04/03/2012 Sunday Politics East Midlands

In the East Midlands: The solicitor general on whether it

is time to amend the European Convention on Human Rights. Plus

Apology for the loss of subtitles for 1780 seconds

rows over elected mayors and the hello, I'm Marie Ashby. This week

our guests are the Solicitor General Edward Garnier and shadow

transport minister Lilian Greenwood. Coming up: with one of our MPs

insisting we should temporarily withdraw from the European

Convention on Human Rights to deport Abu Qatada, is it time to

give our own cause a greater say? And how another City may follow

Nottingham's lead on a workplace parking levy. First Nottingham City

Council is getting it in the neck again, this time over its decision

to spend �900 on posters opposing the idea of an elected mayor for

the city. When you look at this poster, Edward, what is the

problem? It says Nottingham City Council is opposed to the

introduction of an elected mayor. It believes the cost does not

represent current value for money and the Government disagrees and

has decided that a referendum will be held. Looks fairly balanced.

This is Labour Party propaganda being published at the expense of

the tax payers. If the Labour Party wants to oppose an elected mayor,

fine, but they must pay for it out of their own money of. It is �900,

not a huge amount. If that is the attitude Labour takes towards

public money, that is very bad. It should not be engaging in party

political propaganda on the ratepayers expense. If they do not

know the difference between the proper spending of public money and

the production of propaganda, we are in a bad place. I think one of

the things that is helpful about the poster is that it tells people

there will be a referendum because talking to people... It gives the

Labour Party view on that. It says what the council's policy is on it

but talking to people it is clear a lot of people do not know there

will be a referendum and do not know the arguments for and against

a mayor. People of Nottingham, there will be a referendum on an

elected mayor this may. The boats will be for this or that, but to

put it out at the public's expense in this way it is an abuse of

office. It is a wrong expenditure of public money. If you want to

spend your party's money on this, do it. But do not dress it up as an

information giving procedure. for the council to defend their

decision to include their own council policy on it, but I think

it is important that people understand that this referendum is

coming up and what the arguments are because people are rightly

asking, when there is such austerity when the council is

having to make such cuts to the services, is this the right time to

be having a referendum? You could also say look at all the money the

government spends on its policies and all the press officers it has.

The government is an elected government controlled by Parliament,

which produces its policies for public scrutiny. Labour council was

elected. It is acting outside its remit. The city council must act

within the Local Government Act, within the discretion of a council.

The council is to provide public services like education. It is not

in the business of producing propaganda. There are good

arguments for a information our lead. Yes, there will be a

referendum, but to put out propaganda dressed up as

information is wrong. I do not think million... I think it is

important there is information out there about the mayor. There is a

legal question about whether it is OK to put council policy out there.

Let's leave it there. I will remove it from your person. The extent to

which European Court of Human Rights you set decisions are made

by our courts, an issue it exacerbated by the recent decisions

are to prevent the deportation of radical cleric Abu Qatada. The

Conservative MP for Wellingborough has introduced a bill to temporary

we draw from the convention and allow -- not allow Abu Qatada to be

deported 4th with. It is Amis understanding. The European Court

of Rights is becoming sclerotic, there are 150 cases in the backlog,

far too many petty disputes going to Strasbourg which should be dealt

with by national courts. You should not be used in Strasbourg as a

final court of appeal for Nottingham County Court. If you had

a dispute about a holiday, your bus ticket from Romania to Strasbourg,

do not take it to Strasbourg. We need to streamline the court, make

it more efficient and we need to make it do less and do better and

make it concentrate on the important rights which are

protected by the Convention - the torture, free speech, the right to

assembly. Is he right? I do not think I could disagree with what

aid with says. It is important we are signed up to the European

Convention with the human rights. There are things that can be done

to deal with the backlog and make sure the court is operating

effectively and that is what we should use our influence to do.

government is holding talks with Jordan to gain assurance catarrh

there will not be tortured. British courts refused to allow Abu

Qatada to be deported if he were tortured. He will not be tortured,

we had that assurance from Jordan. The Strasbourg court came up with a

new. Which is he should not be tried in Jordan with evidence which

had been extracted by virtue of torture. Had that been before our

courts if they would not have permitted it either. We need to get

Abu Qatada back to jawed SATs Gordon as quick as we can. Those

negotiations are going on, the Home Secretary is about to go and there

was constant dialogue between the Jordanian Foreign Office and their

justice ministry and our own authorities. Are you optimistic

that those talks will end in agreement? Yes I am. It is in our

interest and there's that this man should be dealt with under the

Jordanian system. He has already been convicted in his absence of

Avensis in Jordan and he needs to be back there to face justice.

Would you be happy for Abu Qatada to be deported if Jordan has given

those assurances? That is what we need to make sure and unfortunately

the Government could have been on this much sooner. It is good they

are doing something now but they could have done this earlier.

Everyone wants to see the opportunity for put her there to be

tried in Jordan but that his human rights will be protected. We have

to wait until the European courts had completed that process. They

have reached a conclusion to a deferred basis to the one we were

dealing with. 31 in Strasbourg. This process began under your

previous government. We won it in Strasbourg but for this new point.

It will be interesting to see how It has been a long time coming but

now Nottingham City Council's workplace parking levy is a less

than a month away. We report on how it is so controversial the

government may make it more difficult for other authorities to

follow Nottingham's lead. One may go down a similar road. Provide a

solution that will save us money. If Eileen Barrett had her way, if

this field would now be covered in concrete. The company she works for,

Source BioScience, is near junction 26 of the M1 but it still inside

Nottingham City Council's boundary, so come before it will be asked to

pay �50,000 for 50 car-parking spaces as part of the new levy. But

the field next door is outside the city boundary, so the company had

wanted to move its car park here and avoid paying the levy. We are

six miles out of the city centre, we have a limited bus service so we

have to drive. We do not feel we receive any of the benefits that

are being proposed through the levy. It does not help us but it affects

us. Determined by Source BioScience to avoid paying the levy has failed.

It turns out the land it wanted to use as a car park is a greenfield

site. Nathalie -- Crewe is expecting to raise �9 million from

the tax in the first year. Any company with over 11 car parking

spaces will have to pay it. It will cost them �288 for each space,

rising to �381 by 2015. If I was working here at Experian I would

not have to pay. For the company is footing the bill. If I was working

here at Boots, I would have to pay around �180 a year on average. I

would also have to pay if I was working at Nottingham City Council,

as much as �600 for those on the highest salaries. The workplace car

parking levy may be unpopular in Nottingham but councillors in

Bristol are thinking of introducing a similar scheme. Workers, not

employers would pick up the bill. The money raised would pay for a

shortfall in funding for improvements to public transport.

We are trying to learn from Nottingham about what they have

done right and wrong and we will meet with business leaders to tell

them about the scheme and we hope to get a business down from

Nottingham who may give a different point of view. Crewe hopes the new

tramlines that the levy will pay for will ease congestion. It was

the previous government that approved the levy. At the time

David Cameron opposed it but now the government has tightened up the

approval process. Regulations state that local authorities would have

to insure that business interests are properly considered, consulted

and councils must have secured their support. Something Crewe has

not been able to do. The government is toting up with a link --

regulations to ensure businesses are protected from the imposition

of taxes that may have a detrimental effect on the economy.

Are they saying Nottingham got it wrong? We believe they did because

there is significant opposition and little support for a parking levy

in the city. But the council -- councillor responsible for

transport dismisses such criticism. I think the government would like

the private sector to become more involved in local issues, to take

the lead in some cases on local issues and to invest more. But on

the other hand, says that it does not want schemes to go ahead and

Les the business committee supports them. The government is sending

mixed signals. In Nottingham at least the business community seems

resigned to the new levy. Some have already made alternative travel

arrangements to avoid having to pay. Eileen Barrett joins us now. You

clearly feel that this led the is unfair. Others would applaud

Nottingham City Council for taking action to tackle traffic congestion.

We as an employer feel it is a significant amount of money. The

levy does not have an end dates so we do not know how it will impact

on us. We are worried about the impact on the city. We have about

70 staff, or we will have to find funds to accommodate the parking

levy for those people. Eileen's business it six miles outside the

city centre. Nowhere near the tram route. There one day she feels it

is unfair. The question for Nottingham City Council is how do

they find their part of the investment in Nottingham and for

every pound that the parking levy raises, �3 are coming in from the

government and it will generate �10 of inward investment into the city.

I sympathise with Eileen's situation but if we do not Path To

-- funded through the parking levy, we have to find another way to make

the money. One of the problems we have is it is only affecting her

few and if you look at the scheme, we regard it as grossly unfair in

its application. Imagine a small organisation with less than 10

people by someone takes home �70,000, they are exempt. Another

organisation with someone on a minimum wage will have to find

those funds. We have no transport for hour employees. -- dedicated

transport for our employees. There is no link to the benefits.

Businesses tell me that they are paying enormous cost from

congestion in the city. One of the biggest things they raised with the

A453. If you are going to get in best not in the city, that will not

work if we do not have an integrated transport system. I

sympathise with what Eileen says and businesses have to decide

whether they can absorb the cost or whether they will have to ask

employees to pay a contribution to the cost of parking at work. People

to pay for their parking. I do not think it is painful. It is painful

at the moment particularly when the economy is in a shaky state --

state but we do need to find this money so that Nottingham can

benefit from the billions of pounds of investment. The Department of

Transport will make it harder for any other scheme to get off the

ground without the support of the business community. Surely the

government should be supporting schemes like this especially when

we have heard in the past about David Cameron's green issues.

is an arbitrary attack on jobs, attacks on businesses. If the wise

counsellors of the Nottingham City Council thinks this will encourage

investment in the city, they must live on another planet. It is also

about less pollution, we have a polluted atmosphere. It ought to be

proportion of, properly targeted and to affect those people who have

an interest in the city of Nottingham. Clearly you will agree

with that. Absolutely. It strikes to make that it is common sense.

People who work in your Business who do not live in the city of

Nottingham are being fleeced by the city council in order to go to work,

some think they need to do so support their business and families

in order to do -- schemes like this can go ahead. Strong language.

the people of Nottingham and led them vote on it rather than those

who come to work from outside. These are important businesses,.

you think the council will live to regret this? The council put

forward the levy and they have been re-elected so it is not a secret. I

disagree with Edward. Lot of the people who drive in to Nottingham

do not live in the area. Why should taxpayers in Nottingham fund the

congestion created by people coming in from Derbyshire and

Leicestershire? If we are serious about tackling congestion then we

have to look at innovative ways of doing it. The government signed off

on the projects that are bringing money into the city knowing what

the scheme was for. There is a balance between central government

interference and localism but the point is this came through the

Transport Act under millions government and if they are going to

do this, why did they wait 10 years to do it? We will have to leave it

there. Thank you. Time for our weekly round-up of some of the

Rebel Euro MP Roger Helmer has left the Conservatives and defected to

the United Kingdom Independence Party. He claims you Ken Dulieu

represents the values of the East Midlands Tories better than a

Conservative Party led by David Cameron. UKIP is now the largest

party representing the region in Europe. Robert Bolt tree has been

suspended from the Conservative group after being charged with

three offences of theft. They involve his council expenses and

council funds amounting to �5,000. It means Derbyshire is now a hung

council. Nottingham City Council has given

the markets where protesters their marching orders. They have been

there since October. The Occupy group say their anti-capitalism

protest will not go away. Finally a reminder when Roger

Helmer was flying the flag for the Tories. He complained the Union

Jack was upside down in Strasbourg. Now Lib Dem councillor Phil Knowles

once Harborough council to apply the black every day. Are you a 21

day years a man or a 365 days a year man as far as the flag is