09/02/2014 Sunday Politics Wales

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

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

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

Embarrassment for the Government is the Immigration Minister resigns

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

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

Later in the programme: The leader in the Labour Party,

Later in the programme: The leader of the Welsh Conservatives on the

economy and tax. And more Welsh students are applying to English

universities. Is that a students are applying to English

In London after two days of disruption in the capital the Mayor

Boris Johnson will be talking to ask about strife on the Underground. All

of that and after a week of very public coalition spats can David

Cameron and Nick Clegg keep the coalition show on the road? Two

senior party figures will go head to head. And with me, Helen Lewis, Nick

Watt and Iain Martin who would not know they Somerset Levels from their

Norfolk Broads, but that will not stop them tweeting their thoughts.

We start with the strange Case of the Immigration Minister, his

cleaner and some lost documents. Yesterday Mark Harper tendered his

resignation, telling the media he had discovered the cleaner who

worked for him for seven years did not have the right to work in the

UK. The Communities Secretary Eric Pickles said he had done the

honourable thing. I was sad to see him go, he was a strong minister.

Had he been a member of the public he would not have done anything

wrong, but he set himself a very high standard and he felt that

standard and honourably stood down. This would seem like a good

resignation, maybe unlike the Baroness Scotland one years ago on a

similar issue, but have we been told the full story? We wait to see that.

Labour have picked up saying he is an honourable man, that the reason

why he resigned is these very owners checks that landlords and employers

will have to perform on employees over their documentation. The most

interesting line is that, we do not require them to be experts or spot

anything other than an obvious forgery. The suggestion that there

is the document he was presented with originality, which he lost, was

on home office paper and was perhaps not entirely accurate. That is the

embarrassment. He is the minister putting through a bill that will

demand tougher checks on people and he himself did not do enough checks

to discover she was illegal. There is an odd bit where he involves the

home office later to check her out as well. He writes a resignation

letter and he has to hold himself to pay higher standard. He has done the

David Laws approach to this, resign quickly and he can come back. David

Cameron wants him to return swiftly to the frontbenchers. He is a state

school educated lad. He is the kind of Tory that the Tories are in short

supply of. He is a rising star. I would caution on this idea that it

is customary that whenever anyone resigns, it is always thought they

will come straight back into office. If only the outside world worked

like that. It is not, in a company if the HR person resigns, he is such

a great chap he will be back next week. There is a silver lining for

David Cameron is he has been able to move Harriet Bond up as he moves

everyone up. But nobody will see her in the whips office because she is

not allowed to appear on television. And if you three want to resign? Do

not hate you are coming back next week. But we will do it with honour.

It has been a hellish week for residents of coastal areas with more

storms bringing more flooding and after Prince Charles visited the

Somerset Levels on Tuesday the Government has been keen to show it

has got a grip on the situation at last.

For last weekend's Sunday Politics I made the watery journey to the

village of Muchelney, cut off for a whole month. Now everyone has been

dropping in. First it was Prince Charles on a park bench pulled by a

tractor. He waded into the row about how the floods have been handled.

Next it was the chair of the Environment Agency, Lord Smith, who

faced angry residents. Sought the river is out. That is precisely what

we are going to do. Where he faced, a resident, he did not need that

many. David Cameron went for a look as well and gave the region what it

wanted, more pumps, more money and in the long-term the return of

dredging. There are lessons to learn. The pause in bridging that

took place from the late 1990s was wrong and we need to get dredging

again. When the water levels come down and it is safe to dredge, we

will dredging to make sure these rivers and stitches can carry a

better capacity. The Environment Secretary Owen Paterson has not been

seen again because he is recovering from emergency eye surgery. In the

meantime the floodwaters rose ever higher. Some residents were told to

evacuate. In Devon the railway was washed away by the waves leaving a

big gap in the network. Look at the weather this weekend. If you can

believe it, the storms keep rolling in. What is the long-term solution

for flood prone areas of the country? I am joined from Oxford by

the editor of The Ecologist magazine, Oliver Tickell, and by

local MP Tessa Munt. Tessa, let me come to you first. What do you now

want the Government to do? I want it to make sure it does exactly as it

promises and delivers what every farmer and landowner around here

knows should have been done for years. First, to solve the problems

we have right now, but to make sure there is money in the bank for us to

carry on doing the maintenance that is necessary. Was it a mistake not

to do the dredging? When the waters start to subside does dredging

become a key part of this? Yes, of course. It is something the farmers

have been asking for four years. When you wander along a footpath by

a river and you see trees growing and there is 60% of the capacity

only because there is silt, it needs to have a pretty dramatic action

right now and then we need to make sure the maintenance is ongoing.

Oliver Tickell, was it a mistake to stop the dredging? If the dredging

had happened, the land would not be covered in water for so long?

Clearly it is necessary to do at least some dredging on these rivers

and in particular because these rivers are well above ground level.

They are carrying water that comes down off the hills well above the

level of the flood plain on the Somerset Levels. They naturally tend

to silt up. But the key thing is that is only a small part of the

overall solution. What we need is a catchment wide approach to improve

infiltration upstream and you also need to manage the flood plain on

the levels and upstream so as to have active flood plain that can

store water. This idea it is just about dredging is erroneous.

Dredging is a part of it, but it is a catchment wide solution. Dredging

is only a small part of the solution he says. Yes, of course it is. But

look here. With the farmer is locally, the landowners, they know

this land will carry water for a few weeks of the year, that is not a

problem. But this water has to be taken away and there is a very good

system of drainage and it works perfectly well. In my area there are

serious problems because the dredging has not taken place. There

are lunatic regulations around were when they do do some of dredging,

the Environment Agency is asked to take it away because it is

considered toxic waste. This is barmy. We need to take the stuff out

of the rivers and build the banks up so we create protection in the

future. We have to make sure the dredging is done but make sure the

drainage works well and we have pumps in places and we have

floodgates put onto the rivers. We need to make sure repairs are done

more quickly. All right, let me go back to Oliver Tickell. Is it not

the case a lot of people on your side of the argument would like to

see lands like the Somerset Levels return to natural habitat? Looe I

would like a degree of that, but that does not mean the whole place

needs to turn into wilderness so it will remain agricultural landscape.

Everybody, all the interested parties who signed up to a document

called vision 2034 the Somerset Levels envisages most of the area of

the Somerset Levels being turned over to extensive grassland and that

is what it is best suited for. Let me put that to Tessa Munt. Have you

signed up to this where you will end up with extensive grassland? I have

seen it, but grass does not grow if water is sitting on this land for

weeks and weeks. What you have to remember is a lot of the levels are

managed very carefully and they are conservation land and that means

cattle are allowed to go out at certain times of the year and in

certain numbers. It is well managed. Do you accept it should return to

grassland? Grassland, fine, but you cannot call land grassland in the

flipping water is on it so long that nothing grows. It is no good at

doing that. You have got to make sure it is managed properly.

Drainage has been taking place on this land for centuries. It is the

case the system is there, but it needs to be maintained properly and

we have to have fewer ridiculous regulations that stop action. Last

year the flooding minister agreed dredging should take place and

everything stopped. Now we have got the promise from the Prime Minister

and I thank Prince Charles for that. Is it not time to let the local

people run their land rather than being told what to do by the

Environment Agency, central Government and the European Union?

The internal drainage boards have considerable power in all of this.

They wanted to dredge and they were not allowed to. The farmers want to

dredge that is what is going to happen, but they have signed up to a

comprehensive vision of catchment management and of environmental

improvement turning the Somerset Levels into a world-class haven for

wildlife. It is not much good if your house is underwater. The

farmers themselves, the RSPB, the drainage boards, they have all

signed up to this. The real question now is how do we implement that

vision? You give the money to the drainage boards. At the moment they

pay 27% of their money and have been doing so for years and years and

this is farmers' money and it has been going to the drainage boards

and they pay the Environment Agency who are meant to be dredging and

that has not happened. We have to leave it there. We have run out of

time. Last week saw the Labour Party

adopts an historic change with its relationship with the unions.

Changes to the rules that propelled Ed Miliband to the top. Ed Miliband

was elected Labour leader in 2010 by the electoral college system which

gives unions, party members and MPs one third of votes each. This would

be changed into a simpler one member, one vote system. A union

member would have to become an affiliated member of the party. They

would have to opt in and pay ?3 a year. But the unions would have 50%

of the vote at the conference and around one third of the seats on the

National executive committee. The proposals are a financial gamble as

well. It is estimated the party could face a drop in funding of up

to ?5 million a year when the changes are fully implemented in

five years. The leader of the Unite trade union has welcomed the report

saying it is music to his ears. The package will be voted on at a

special one of conference in March. And the Shadow Business Secretary

Chuka Umunna joins me now for the Sunday Interview. Welcome back. In

what way will the unions have less power and influence in the Labour

Party? This is about ensuring individual trade union members have

a direct relationship with the Labour Party. At the moment the

monies that come to us are decided at a top level, the general

secretaries determine this, whether the individual members want us to be

in receipt of those monies or not so we are going to change that so that

affiliation fees follow the consent of individual members. Secondly, we

want to make sure the individual trade union members, people who

teach our children, power via -- fantastic British businesses, we

want them to make an active choice, and we are also recognising that in

this day and age not everybody wants to become a member of a political

party. We haven't got much time. The unions still have 50% of the vote at

Labour conferences, there will be the single most important vote, more

member -- union members will vote than nonunion members, their power

has not diminished at all, has it? In relation to the other parts of

the group of people who will be voting in a future leadership

contest, we are seeking to move towards more of a one member, one

vote process. At the moment we have the absurd situation where I, as a

member of Parliament, my vote will count for 1000. MPs are losing...

They still have a lot of power. I am a member of the GMB union and the

Unite union, also a member of the Fabians as well so I get free votes

on top of my vote as a member of Parliament. We are moving to a

system where I will have one vote and that is an important part of

this. You asked how many people would be casting their votes. The

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

businesses, and small and medium-sized businesses are an

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

single chairman from the FTSE 250, correct? I don't know all the

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

think he was referring to the 50p rate of tax is that he made some

comments arguing against the reduction of the top rate of tax

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

companies, the average managing director of that gets around

?87,000. Let me narrow it down to something else. Let's take the 0.1%

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

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

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

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

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

controversial. Those with the broadest shoulders, it is not

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

continued to needle away at the Education Secretary. And other

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

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

children to Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg and his party colleague

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

man in charge of schools Conservative Michael Gove. Mr Laws

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

significant has been Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander's

recent newspaper interview firmly spiking any room for George Osborne

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

builds on the inclusion in Government at the reshuffle of

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

people who are happier to publically express doubt on Conservative

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

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

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

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

Conservatives would be harder still. Nonetheless a differentiation

strategy was always likely as 2015 approached, so is there evidence it

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

problem in terms of their distinctiveness, so attacking their

coalition partners or the Labour Party is helpful in showing what

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Matthew Oakeshott and senior Conservative backbencher Bernard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

put our positive policies across rather than having this tricky

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

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

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

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

of my committee reports are unanimous reports from all parties.

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

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

Government because it would be easier for legislation. The

legislation you could not get through would not get through

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

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

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

difference. What makes a difference from the perspective of the

committee I chair is historically we have had single party Government

that have collective responsibility and clarity. The reason that is

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

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

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

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

it continues at this level of intensity of the enemy within

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

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

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

Chuka Umunna missed the point talking about business support.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Government so they stop blocking the Government putting forward a

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Has the firing gun sounded for the looking

Has the firing gun sounded for the 2016 assembly elections, with a

Conservative announcement to help home buyers? And, could these be the

most taxing assembly elections yet? Also, with more Welsh students

applying to study in England, we look at whether it matters where

they go to university? But first, Andrew RT Davies, who

leads the Conservatives in Cardiff Bay, joins me in the studio. This

week they announced plans to scrap stamp duty for homes under ?250,000.

Power over stamp duty, and other taxes, are being devolved to the

Welsh government - a Welsh government Mr Davies hopes to lead

after the next election in 2016. Wellcome. Let us start with the

stamp duty announcement which you say would cost ?20 million more.

Where would you get that money from? Ultimately, let's not forget we are

leaving the money in people 's pockets so we will create more

economic activity which we can fund through realignment of the budgets

and also in the overall Welsh budget. We are about using these

powers to empower people to get on in life. Create an entrepreneurial

society in Wales. If you look at the whole package, everything we have

done over 18 months is about empowering individuals. Sticking

with stamp duty comic you are not telling us where the cuts would be.

The overall housing budget is ?570 million. The current government

found ?52 million to buy an airport last year in cash. We would

prioritise this because it would be one of our key policies to allow

people to get on the housing ladder and a stake in Welsh life. People

say they find it increasingly difficult to get over the last

hurdle of money together to buy a house of their dreams. But there

will be more pressure at the next election to explain how you have

costed your policies because the tax powers the Welsh government is

acquiring. Shouldn't your priority be to build more homes are not

cupped stamp duty? But by creating activity you will be building more

homes. Many house-builders say that large parts of Wales are an economic

call for them to deliver housing of any number because of the restraints

put on them. With this modest policy, it is only at the lower end

of the stamp duty threshold we are targeting, by removing stamp duty,

we would create that first stepping stone for couples, single people or

people wanting to get on the property ladder, to say there is

your stake in Welsh life. The Treasury says it would cost Jacques

Chirac create a significant cost to the Exchequer. What politicians in

Wales is need to focus on what we can do from the Welsh assembly and

the Welsh government with the powers we've had. We haven't been slow in

coming forward with ideas to drive Wales forward. We have a strategy

about getting smaller and medium-sized businesses together and

we have policies to improve the education system. I want to stay

with the tax proposals. Coming to Wales as a consequence of the Wales

Bill. You and the Welsh Secretary have had a disagreement over the

income tax powers, haven't you? There is a difference in what is the

furniture, shall we say, that will come to the Welsh parliament but we

do not disagree on the principle that any future Welsh government is

held accountable for the money or some of it that it raises and

spends. There isn't a cigarette paper between David Jones myself on

that principle. But there is on the visible as to whether you should

vary the tax bands. You want that power. Who speaks up for Welsh

Conservative policy on this issue? When we voted on the recommendations

in November 2012 that we endorse the policy in its entirety. From a UK

position, they had to look at a whole range of scenarios and they

want to put a lock step on. That will be debated, but we don't

disagree on the principle that any future wealth government needs to

have accountability. What I think is extraordinary is the Shadow Welsh

Secretary last -- Welsh Grand Committee saying that Wales would

never ask a powers over income tax. That contradicts the First Minister

and the finance minister. He is allowed to get away with that. That

cannot stand. Let us stick with your policies. February 's tax-cutting

month, isn't it? You said you would like to lower the income tax to a

40p income tax rate. But the powers on offer from the UK Government blow

that out of the water. You don't seem to have a lot of influence

within the British Conservative Party to get the end powers and

enact the policies you want, do you? We have delivered the most exciting

inward investment by the upgrading of the mainline to Swansea

electrification. We have delivered silk one and we are going forward

with the Welsh draft bill. We are delivering on proposals for

electrification elsewhere in Wales and it could revolutionise transport

in North Wales. We are delivering on... But you are not delivering the

policies you want to on the lockstep. But there will be

differences here and there. Ultimately, over the basic principle

of accountability and responsibility that was held in the Silk One

recommendation, we believe unanimously that any future Welsh

government believes to have -- needs to have an element of accountability

on what it spends and raises. Do you agree the tax powers are useless if

they came after a referendum? I don't know what the position is at

the moment for the Minister. Basic rate -- rate income tax would cost

200 billion pounds on its own for a reduction. I don't know what the

First Minister 's position is because Owen Smith said they would

not ask for these powers and he said they would never ask to draw these

powers down. That puts the Shadow Secretary of State and the fast

Minister -- First Minister at loggerheads. You have listed some of

your other policies in terms of regeneration and and more, or will

this be fought predominantly on the economy? Everything in -- revolves

around the economy. If you want a good education system you have to

have opportunities for people to find jobs. If you want a good health

service, the economy has two provide revenues to provide that. The

economy in any election is a clear -- key battle ground. After Labour

though, if you want real change you have to look at parties who put

solutions forward. The Conservatives have put them forward on inward

investment, investment, health... You would prefer the battle ground

because the UK Government has cut so heavily public spending. You are

worried about being the party of cuts and no one would trust them

with investing in public services, would they? We have stabilised the

economic picture so that we have record rates of low interest, the

most vulnerable getting out of the tax take altogether with a massive

tax cut to those at the lower end of the tax bracket and we have complete

confidence that we will have the fastest growing economy in Europe.

That is a government that has delivered. As Welsh Conservatives,

we want to make sure Wales can share in that prosperity and it is about

putting money in people 's pockets, not cutting. It is the longest

period of decline in real money -- real prosperity since 1964 says the

ONS. We have achieved a stability of the economic picture, pared down the

deficit and made sure that people on the lowest levels of pay enjoyed

large tax break because we lifted the threshold. The top 1% of earners

in the UK paid 27% of the tax take so we make sure that those with the

biggest shoulders carried the biggest weight and rightly so, but

we also make sure the economy goes forward as the strongest going

economy -- growing economy in Western Europe.

Does it matter where Welsh students go to university? The Welsh

government pays their fees wherever they go. Latest figures show

increasing numbers are turning their backs on Welsh institutions and

applying to go across the border instead.

It might not look its best in the miserable weather but Bristol has

always been an attractive destination for Welsh students.

Latest students showed more Welsh students are going to England when

it comes to choosing a university. The Welsh government pays a bulk of

their tuition fees even if they decide to cross the border. I have

come to meet to students from Cardiff to see why they have decided

to study in Bristol. Did the fees policy have anything to do with it?

It had less of an impact on my decision because it didn't matter if

it was an English or Welsh university as the fees would have

been the same. It took away that asp act. I did look at the universities

for their own merits -- it took away that aspect. I think I would have

considered it a lot more. If it meant I had to pay more in the

future, if I had come to England, I would've considered Welsh

university. I don't really think of the tuition fees because they come

out of my salary so it is another form of tax, to be honest. It

wouldn't have had a major impact on my decision. The university 's

director of student admissions say paying the tuition fees from the

Welsh government has given Welsh students more freedom to study where

they like. Bristol has always been popular with Welsh students and the

Welsh government 's approach has meant that they have continued to

make education choices on education grounds and not factor in financial

incentive or disincentive. Would you be concerned if the policy changed

in the future? If the Welsh government decides it is not

affordable? It is early to comment because we don't have any detail on

what new policy might be, but we will watch it carefully. It would be

a great loss to the University of Bristol to see a decline in our

Welsh numbers. That is a reference to a review set out by the Welsh

government to see if the current policy is sustainable. It will not

report until after the next election is at the Welsh assembly. The rain

means most of the students here are indoors. Latest figures show a 10%

drop in the number of Welsh teenagers choosing to study in Wales

since 2010. Over the same period, numbers applying to universities in

England has gone up nearly 20%. Some think it's time for the Welsh

government to take a rain check. The latest figures from the new

university admissions service, UCAS, is show a trend.

What is going on? We are starting to see problems with regard to the

level of investment in higher investment -- higher education in

Wales with respect to England. The quality of living accommodation and

the quality of teaching blocks. This is a pattern since devolution is

where levels of investment have been lessened in Wales. I wonder if part

of it is the reputational damage we have suffered in Wales over the past

few years in respect of education. We had an undignified fight in the

higher education sector conducted by the previous education minister and

the education sector. We have an extraordinary fees paying policy

here in Wales which enables a lot of English universities to benefit at

the expense of Welsh universities. They get the money and Welsh

universities don't. Some might say that as a challenge

to Welsh institutions to raise their game. It is something for the review

into higher education funding to consider. Opposition parties have

been in for talks on that issue this week with the education minister.

They want the timetable altered so there is some confusion before, not

after, the 2016 elections. Whatever the politicians decide, it is likely

thousands of Welsh students will still feel the grass is greener on

the other side of the border. Tomos Livingstone reporting there.

I'm joined in the studio by the Plaid Cymru AM, Lord Elis-Thomas,

and Labour AM for Swansea East, Mike Hedges.

Lord Elis-Thomas, does it matter if Welsh students go looking in England

for a better or more appropriate education? What matters is that we

have a continuing open system of student exchange within the UK and I

would say within Europe because it is very important to the economy of

north-west Wales, in particular, we attract students and international

students. With the UK Government and the Visa system and the fact that

there is an attitude, I'm afraid, that is not very internationalist on

the part of the UK Government. For the last ten years, the assembly has

agonised over this going round and round on the question. Should it

stay with the students, the money, or go to the institutions? What is

the solution? It is Welsh students giving an opportunity where they

wouldn't go to university otherwise. To benefit from a large number of

English and international students coming to Wales, that's valuable.

The only thing we are trying to do is increase the number of Welsh

students going to Oxford or Cambridge. My daughter and other

students are going to visit Oxford in March. It is important we make

sure our children get the best possible opportunities. We are

discriminating against English students and that is worrying. They

pay full fees and the others don't. Sticking with agonising questions,

these income tax powers on offer to Wales and the lock step I was

discussing, the first minister says they are useless. Do you agree? They

are essential for a proper constitution for Wales. Like the

American used to say, if you look across Europe... Wherever you look

in any kind of federal system, and that is what we have now, there is

fiscal federalism and any responsibility for part of the spend

for the services which the governments by -- provides that the

responsibility is there of tax-raising or tax variants. Not to

do that is not to have a proper democracy.

Alan Smith and other Labour MPs opened the issue of tax

competition, that if you allow different parts of the UK to set

their own taxes it undermines the UK. Do you worry about that? We

still have not got fair funding for Wales and that is important. With

the lockstep, no one can do anything. I would increase the

higher rate by 5p or up to 50p. I am convinced the ball. We have seen it

happened in Scotland where they had the ability to vary the rate of

income tax by 3p in the pound up or down and it has had those powers

since 1999. They never even considered using it. What we need is

to get fair funding first and then the lock step removed. Then we can

have a debate about all the little problems that exist. Like how income

tax ferries year-on-year by up to ?300 million in Wales and that you

have difficulty identifying people who live either side of the border.

Your opponents say there is complete -- confusion about what Labour 's

position is here. Who is in charge? Carl Wynne Jones is leader of the

Welsh Labour Party and elected as such. There should be no confusion.

What are the chances of winning the next election? It is a matter for

the Welsh people to decide. Do the Welsh people want these powers? I

think they want to be convinced. We are operating in the context where

there will be substantial changes in Scotland whatever happens. I think

it will be close either way and I think there will be changes in the

taxation regime in relation to Scotland. There will be an issue

further fiscal federalism. The Treasury has given no hints it is

in... The Treasury has got to be split up. The UK Treasury should be

the UK Treasury and there should be a Welsh Treasury and a Scottish

Treasury and an Irish Treasury. There has to be a common fiscal

board of some kind that deals with any transfers that take place. That

is what happens in the rest of the world. Do you think these questions

change the dynamics of politics in Wales? Are they becoming more

mature? Maybe. If you look at Scotland, they have a no detriment

rule where if changes are made on allowances or bands, if Scotland is

any worse off... We haven't even got that position in Wales at the moment

which may be an oversight by the Westminster government, but it would

leave Wales in a position where we would not know how much money we

ended up getting an partway down the line, are there any changes in bands

or whatever, the Welsh government would have a hit it wasn't even

expecting and then it would have to borrow. From the view of political

parties, we are gearing up for a different election, don't you think?

Are they up for the challenge of coming up with different ideas on

using these powers? We are certainly up for deciding what to spend the

money on capital schemes. The amount we are being offered is fairly low,

much less than Scotland on a per capita basis. Northern Ireland have

a limit but they can exceed it without anyone taking any action. We

don't know how we will be treated but borrowing power is incredibly

important for Wales. When the assembly got its lawmaking powers in

2011, the phrase was, no more excuses, and it is the same with

tax-raising powers. Is Welsh politics up to the challenge to take

the strain and come up with ideas? It has to be. The problem we have is

there is no clear way forward. I agree entirely with the First

Minister's demands as these are constitutional issues that need to

be dealt with at that level. I wish we could move on from the work done

in the committee and the commission to a proper constantly --

constitutional convention which would create the kind of federal

structures the UK needs. It will have to happen whatever happens in

Scotland because it will be a close run thing. Whatever Owen Smith says,

we have to face up to it. Thank you both very much. It

we have to face up to it. Thank you a voice. Both of you, thank you so

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

floods? Can UKIP push the Conservatives into third place in

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

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

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

clip from Eric Pickles, the Communities Secretary, earlier on

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

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

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

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

Government and the Government has taken over the running of the

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

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

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

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

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

Environment Agency, fuelled often by European directives about dredging

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

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

difficult circumstances by the Government and it is difficult for

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

acting under a law set by this Government and previous governments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Environment Agency was talking about dynamiting every pumping agency.

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

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

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

will be in contravention of European directives. The Wythenshawe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

his interventions have become more frequent and something was strange.

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

Government Chief Whip has absolutely no business whatsoever shouting from

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sunday Politics.