Mary Rose Museum and things like that are much more

on people's minds. There are always issues with people who are in the

public eye. They're always issues with Mike Hancock, it seems. He's

never been charged with anything, as far as I know, so I think that's

your supposition and not one out by reality. The charges coming from

your party leader, Nick Clegg. That's the disciplinary procedure

which he'll face on Monday. If he was an independent MP and lost the

whip, could he continue as a Liberal Democrat councillor on the City

Council? It's entirely hypothetical. We don't know what any outcome of

any discussions are going to be. What I do know is that this is a

civil case that has been launched by one person trying to get some money

from somebody else. That could happen to any of us. It's only about

a financial arrangement. It could happen to anyone. Peter, it could

happen to you. The police have looked at this and decided there is

no case to answer. No, they said there was not sufficient evidence to

bring a prosecution. And they are not proceeding. Is it one of those

things that happens to MPs? You get vexatious constituents and you've

constantly got to be dealing with the public, as teachers do and as

journalists do. Or do you think, without prejudging the situation,

MPs should be cut a bit of slack? are still in somewhat hypothetical

circumstances but there is, I think, a strong duty of care that MPs have

in terms of how they deal with their constituents and how they deal with

people who come to see them and what transpires. If that is what is at

the heart of this issue, then there certainly is something to talk about

concerning how and please do deal with their constituents. -- how MPs

do deal. I would hope that anyone who comes to see me is happy with

what transpires, whether I can help them out on the particular issue or

not. I think that's a very important principle but we shall see when the

inquiry takes place and the disciplinary proceedings, if they do

take place, what comes out. suggestion is that because a writ

has been issued he's got to go before his party leader.

proceedings from that point of view are similar, in a way, to someone

being referred to the House of Commons standards committee, where

you may not have been guilty or charged with criminal offence but

there is perhaps an issue about how your conduct has been in view of

your elected circumstance and that's what I think that's about in

essence. And in this case, this has already been there and the

Parliamentary standards body has decided they would not proceed and

make no judgement about Mike. are not committee. Indeed. That's

the problem, I think, in terms of how Parliament deals with its own

members. It's how you draw the line between what is a member's personal

life and what is a member's responsibility as far as his role as

an MP is concerned but there is, it seems to me, a very clear

relationship between doing the right thing by your constituents and your

role as an MP. I think that is what is going to be judged in the future

and whether Mike then sits as an independent or whether he has the

whip withdrawn and decides to stand down or, indeed, whether the whole

discussion proceeds and he then, should that turn out well for him,

comes back as a Liberal Democrat MP is a Vermeer. He's got health issues

and hasn't been in Parliament for a while. -- is up in the air. Anybody

who knows Mike there won't -- knows there won't be a by-election.

won't happen or you wouldn't stand if it did? It won't happen.That is

the sound of a door being left open. We've heard a lot about plans to cut

immigration but sometimes they can have unintended consequences. This

week Vince Cable was warning that restrictions on student visas could

be putting students from countries like India and harming the colony.

There's also a crisis looming down on the farm amongst seasonal workers

from Eastern Europe. The seasonal agricultural workers

scheme is only open to Rumanian and Bulgarian workers. It runs out at

the end of the year and that's also when those countries get access to

the whole of the EU jobs market. The fear is that they'll either look for

more permanent jobs here or else jobs closer to home - places like

Germany. It could be the last we'll see of the 21,000 people who come

over here each season. That's a third of the temporary fruit farm

workforce. Joining us now from Birmingham is James Hallett, the

Chief Executive of the British Growers Association. Welcome to the

programme. Tell us about this situation. Are these people who come

regularly as migrant workers, and if so why should they stop? We are

concerned that while this scheme has run for nearly 60 years with various

different populations across Europe, there is potential it will end at

the end of this year. The concern we have is that this industry is

completely reliant upon these workers coming in and the fact that

at the end of this year they will have employment rights across the

country in all sorts of different sectors means we are worried that

they will end up going into other industries and horticulture will be

left without a very important part of its workforce. Are you saying the

only reason they worked on all of that fruit picking, a lot of it on

the South coast of England, was because they couldn't get any other

sort of work? This scheme is licensed and managed scheme of

migration to allow students come into this country for a maximum of

six months at a time and work in agriculture. The vast majority of

them work and horticulture, planting and harvesting salads, vegetables

and fruit, and at the end of this year there is the opportunity for

Bulgarian and Romanian - whether students are not -- or not - to come

into this country. We are concerned we will lose a real bedrock of our

workforce. What are you asking to happen? We would like to see an

expanded scheme put into place allowing for students to come in

from countries such as Ukraine, where there is a very large

agricultural student population, to continue working under the same kind

of licensing and management because, very simply, this is an industry

which is currently worth �3.7 billion nationally and we got

opportunities to grow through an enormous amount of import

replacement, in particular. We have a trade deficit with �4 billion. We

don't want the industry to be stuck and not be able to take advantage of

that opportunity by employment restrictions. What we would like to

do is to recruit UK citizens to do this work but the fact remains that

we can't find enough of them so we do have to go further afield. The

countries around the borders of Europe, such as Ukraine, are ideal

solution. We need to ensure we got this continuation of the bedrock of

students that we need. Let's turn to our two politicians will stop it

looks like an unintended consequence. This is obviously about

EU integration but the business of limiting students seems to have

caused real problems, doesn't it? think as far students are concerned,

the question how visas are issued and over what period, and to what

extent that means that students perhaps go else where in the world

for studies instead of the UK, is a realist you for the UK economy and

the higher education. It's potentially shooting our economy in

the foot. -- a real issue. It illustrates that the whole question

of migrant labour and how it works is actually much more complex than

some people would have us believe. These people who are coming over to

the UK to take part in horticulture, you could say, are

parallel to the highly skilled migrants that we bring in across the

world for jobs that don't have the UK people easily available to do

them. We provide work permits and so on for those people but, of course,

that is, located by the accession -- that is complicated by the accession

of new countries coming into the equal right to work across Europe

next year. It's a pretty convex issue. People are concerned about

immigration, aren't they? Is it just not thought through our other big

tensions? With the higher education thing, this is one of the things

Britain does brilliantly. It's a huge export market for the UK, where

we have people coming from abroad to come and learn in our educational

establishments in Britain and they bring in a huge amount of money.

What we've got to get right is that if somebody is here on a student

Visa, that's for them to stay. But if they're here to study and go home

at the end of it, that's how it's meant to work and we've got to be

careful to keep that bit of British industry - cos that's what it is -

protected because that creates wealth for so many people. In

Portsmouth and Southampton and all over the South. John, do you think

that there will be serious problems if this isn't maintained? I think

there will be serious problems, not least the fact that there are

businesses all over the South and across the economy who are holding

back on investment decisions which, in essence, is holding back under

the limit of the rural economy. It is a serious problem. -- holding

back the development of the rural community. Countries like Bulgaria

and Romania and others are gritting for next year. We haven't got time

to wait. -- recruiting for next year. We need the creation of more

permanent jobs based upon seasonal labour which is the bedrock of the

economy so we reread need to have this labour coming in, continuing to

come in, because this is a rural economy with enormous opportunity to

grow. Kenyan MPs voted themselves a

whopping 50 descent pay increase this week. That means they now earn

more than members of our own mother of Parliaments. -- 50%. There are

suggestions that our MPs' money should go up as well. Possibly not

the best time to be publishing the latest details of what our elected

representatives take home in addition to their parliamentary pay.

That also came out this week. It ranged from John Howard's earning of

�100 for two performances on the church organ to Nicholas Owen is's

almost �300,000 for company directorships. -- Nicolas Soames's.

Are you ready to serve? We are looking for men and women - mostly

men, though - to join an elite group of 650 parliamentarians to run the

country. It's a five-year contract with the option for endless renewal

if your face fits. Absolutely no previous experience necessary. The

chances of promotion are good. Someone has to be Prime Minister!

Some public speaking is involved. The part you play will be even more

meaningful... And ability to sound plausible on the Today programme

would be preferred. A salary of �65,000 plus a fat severance package

and a really good pension make this a must have jobs. Your country needs

you. Hands up if you fancy an above inflation pay rise. Hands up if you

haven't had one for several years. Hands up if you're not likely to see

one in the foreseeable. We all know times are hard but we're all in it

together... Or are we? Because those we elect - our MPs - believe they

deserve thousands more than they currently get. So as most of us are

sliding backwards, MPs' salaries are set to soar. At the moment and MP

owns �65,000 a year but the Independent Parliamentary standards

authority, who set MPs' pay, are expected to recommend a hefty uplift

of around �10,000. There is even speculation in some quarters it

could be as much as 20,000. Not good timing when public sector workers

are getting nothing and inflation are swallowing the rest. I think the

fact there are voices asking for a �20,000 pay increases highly

insensitive and shows just how completely out of touch with the

public people are. The whole country has been told to tighten its belt

and friendly politicians have never been more unpopular than they are

today, so I frankly think this proposal could cause quite

considerable anger across the country. So you're saying that if

you get UKIP MPs over the road, they will not be taking a pay rise in

2015? Well, they will be elected in 2015 and whatever their starting

salary is is what it is. I don't think this pay rise will go through

because people will realise the public is massively opposed to it.

Pay rises for MPs were hard enough before the P POSIX pence is gamble

but -- the MPs' expenses scandal. They are among the very best paid

across the European Union. There is absolutely no public appetite for

increasing MPs' pay. The British public have said that MPs at the

moment are paid broadly fair salary. That should be the end of

it. It's true that you don't need any qualifications or experience to

be an MP so is 60, 75,000 or even 85,000 a year the market rate for

the job they do? I would be delighted if I could work with

candidates with no previous experience or qualifications and

place them in a role-playing 85,000. That really is quite

amazing. That would be a good day at the office? Absolutely, yes it

would. So what voters thinkis it time we roared wobbly our

parliamentarians? I feel like the timing is a bit of considering there

have been so many cuts to public sector jobs, especially in the NHS.

I think though timing could be better. If you don't pay the going

rate for the job you won't get people with high enough intellect. I

think it's a bit of a jump, 30%, but some people may say they should have

perhaps at the rises earlier. people haven't had pay rises for

three years, have they? It's not on, is it? No. And you can't trust them

anyway. Any increase will be delayed until after the next general

election but there's no hiding the fact that MPs are in for a tough

sell. It's trying to persuade the public,

isn't it? What is it about resisting paying you more? I think MPs are in

a rather difficult position as far as this latest proposal is concerned

because it doesn't come from MPs themselves. Previously MPs were

responsible for deciding what they were paid. This is the independent

Parliamentary standards authority. Do you think it was a bit mean

saying you haven't got any previous experience? That's true in a sense,

in as much as the electorate elect who wants to as far as MPs. That's

one thing we ought to remember. It's not a job where someone is appointed

because they are the most qualified and if they don't get the money then

they won't apply. The electorate elect them. People need to be

realistic about the pressures on people in the public sector who

haven't had pay rises for several years. We had an independent

recommendation, just like MPs did, recommending that we increased our

salaries, and we turned it down. We said it was unacceptable when public

sector pay has been frozen. point there was the public don't

trust you and then your setting up an independent body, they make a

recommendation and you say you can't do it because of public opinion.

We've got people in my counsel who had a pay freeze for three years and

why shouldn't we do the same? -- council. I know our council pays a

cabinet member for children and families, who looks after 68

schools, children's social services and the youth service, and we pay

them �18,000 a year including expenses. We pay the director

�100,000 a year. So I think there is an issue that sometimes for some

people in local government, the pay is really very minimal for the risk

about that person put themselves at trying to make sure that they make

sure that all the schools, all the social services and youth services

work properly. Now our regular round-up of the

political begin the South in 60 seconds. -- political week in the

South. The five police forces in the South

West are to share the cost of fighting terrorism. The deal was

struck at a meeting of police and crime commissioners. Meanwhile

Hampshire firm has been offending software that spies on people's

e-mails. The company says it's a legitimate security product. There

are claims it is supporting repression. In the hands of a

repressive state like Bahrain it will be used to crackdown on

dissidents. Boris Johnson wants a new Oxford college to be named in

honour of Margaret Thatcher. In 1985 she was denied an honorary degree

because academics opposed to education policies. It was revealed

oxygen schools are missing out on �2.5 million from the pupil premium

because more than 4000 children who qualify for free school meals

haven't registered. And the old argument about the

undeserving north resurfaced as George Osborne announced another �35

billion for Liverpool. Southampton's port is also preparing

to dredge for super ships but without state aid.

Portsmouth - the council are putting money into dredging, aren't they,

but that's because you're the commercial operator? Yes, we run the

commercial port and make a profit which means that our council tax is

the lowest in Hampshire. We run it as a business. Is that state aid?

Know because we're making a profit and that goes back to taxpayers, not

the other way round. What George Osborne is doing in Liverpool...

Looks like its state aid. Have you given up on this fight now? They

seem to be getting all the money up there and not in Southampton.

paid some of the regional grant that they got for the turn around port

back. There is still an issue as to whether the rest goes back. The

whole business revolves around whether it's a level playing field

for ports and container terminals and cruise terminals across the

country. That was the original discussion between Southampton and

Portsmouth. No one was trying to put anybody else out of business but

whether it was a level playing field between those different places as

far as regional aid, state aid and European aid was concerned. It

clearly wasn't in the pace of Liverpool. -- case. That's the

Sunday Politics in the South. Thanks to my guests for this week, Alan