24/11/2013 Sunday Politics East Midlands

Morning, folks. Welcome to the Sunday Politics.

Labour's been hit hard by scandals at the Co-op. Ed Miliband says the

Tories are mudslinging. We'll speak to Conservative Chairman Grant

Shapps. Five years on from the financial

crisis, and we're still talking about banks in trouble. Why haven't

the regulators got the message? We'll ask the man who runs the

City's new financial watchdog. And he used to have a windmill on

his roof and talked about giving hugs to hoodies and huskies. These

days, not so much. Has the plan to make the

In the East Midlands: Campaigners want more help for people dying from

illness caused by warned that benefit falls will be to

homelessness and population ships. What is the evidence?

And as always, the political panel that reaches the parts other shows

can only dream of. Janan Ganesh Helen Lewis and Nick Watt. They ll

be tweeting faster than England loses wickets to Australia. Yes

they're really that fast. First, some big news overnight from

Geneva, where Iran has agreed to curb some of its nuclear activities

in return for the partial easing of sanctions. Iran will pause the

enrichment of uranium to weapons grade and America will free up some

funds for Iran to spend. May be up to $10 billion. A more comprehensive

deal is supposed to be done in six months. Here's what President Obama

had to say about this interim agreement. We have pursued intensive

diplomacy, bilaterally with the Iranians, and together with our

partners, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia and China,

as well as the European Union. Today, that diplomacy opened up a

new path towards a world that is more secure, a future in which we

can verify that Iraq and's nuclear programme is peaceful, and that it

cannot build a nuclear weapon. President Obama spoke from the White

House last night. Now the difficulty begins. This is meant to lead to a

full-scale agreement which will effectively end all sanctions, and

end Iran's ability to have a bomb. The early signs are pretty good The

Iranian currency strengthened overnight, which is exactly what the

Iranians wanted. Inflation in Iraq is 40%, so they need a stronger

currency. -- information in Iran. France has played a blinder. It was

there intransigence that led to this. Otherwise, I think the West

would have led to a much softer deal. The question now becomes

implementation. Here, everything hinges on two questions. First, who

is Hassan Rouhani? Is he the Iranians Gorbachev, a serious

reformer, or he's here much more tactical and cynical figure? Or

within Iran, how powerful is he There are military men and

intelligence officials within Iran who may stymie the process. The

Western media concentrate on the fact that Mr Netanyahu and the

Israelis are not happy about this. They don't often mention that the

Arab Gulf states are also very apprehensive about this deal. I read

this morning that the enemies of Qatar and Kuwait went to Saudi king.

-- the MAs row. That is the key thing to watch in the next couple of

weeks. There was a response from Saudi Arabia, but it came from the

Prime Minister of Israel, who said this was a historic mistake. The

United States said there would be no enrichment of uranium to weapons

grade. In the last few minutes, the Iranian Foreign Minister has tweeted

to say that there is an inalienable right -- right to enrich. The key

thing is the most important thing that President Obama said in his

inaugural speech. He reached out to Iran. It failed under President

McKenna jab. Under President Rouhani, there seems to be progress.

There is potentially now what he talked about in that first inaugural

address potentially coming through. In the end, the key issue - and we

don't know the answer - is the supreme leader, not the president.

Will the supreme leader agreed to Iran giving up its ability to create

nuclear weapons? This is the huge ambiguity. Ayatollah Khamenei

authorise the position that President Rouhani took to Geneva.

That doesn't mean he will sign off on every bit of implementation over

the next six months. Even when President Ahmadinejad was president,

he wasn't really President. We in the West have to resort to a kind of

Iranians version of the study of the Kremlin, to work out what is going

on. And the problem the president faces is that if there is any

sign... He can unlock these funds by executive order at the moment, but

if he needs any more, he has to go to Congress. Both the Democrat and

the Republican side have huge scepticism about this. And he has

very low credibility now. There s already been angry noises coming

from quite a lot of senators. It was quite strange to see that photo of

John Kerry hugging Cathy Ashton as if they had survived a ship great

together. John Kerry is clearly feeling very happy. We will keep an

eye on this. It is a fascinating development.

More lurid details about the personal life of the Co-op Bank s

disgraced former chairman, the Reverend Paul Flowers. The links

between Labour, the bank and the wider Co-op movement have caused big

problems for Ed Miliband this week, and the Conservatives have been

revelling in it. But do the Tory allegations - Ed Miliband calls them

"smears" - stack up? Party Chairman Grant Shapps joins us from Hatfield.

Welcome to the programme. When it comes to the Co-op, what are you

accusing Labour of knowing and when? I think the simple thing to say here

is that the Co-op is an important bank. They have obviously got into

difficulty with Reverend flowers, and our primary concern is making

sure that that is properly investigated, and that we understand

what happened at the bank and how somebody like Paul Flowers could

have ended up thing appointed chairman. You wrote to edge Miliband

on Tuesday and asked him what he knew and when. -- you wrote to Ed

Miliband. But by Prime Minister s Questions on Wednesday, David

Cameron claims that you knew that Labour knew about his past all

along. What is the evidence for that? We found out by Wednesday that

he had been a Labour councillor Reverend Flowers, and had been made

to stand down. Certainly, Labour knew about that, but somehow didn't

seem to think that that made him less appropriate to be the chairman

of the Co-op bank. There was no evidence that Mr Miliband or Mr

Balls knew about that. I ask you again, what are you accusing the

Labour leadership of knowing? We know now that he stood down for very

inappropriate images on his computer, apparently. You are

telling me that they didn't know. I am not sure that is clear at all. I

have heard conflicting reports. There is a much bigger argument

about what they knew and when. There was a much bigger issue here. This

morning, Ed Miliband has said that they don't have to answer these

questions and that these smears This is ludicrous. These are

important questions about an important bank, how it ended up

getting into this position, and how a disastrous Britannia -- Italia

deal happen. -- Britannia deal happened. And we need to know how

the bank came off the rails. To be accused of smears for asking the

questions is ridiculous. I am just trying to find out what you are

accusing Labour of. You saying that the Labour leadership knew about the

drug-taking? Sorry, there was some noise here. I don't know what was

known and when. We do know that Labour, the party, certainly knew

about these very difficult circumstances in which he resigned

as a councillor. I think that the Labour Party knew about it. We knew

that Bradford did, but not London. Are you saying that Ed Miliband knew

about the inappropriate material on the Reverend's laptop? It is

certainly the case that Labour knew about it. But did Mr Miliband know

about it, and his predilection for rent boys? He will need to answer

those questions. It is quite proper to ask those questions. Surely,

asking a perfectly legitimate set of questions, not just about that but

about how we have ended up in a situation where this bank has made

loans to Labour for millions of pounds, that bank and the Unite

bank, who is connected to it. And how they made a ?50,000 donation to

Ed Balls' office. Ed Balls says that was nothing to do with Reverend

Flowers, and yet Reverend Flowers said that he personally signed that

off. Lots of questions to answer. David Cameron has already answered

them on Wednesday. He said that you now know that Labour knew about his

past all along. You have not been able to present evidence that

involve Mr Miliband or Mr Balls in that. So until you get that, surely

you should apologise? Hang on. He said that Labour knew about this,

and they did, because he stood down as a councillor. If Ed Miliband

didn't know about that, then why not? This was quite a serious thing

that happened. The wider point is about why it is that when you ask

perfectly legitimate questions about this bank, about the Britannia deal,

and about the background of Mr flowers, why is the response, it is

all smears? There are questions about how Labour failed to deal with

the deficit and how it hasn't done anything to support the welfare

changes, but there is nothing about that. Let us -- lets: To the wider

picture of the Co-operative Bank. Labour wanted the Co-op to take over

the Britannia Building Society, and it was a disaster. Do you accept

that? The government of the day has to be a part of these discussions

for regulatory reason. The government in 2009 - Ed Balls was

very pleased... But you supported that decision. There was a later

deal, potentially, for the Co-op to buy those Lloyds branches. There was

a proper process and it didn't go through just recently. If there had

been a proper process back in 2 09, would the Britannia deal have gone

through? First, you accept that the Tories were in favour of the

Britannia take over. Then your Chancellor Osborne went out of his

way to facilitate the purchase of the Lloyds branches, even though you

had no idea that the Co-op had the management expertise to become a

super medium. Correct? The difference is that that deal didn't

go through. There was a proper process that took place. Let's look

at the process. There was long indications as far back as January

2012 that the Co-op, as a direct result of the Britannia take over

which you will party supported, was unfit to acquire the Lloyds

branches. By January 2012, the Chancellor and the Treasury ignored

the warnings. Wide? In 2009, there was political pressure for the

Britannia to be brought together. Based on the information available,

this was supported, but that process ended up with a very, very

problematic takeover of the Britannia. Wind forward to this

year, and when the same types of issues were being looked at for the

purchase of the Lloyds deal, the proper process was followed, this

time with us in government, and that purchase didn't go through. It is

important that the proper process is followed, and when it was, it

transpired that the deal wasn't going to be done. But it was the

Treasury and the Chancellor who were the cheerleaders for the acquisition

of the Lloyds branches. But there was a warning that the Co-op did not

have enough capital on its balance sheet to make those acquisitions,

but instead of heeding those warnings, your people went to

Brussels to lobby for the requirements to be relaxed - why on

earth did you do that? Our Chancellor went to argue for all of

Rajesh banking, not specifically for the Co-op. He was arguing for the

mutuals to be given a special ruling. The idea was to make sure

that every bank in Britain could have a better deal, particularly the

mutuals, as you say. That is a proper thing for the Chancellor to

be doing. We could go round in circles here, but in the end, there

was not a takeover of the Lloyds branches, that is because we

followed a proper process. Had that same rigorous process been followed

in 2009, the legitimate question to ask is whether the Co-op would have

been -- would have taken over the Britannia. That is a proper question

to ask. It is no good to have the leader of the opposition say, as

soon as you ask any of these questions about anything where there

is a problem for them, they come back with, oh, this is all smears.

There are questions to ask about what the Labour government did, the

debt and the deficit they left the country with, the way they stopped

work from paying in this country. The big question your government has

two answer is, why, by July 201 , when it was clear there was a black

hole in the Co-op's balance sheet, your government re-confirmed the

Co-op as the preferred bidder for Lloyds - why would you do that?

Well, look, the good thing is, we can discuss this until the cows come

home, but there is going to be a proper, full investigation, so we

will find out what happened, all the way back. So, we will be able to get

to the bottom of all of this. Grant Shapps, the only reason the Lloyds

deal did not go ahead was, despite the Treasury cheerleading, when

Lloyds began its due diligence, it found that there was indeed a huge

black hole in the balance sheet and that the Co-op was not fit to take

over its branches. That wasn't you, it wasn't the Government, it was not

the Chancellor, it was Lloyds. You were still cheerleading for the deal

to go ahead... Well, as I say, a proper process was followed, which

did not result in the purchase of the Lloyds branches. At that proper

process been followed with the purchase of the Britannia, under the

previous government... Which you supported. Yes, but it may well be

that under that previous deal, there was a excess political pressure

perhaps put on in order to create that merger, which proved so

disastrous. The Tories facilitated it, Grant Shapps, they allowed it to

go ahead. I have said, we are going to have a proper, independent

review. What I cannot understand is, when you announce a robber,

independent review, the response you get to these serious questions. The

response is, oh, this is a smear. It is crazy. We are trying to answer

the big questions for this country. We have done all of that, and we are

out of time. The Reverend Flowers' chairmanship of the Co-op bank was

approved by the regulator at the time, which no longer exists. It was

swept away by the coalition government in a supposed revolution

in regulation. But will its replacement, the Financial Conduct

Authority, be different? Adam has been to find out. Come with me for a

spin around the Square mile to find out how we regulate our financial

sector, which is almost five times bigger than the country's entire

annual income. First, let's pick up our guide, journalist Iain Martin,

who has just written a book about what went so wrong during the

financial crisis. The FSA was an agency which was established to

supervise the banks on a day-to day basis. The Bank of England was

supposed to have overall responsible at for this to Bolivia the financial

system and the Treasury was supposed to take an interest in all of these

things. The disaster was that it was not anyone's call responsibility, or

main day job, to stay alert as to whether or not the banking system as

a whole was being run in a safe manner. And so this April, a new

system was set up to police the City. Most of the responsibly delays

here, with the Bank of England, and its new Prudential Regulation

Authority. And the Financial Services Authority has been replaced

with the new Financial Conduct Authority. Can we go to the

financial conduct authority, please? Canary Wharf, thank you. Here, it is

all about whether the people in financial services are playing by

the rules, in particular, how they treat their customers. This place

has got new powers, like the ability to ban products it does not like, a

new mandate to promote competition in the market, the concept being,

more competition means a better market, plus the idea that a new

organisation rings a whole new culture. Although these are the old

offices of the FSA, so maybe not quite so new after all. It has also

inherited the case of the Co-op bank and its disgraced former chairman

the Reverend Paul Flowers. The SCA will be part of the investigation

into what happened, which will probably involve looking at its own

conduct. One member of the Parliamentary commission into

banking wonders whether the new regulator, and its new boss, are up

to it. I have always said, it is not the architecture which is the issue,

it is the powers that the regulator has, and today, it does not seem to

me as if there is any increase in that. And with the unfolding scandal

at the Co-op, it feels like the new architecture for regulating the City

is now facing its first big test. And the chief executive of the

Financial Conduct Authority, the SCA, Martin Wheatley, joins me now.

Welcome to The Sunday Politics. The failure of bank regulation was one

of the clearest lessons of the crash in 2008, and yet two years later, in

2010, Paul Flowers is allowed to become chairman of the Co-op - why

have we still not got the regulation right? We have made a lot of changes

since then. We have created a new regulator, as you know. At the time,

we still had a process which allowed somebody to be appointed to a bank

and they would go through a challenge, but in the case of Paul

Flowers, there was no need for an additional challenge when he was

appointed to chairman, because he was already on the board. But going

from being on the board to becoming chairman, that is a big jump, and he

only had one interview? That is why today, it would be different. But

the truth is, that was the system at the time, the system which the FSA

operated. He was challenged, we did challenge him, and we said, you do

not have the right experience, but at the time, we would not have

opposed the appointment. What we needed was additional representation

of the board of people who did have banking experience. You can say that

that was then and this is now, but up until April of this year, it was

still the plan for the Co-op, under Mr Flowers, and despite being

seriously wounded by the Britannia takeover, to take on 632 Lloyds

branches. That was the Co-op's plan. They needed to pass our test

as to whether we thought they were fit to do that, and frankly, they

never passed that test. It was not the regulator that stopped them It

was. We were constantly pushing back, saying, you have not got the

capital, you have no got the systems, and ultimately, they

withdrew, when they could not answer our questions. You were asking the

right questions, I accept that, but all of the time, the politicians on

all sides, they were pushing for it to happen, and I cannot find

anywhere where the regulator said, look, this is just not going to

happen. I cannot comment on what the politicians were doing, but I

continue what we were doing, which was constantly asking the Co-op

have you got the systems in place, have you got the people, have you

got the capital? And they didn't. But it only came to a head when

Lloyds started its own due diligence on the bank, and they discovered

that it was impossible for them to take over the branches, it was not

the regulator... In fairness, what we do is ask the questions, can you

do this deal? And we kept pushing back, and we never frankly got

delivered a business plan which we were happy to approve. Is the SCA

going to launch its own inquiry into what happened? -- the FCA. The

Chancellor has announced what will be a very broad inquiry. There are a

number of specifics which we will be able to look at, relating to events

over the last five years. Could there be a police investigation I

think the police have already announced an investigation. I am

talking about into the handling of the bank. It depends. There might

be, if there is grim low activity, which we do not know yet. You worked

at the FS eight, didn't you? I did. Some of those people who were signed

off on the speedy promotion of Mr Flowers, are they now working

there? Yes, we have some. I came to join the Financial Services

Authority, to lead it into the creation of the new body, the SCA.

We had people who were challenging and they did the job. There was not

a requirement to approve the role as chairman. There was not even a

requirement to interview at that stage. What we did do was to require

that he was interviewed, and that the Co-op should get additional

experience. One of the people from the old organisation, who signed up

on the promotion of Mr Flowers to become chairman is now a

nonexecutive director of the Co op, so how does that work? Welcome he

was a senior adviser to our organisation, one of the people who

made the challenges, and who said, you need more experience on your

board. Subsequently he then went and joined the board. Surely that should

not be allowed, the regulator and the regulated should not be like

that. Well clearly, you need protection, but we have got to get

good people in, and frankly, we want the industry to have good people in

the industry, so there will be some movement between the regulator and

industry. We all wonder whether you have the power or even the

confidence to stand up if you look at all of the really bad bank

decisions recently, politicians were behind them. It was Gordon Brown who

pushed the disastrous merger of Lloyds and RBS. It was Alex Salmond

who egged on RBS to buy the world. All three main parties wanted the

Co-op to buy Britannia, even though they did not know the debt it would

inherit, and all three wanted the Co-op to buy the Lloyds branches -

how do you as a regulator stand up to that little concert party? Well,

that political pressure exists, our job at the end of the day is to do a

relatively technical job and say, does it stack up? And it didn't and

we made that point time and time again to the Co-op board. They did

not have a business case that we could approve. The bodies on left

and right -- the politicians on left and right gave the Co-op special

support. They may have done, but that was not you have made a warning

about these payday lenders, but I think what most people would like to

see is a limit put on the interest they can charge over a period of

time - will you do that? We have got a whole set of powers for payday

lenders. We will bring in some changes from April next year, and we

will bring in further changes as we see necessary. Will you put a limit

on the interest they can charge That is something we can study. You

do not sound too keen on it? Well, there are a lot of changes we need

to make. One change is limiting rollovers, limiting the use of

continuous payment authorities. Simply jumping to one trigger would

be a mistake. Finally, an issue which I think is becoming a growing

concern, because the Government is thinking of subsidising them, 9 %

mortgages are back - should we not be worried about that? I think we

should if the market has the same experiences that we had back in 2007

- oh wait. We are bringing a comprehensive package in under our

mortgage market review, which will change how people lend and will put

affordability back at the heart of lending decisions. -- 2007-08. You

have not had your first big challenge yet, have you? We have

many challenges. It was once called the battle of the

mods and the rockers - the fight between David Cameron-style

modernisers and old-style traditional Tories for the direction

and soul of the Conservative Party. But have the mods given up on

changing the brand? When David Cameron took over in 2005, he

promoted himself as a new Tory leader. He said that hoodies need

more love. He was talking about something called the big society. He

told his party conference that it was time to that sunshine win the

day. There was new emphasis on the environment, and an eye-catching

trip to a Norwegian glacier to see first-hand, supposedly, the effects

of global warming. This week, party modernise and Nick bone has said

that the party is still seen as an old-fashioned monolith and hasn t

done enough to improve its appeal. The Tories have put some reforms

into practice, such as gay marriage, but they have put more into welfare

reform band compassionate conservatism. David Cameron wants

talked about leading the greenest government ever. Downing Street says

that the quote in the Son is not recognised, get rid of the green

crap. At this point in the programme we were expecting to hear from the

Energy and Climate Change Minister, Greg Barker. Unfortunately, he has

pulled out, with Downing Street saying it's for ""family reasons"".

Make of that what you will. However, we won't be deterred. We're still

doing the story, and we're joined by our very own mod and rocker - David

Skelton of the think-tank Renewal, and Conservative MP Peter Bone.

Welcome to you both. I'm glad your family is allowed you to come? David

Skelton, getting rid of all the green crap, or words to that effect,

that David Cameron has been saying. It is just a sign that Tory

modernisation has been quietly buried. I do think that's right

Modernisation is about reaching out to the voters, and the work to do

that is now more relevant than ever. We got the biggest swing since 931,

and the thing is we need to do more to reach out to voters in the North.

We need to reach out to non-white voters, and show that the concerns

of modern Britain and the concerns of ordinary people is something that

we share. And what way will racking up electricity bills with green

levies get you more votes in the North of England? We have to look at

ways to reduce energy bills. The renewable energy directive doesn't

do anything to help cut our emissions, but does decrease energy

bills by ?45 a year. We should renegotiate that. That is a part of

modernisation and doing what ordinarily people want. And old

dinosaurs like you are just holding this modernisation process back I

am very appreciative of covering on this programme. The Tory party has

been reforming itself for more than 150 years. This idea of modern eyes

a is just some invention. We are changing all the time. I'm nice and

cuddly! So you are happy that the party made gay marriage almost a

kind of symbol of its modernisation? Fine Mac the gay marriage was a free

vote. David Cameron was recorded as a rebel there because more Tories

voted against his position than ever before. It was said that this was a

split between the old and young but it actually was a split between

those who were religious and nonreligious. It is a

misinterpretation of what happened. Is a modernisation in retreat? I

think modernisation is an invention. Seven years ago, in my

part of the world, we got three councillors elected, two were 8 and

one was 21. A few months ago, a 25-year-old was chosen to fight

Corby for the Conservative Party. He came from a comprehensive School. He

was one of the youngest. The Tory party is moving on. So you found

three young people? Hang on a minute. You can't get away with

that. Three in one batch. Does modernisation exist? Modernisation

is about watering our appeal and sharing our values are relevant to

voters who haven't really thought about voting for us for decades now.

Modernisation is about more than windmills and stuff, it is about

boosting the life chances of the poorest, it is about putting better

schools in poorer areas. It is also saying that modernisation and the

Tory party... When has the Tory party been against making poorer

people better off? Or against better schools? Do you think Mrs Thatcher

was a moderniser when she won all those elections? The problem we have

at the moment is that UKIP has grown-up. If we could get all of

those people who vote UKIP to vote for us, we would get 47% of the

vote. We don't need to worry about voters on the left. We need to worry

about the voters in the north, those people who haven't voted for us for

decades. Having an EU Referendum Bill is going to get people to

vote. We have to reach out to voters, but not by some sort of

London based in need. You have to broaden your base. I agree with you

on that. We have to broaden our appeal, but this back to the future

concept is not going to work. We need something that generally

appeals to low and middle-income voters, and something that shows we

genuinely care about the life chances of the poorest. Do you think

that the people who vote UKIP don't support those aspirations? We are

not doing enough to cut immigration. We don't have an EU Referendum Bill

stop we have to get the centre right to vote for us again. Do that, and

we have it. Tom Pursglove, the 5 euros, will be returned in Corby

because we cannot win an election there. -- the 25-year-old. Whether

you are moderniser or traditionalist, people, particularly

in the North, see you as a bunch of rich men. And rich southerners. You

are bunch of rich southerners. We need to do more to show that we are

building on lifting the poorest out of the tax. We need to build more

houses. There is a perception that the leadership at the moment is

rich, and public school educated. What we have to do is get more

people from state education into the top. You are going the other way at

the moment. That is a fair criticism. Modernisers also say

that. I went to a combo hedge of school as well. -- do a

comprehensive school. We need to show that we are standing up for low

income. Thank Q, both of you. You are watching the Sunday Politics.

Coming up in just under 20 minutes, Coming up in just under 20 minutes,

In the East Midlands, a fatal lung illness, but diagnosed five days too

early to qualify for compensation. It happened a long time ago. So what

matters what day they do the investigations?

And after a spate of good figures on jobs, housing and investment, we'll

be asking; are the good times back? Hello, I'm Jon Hess and my guests

today are the Conservative's prospective candidate for the Derby

North seat, Amanda Solloway who'll be hoping that the good times are

back and the Conservatives can take the credit. And a regular visitor,

Labour's Leicester South MP, Jon Ashworth. Who'll be out to prove it

would all be much better under Labour. Welcome to you both.

First, we've heard the claims, now we have the figures: the under

occupancy penalty or bedroom tax is one of the most controversial issues

in politics at the moment. And the National Housing Federation has just

released the figures for the impact it's having in the region. They show

that the most affected areas in the East Midlands are our big cities.

Nottingham has the highest number of families hit by the penalty with

5,288. In Leicester it's 3,402. And in Derby 2,303. Rutland is the least

affected with just 151 households. Overall, the National Housing

Federation calculated that 35,000 families in the East Midlands have

been affected, with an average loss in housing benefit of ?718 a year.

Giving a figure across the region of just over ?25million.

And, Jon Ashworth, you could say that's ?25 million of taxpayers'

money that's been saved. Not really because a lot of councils across the

region are building up huge arrears because lots of people cannot afford

to pay this tax. It is a cruel piece of legislation, hitting a lot of

honourable people, disabled people. A woman got in touch with me, she is

57 with grandkids, she has to go to food banks now because she cannot

pay yet and Labour would get rid of this. This issue is fast becoming

this government's poll tax. What we needed to do was something about it

and the fact is under the last government, housing benefit doubled.

You have in the house and opportunity of a family of five

people or two people. It makes sense to swap it so you have five people

in a house suitable. We have had to eats saying it was originally

considered by Labour but aimed at Private landlords. They would be

penalised for surplus rooms. The past Labour government has consulted

in different ways to make savings. If people are forced out of their

council properties and they are forced into the private sector, they

will pay more in housing benefits so the taxpayer will lose out. From my

point of view it is not crazy. My dad lives in a council house and my

auntie. Neither had to move because the policy is they can stay in their

own home because they are there. A new bill to give compensation to

people who've contracted fatal illnesses after working with

asbestos, is making its way through Parliament. The government say it's

a breakthrough. But campaigners in the East Midlands say it doesn't go

far enough. Chris Doidge has met a Derbyshire man suffering from

mesothelioma, an illness caused by working with asbestos which is

always fatal. He missed out on financial help, because he was

diagnosed FIVE days short of the cut off point.

When it was being installed in buildings or even used to make

loading, people were blase about asbestos. But with symptoms taking

many decades to appear, the consequences are now becoming very

clear and 40 insurers, very expensive. Last year the government

struck a deal with insurance companies creating a fund to support

victims of asbestos whose employers had disappeared or cannot prove they

were insured. But as part of the agreement, people whose mesothelioma

was diagnosed before last July and who cannot call upon a valid

insurance policy will receive nothing. Keith worked with asbestos

for just a few days more than 60 years ago. Fit, healthy and able to

take energetic holidays he was diagnosed last summer. Had you been

diagnosed five days later, you would have qualified. Yes, but I cannot

understand why there should be any cut`off date because this happened

to me. It happened 60 years ago so why should it make any difference

what date it was that they started doing investigations? This law firm

represents hundreds with mesothelioma and it thinks one in

five will miss out because of the scheme. Hapsburg 's of these East

Midlands industrial heritage, it says there are dozens who stand to

lose out. There is no reason why people before that date should be

excluded. I represent many sufferers who are not eligible for a payment

under this new scheme and that seems grossly unfair. What the insurance

industry and the government have developed is a carefully balanced

package which provides as much support as can be provided to those

people who are suffering with mesothelioma relative to the small

and medium enterprises who do not want to see their insurance premiums

increase. Campaigners say it is good news that the thousands who will be

diagnosed in the future will be compensated for the harm asbestos

did to them, but for those whose diagnosis came to soon, the lack of

financial support to them and their families as to their worry. Keep my

fingers crossed, I got away with it, I thought, but after 60 years, it is

quite a long time to wait for something to happen to you.

Remember that Keith missed out on financial help, because he was

diagnosed FIVE days short of the cut off point. With me is Joanne Gordon,

who campaigns for asbestos victims in the East Midlands. Joanne, how

typical is a case like Keith's? We have a number of cases of people who

have died and cannot chase that insurer and will get nothing under

this new scheme. It is a terrible thing. People don't want it for

themselves, they want to provide for their families. They want to provide

compensation for their families. You must be pleased the government has

introduced some form of scheme? Yes, but it is not going far enough.

Amanda, do you think the deadline that caught out Keith was rather

arbitrary and a bit unfair? It is a horrible disease and I feel for

Keith and anyone who suffers. I welcome the fact that this is going

through and we are doing something about it. As it goes through, we

will see how it progresses. Is it to the credit of the coalition that

there has been some movement on this? I am pleased there has been

movement but what I would say is the consultation on this started under

the last government and there is a sense from the campaigners that the

government have caved in to the insurance industry, they have not

push them hard enough on this. You talk about the last Labour

government getting underway at a consultation process but it has

taken the coalition to get this off the ground? Stuff did happen under

Labour. They won a case in the High Court where a victim had to prove

which employer in their past caused the asbestos caused mesothelioma.

The insurance industry have been pushing back on this. That is key.

Won't this be seen as a victory for the powerful law `` lobbying

organisations? I hope it will be a victory for all asbestos sufferers.

Does it go far enough? Personally I would like to see this considered.

The Department of work and pensions says the scheme is a major

breakthrough. It says they are also paying dependence and to make sure

the scheme is affordable, they also had to take tough decisions. Which

means we cannot pay out to every dependent of every person who has

died. I do not think the cost is prohibitive. The insurance industry

have taken ?800 million in unpaid compensation so they can afford to

give something back to the victim is. We are asking for 100% of

average compensation and we are asking for at least it to be paid

back to February 2010 when the government took over the

consultation. They discussed it with the insurance industry exclusive

without victim representation. There will be some people who will think

if the insurance industry pick`up the entire tab for what is a

dreadful illness, it does mean premiums will go up. No. The

insurance industry have set a maximum at which they can pay and at

100% compensation they can pay that over ten years. Jon, this

legislation is still to come to the Commons and go through Parliament.

Is it the type of thing you would like to back? It will go to the

house of commons in two weeks time. If we thought we could get some

amendments down to deal with these different issues, we would support

it. If you start amending the bill it delays the whole process and

there are people out there who need something so that is something we

need to look at. Hopefully the government will listen to concerns

and take these on board. Amanda, it strikes me you would welcome that.

Absolutely. The other thing is we have been looking at the time. Time

is crucial in all of these things. Lots of good things hopefully going

through. If you have the chance to redraw the legislation, what would

be the key things you would want to see? A look at the timings on these.

With that be welcome to you? It certainly would. If we can take this

back to February 2010 and then the teams like Keith can get

compensation. Now, are the good times finally

ready to roll again? We've been used to years of bad news, but suddenly

this week, there's been a spate of more optimistic stories. On the

economy, the Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire Chamber of Commerce

has reported that orders are up and more firms are looking to take on

staff. Meanwhile, there's been an increase in new homes being built

and house prices are rising too, if only by just over one per cent.

Finally, there's been tens of millions of pounds of investment

announced this week in roads and buildings across the East Midlands.

Amanda, you are a business consultant. What message are you

getting for businesses now? An optimistic message. The opportunity

to set up businesses which is vital. I work in manufacturing, the

opportunity for apprenticeships, I am feeling very buoyed. Something is

going on out there. David Cameron and George Osborne think they have

sorted the economy out now. That is a bit presumptuous. If you look at

what is happening in the economy, wages have been growing at much less

a pace than prices throughout the whole of this government. People are

worse off by ?1600. Are we not now seeing the advantages of having a

five`year parliament because both the political and economic cycle are

starting to work in favour of this government and isn't that bad news

for Labour? I am interested in how people in Leicester and the East

Midlands are feeling and they are feeling worse off because of this

cost of living crisis. Gas and electricity bills rocketing, train

fares rocketing, these are the issues the government need to be

dealing with. That is the reality for many people who you hope will be

voting for you. I think we are doing a lot and this has only started the

process. But there are some really positive messages, the fact that

when I fill my car with petrol it costs me less. My daughter, recently

married, would not have been able to get a house and now there is an

opportunity for her to be able to do this. Really good messages out there

and I don't see this negativity. Labour's mantra in the early days of

the coalition was it was cutting too fast and too deep and isn't the

problem now that in all those marginal constituencies, the

electorate are likely to warm to this talk of economic revival more

than maybe Labour's message? Do you think people in Loughborough, Derby

field they are better off under this lot? Their bills rocketing, we will

freeze them. Childcare costs up 30% and prices are rising higher than

wages. You are worse off under David Cameron and George Osborne and I am

sure people know that. Let's find out some of those views because What

counts when it comes to the ballot box is whether people feel the

recovery's underway, and they're feeling the benefit.

Des has been to Leicester and met people who were still waiting for

the turn up. I am in Leicester and it is the time

of year for Christmas cheer but is the recession still here? Everyone

has got rose tinted glasses on. I work in catering, in a cafe and

people come in and want the cheapest thing they can get because they do

not have the spare cash. House prices are going up and companies

are taking on more people. That is not necessarily a good thing. All

these youngsters want houses but they cannot get on the property

ladder. Bad as ever. Money is more tight. House prices are going up,

companies taking on a lot of people? Their roster a lot out of work. Are

you enjoying Christmas? Not really, it is too expensive. House prices

are going up and how do you expect people to afford them? Companies are

employing more people. There are not many employing that many people. You

are not guaranteed any hours so you are better on benefits.

Well, that was just a snapshot, but our team in Leicester told us they

couldn't find anyone who thought things were improving. When I look

at that it is not the case. People will find it a lot easier to get

deposits and start`up loans, they are available. I wonder at the

cross`section of people asked about this. After five years of economic

gloom, surely you would expect exports to improve, record books and

order books to be filling up again. Shouldn't the government take

credit? If manufacturing and exports are improving, I am pleased about

that but people in Leicester, I am not surprised what they were saying

because we know hard`pressed people are ?1600 worse off. They have to do

something about it. They have to freeze bills. This cost of living

thing is causing huge problems and we have a government doing nothing

about it. We had a president of the CBI saying in a speech in Leicester

saying any economic revival has to be shared and he was talking about

pay packets being boosted to help people cope with the slump. Our

manufacturers, our bosses going to be generous to boost pay packets? In

the manufacturing, if you start to prosper you will reward people. I am

a great believer that what we need to do is boost industry,

manufacturing and all the stuff we are doing are all helping towards

that. Time for a round`up of some of the other political stories in the

East Midlands this week ` in 60 seconds.

The battle over where to bury Richard III heads to the High Court

for a hearing in front of judges on whether he should be reinterred in

Leicester all your. The Conservative MEP Mike Larkin has

welcomed steps towards ending the Strasse board circus. The habit of

splitting the European Parliament sessions between Strasbourg and

Brussels. The European Parliament has voted to look at reforming the

system and the regions smell politicians have been joining in

with Movember. Growing a moustache to raise money for cancer research.

Alan Charles is not enjoying his own attempts. I am looking forward to

when I can shave it off again. Meanwhile, Mark Spencer is growing

one also but his moustache has been likened to that of a Mexican drug

lord. Having lost the City of Culture, Leicester needs to hold

onto Richard's bones. We are going to hold onto Richard the third. This

High Court thing, what a waste of time. He should stay in Leicester.

Movember, what do you think of these men, colleagues of yours? Mark

Spencer looked more like a refugee from the Village people! Probably

yes! I thought he looked rather dashing. Let's not forget what it is

all about, it is a serious message to give. Jon, are you tempted? Who

knows. When I was on paternity leave, a group a beard so maybe I

will grow a beard. Why just Movember? Exactly, all year round!

That's the Sunday Politics in the East Midlands, thanks to Amanda

Solloway and Jon Ashworth. Don't forget to catch

those people who want to cycle. We will be returning to this one. Thank

you. A little bit of history was made at

Prime Minister's Questions this week. A teensy tiny bit. It wasn't

David Cameron accusing one MP of taking "mind-altering substances" -

they're always accusing each other of doing that. No, it was the first

time a Prime Minister used a live tweet sent from someone watching the

session as ammunition at the dispatch box. Let's have a look We

have had some interesting interventions from front edges past

and present. I hope I can break records by explaining that a tweet

has just come in from Tony McNulty, the former Labour security

minister, saying that the public are desperate for a PM in waiting who

speaks for them, not a Leader of the Opposition in dodging in partisan

Westminster Village knock about So I would stay up with the tweets if

you want to get on the right side of this one! We are working on how the

Prime Minister managed to get that wheat in the first place. What did

you think when you saw it being read out? I was certainly watching the

Daily Politics. I almost fell off my chair! It was quite astonishing He

didn't answer the question - he didn't do that the whole time. But I

stand by what the tweets said. I have tweeted for a long time on

PMQs. Normally I am praising Ed Miliband to the hilt, but no one

announces that in Parliament! Because the Prime Minister picked up

on what you said, it unleashed some attacks on you from the Labour side.

It did, minor attacks from some very junior people. Most people were

supportive of what I said. They took issue with the notion of not doing

it until 12:30pm, when it wasn't available for the other side to use.

Instant history, and instantly forgettable, I would say. Do you

think you have started a bit of a trend? I hope not, because the

dumbing down of PMQs is already on its way. Most people tweet like mad

through PMQs! Is a measure of how post-modern we have become, we have

journalists tweeting about someone talking about a tweet. That is the

level of British politics. I am horrified by this development. The

whole of modern life has become about observing people -- people

observing themselves doing things. Do we know what happened? Somebody

is monitoring the tweets on behalf of the Prime Minister or the Tory

party. They see Tony's tweet. They then print it out and give it to

him? There was a suggestion that Michael Goves had spotted it, but

Craig Oliver from the BBC had this great sort of... Craig Oliver was

holding up his iPad to take pictures of the Prime Minister, which he then

tweeted, from the Prime Minister. People will now be tweeting in the

hope that they will be quoted by the Prime Minister, or the Leader of the

Opposition. I wasn't doing that I'm just talking about the monster you

have unleashed! I hope it dies a miserable death. I think Tony is a

good analysis -- a good analyst of PMQs on Twitter. Moving onto the

Co-op. You were a Co-op-backed MP, white you? I was a Co-op party

member. There are two issues here about the Co-op and the Labour

Party. All the new music suggests that the Co-op will now have to

start pulling back from lending or donating to the Labour Party, which,

at a time when Mr Miliband is going through changes that are going to

cut of the union funds, it seems quite dangerous. There are three

things going on. There's the relationship that the party has

politically with the Co-op party, there is the commercial relationship

you referred to, and then there is this enquiry into the comings and

goings of Flowers and everybody else. The Tories, at their peril,

will mix the three up. There's a lot of things going on with a bang.

Labour has some issues around funding generally, and they are

potentially exacerbated by the Co-op issue. The Labour Party gets soft

loans from the Co-op bank, and it gets donations. ?800,000 last year.

Ed Balls got about ?50,000 for his private office. You get the feeling,

given the state of the Co-operative Bank now, that that money could dry

up. We will see. There's lots of speculation in the papers today At

the core, the relationship between the Co-op party and the Labour Party

is a proud one, and a legitimate one. I don't think others always

understand that. Here is an even bigger issue. Is it not possible

that the Co-op bank will cease to exist in any meaningful way as a

Co-op bank? Is the bane out means it is 70% owned -- the bail out means

that it is 70% owned, or 35% going to a hedge fund, I think I read

Yes, there is a move from the mutualism of the Co-op. But don t

confuse the Co-op bank with the Co-op Group. Others have done that.

I haven't. Here's the rub. The soft loans that Labour gets. They got

?1.2 million from this. And 2.4 million. They are secured against

future union membership fees of the party. What is Mr Miliband doing? He

is trying to end that? You have this very difficult confluence of events,

which is, could these wonderful soft loans that Labour has had from the

Co-op, could they be going? And these union reforms, where Ed

Miliband is trying to create a link between individuals and donations to

the Labour Party... Clearly, there could be real financial difficulties

here. The government needs to be careful, because George Osborne

launched one of his classic blunderbuss operations this week,

which is that the Labour Party is to blame for Paul Flowers' private

life. No, it's not. And that all the problems, essentially... Look at

what George Osborne was doing in Europe. He was trying to change the

capital requirement rules that would make it easier for the Co-op to take

over Lloyd's. If there is to be a big investigation, George Osborne

needs to be careful of what he wishes for. This is another example

of the Westminster consensus. All of the Westminster parties were in

favour of the Britannia takeover. This is how the Co-op ended up with

all this toxic rubbish on its balance sheet. All the major parties

were in favour of going to get the Lloyds branches. The Tories tried to

outdo Labour in being more pro-Co-op. There was nobody in

Westminster saying, hold on, this doesn't work. It is like the

financial bubble all over again Everyone was in favour of that at

the time. I think there is no evidence so far that the storm is

cutting through to the average voter. If I were Ed Miliband, I

would let it die a natural death. I would not write to an editorial

column for a national newspaper on a Sunday. That keeps the issue alive,

and it makes him look oversensitive and much better at dishing it out

than taking it. I agree about that. The Labour press team tweeted this

week saying that it was a new low for the times. And this was

re-tweeted by Ed Miliband. It isn't a great press attitude. It is very

Moni. Bill Clinton went out there and fought and made the case. So did

Tony Blair. If you just say, they are being horrible to us, it looks

pathetic. And it will cut through on Osborne and the financial

dimensional is, not political. I shall tweet that later! While we

have been talking, Mr Miliband has been on Desert Island Discs. He

might still be on it. Let's have a listen to what he had to say.

# Take on me, take me on. # And threw it all, she offers me

protection. # A lot of love and affection.

# Whether I'm right or wrong #. # Je Ne Regrette Rien. #.

Obviously, that was the music that Ed Miliband chose. Who thought -

you would have thought he would choose Norman Lamont's theme tune!

He chose Jerusalem... He has no classical background at all. He had

no Beethoven, no Elgar. David Cameron had Mendelssohn. And Ernie,

the fastest Notman in the West. -- fastest milkman. Tony Blair chose

the theme tune to a movie. Tony Blair's list was chosen by young

staffers in his office. It absolutely was. Tony Blair's list

was chosen by staff. The Ed Miliband this was clearly chosen by himself,

because who would allow politician to go out there and say that they

like Aha. I am the same age as Ed Miliband, and of course he likes

Aha. That was the tumour was played in the 80s. Sweet Caroline. It is

Angels by Robbie Williams. I was 14-year-old girl when that came out.

I thought Angels was the staple of hen nights and chucking out time in

pubs. The really good thing about his list is that the Smiths to not

appear. The Smiths were all over David Cameron's list. The absolutely

miserable music of Morris he was not there. What was his luxury? And

Indian takeaway! Again, chosen for political reasons. I would agree

with the panel about Aha, but I would expect -- I would respect his

right to choose. Have you been on Desert Island Discs? I have. It took

me three weeks to choose the music. It was the most difficult decision

in my life. What was the most embarrassing thing you chose? I

didn't choose anything embarrassing. I chose Beethoven, Elgar, and some

proper modern jazz. Anything from the modern era? Pet Shop Boys.

That's all for today. The Daily Politics will be on BBC Two at

lunchtime every day next week, and we'll be back here on BBC One at

11am next week. My luxury, by the way, was a wind-up radio! Remember,

if it's Sunday, it's the Sunday Politics.