09/02/2014 Sunday Politics East Midlands


Andrew Neil and Marie Ashby with the latest political news on the floods, plus an interview with shadow business secretary Chuka Umunna.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 09/02/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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


a cleaner with no right to work here a cleaner with no right to work here


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


the machine politics of union fixes in the Labour Party,


In the East Midlands, the billion pound contract that's good news for


the whole economy. Plus calls for a full enquiry into British


involvement in one 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 20 0 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 2 0, 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 5 p 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 .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 2 15 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


looking at In the East Midlands, celebrations


as a ?1 billion contract goes to one of our biggest manufacturers. It's


going to help to regenerate jobs, ensure that the jobs that are


already they are going to last. And the Sikh community continues its


campaign for a full enquiry into how much help Britain gave in the


storming of the Golden Temple. With over 400,000 Sikhs within


Britain, we were just kicked in the face.


Good morning. My guests this week are the Derbyshire Conservative MP


for Mid`Derbyshire Pauline Latham and the Labour MP for Gedling Vernon


Coaker. Welcome to you both. Pauline, let's take a look at an


accusation that's been levelled at your party this week. That is the


lack of women on the front bench. When Labour were launching that


attack in the Commons this week, you were on the second row behind the


Prime Minister. How did it feel looking around and seeing ahead of


you that front row is all male? It isn't usually. We do have three


Cabinet ministers who are female, but it's not enough. I know David


Cameron wants to promote more, but we have got quite a lot at the lower


level of junior ministers who obviously cannot go straight into


the Cabinet. At the next reshuffle, you will see more women being


promoted. At the last election, we did go from 17 to 34. But that's a


huge increase. We are not doing enough and we do need to attract


more women. But we need women out there to apply. It is a serious


issue for your party. It is a serious issue for all parties.


Labour have had 0 serious issue for all parties.


Labour have had all women short lists. We have not gone down that


route because the party is against it. But the Liberals don't have


enough either. We must do better. Is your party taking this seriously? We


are taking and we have taken this seriously for years and that is why


we have seen a huge increase in the number of Labour MPs who are women.


31%. That is a huge increase. We are going to do more. If you look at it,


nearly half of the Shadow Cabinet are women. Over half, 55%, of seats


which are regarded as winnable or where Labour MPs are standing down,


women candidates are put into them. This is a huge issue for us, an


important issue and we have shown by the way we more properly reflect the


country than do the Conservatives. But it was funny seeing Rachel


Reeves this week wriggling to make sure she got as close to Miliband as


she could, telling other people to move. To make sure that it looked


worse for us. They had all women... Your had an all men front bench. The


accusation against the Tories is they are out of touch. And there you


are, an out of touch front bench. More 0


are, an out of touch front bench. More men, there are more people that


went to Eton and Oxford than there are women in the Cabinet. We are


talking about women here. We need to attract more women. But we are told


we are not getting women applying because they think it is a difficult


job. They do not like the yah`boo politics. I don't mind it, I was


brought up in a male household. But I think that is putting women off.


There are women interested in politics out there, if they apply,


they might get the opportunity to come in. But you have to keep hold


of them once you have got them. Labour are losing them. And there


are Liberal Democrats going. But the fact of the matter is, the


Conservative Party are not only losing 0


Conservative Party are not only losing them, they are not replacing


them. We have seen the issue with Jessica Lee standing down. Anne


McIntosh, one of the most senior women in the party, deselected and


told she was a silly little girl. It is a problem for all parties. More


of a 0 is a problem for all parties. More


of a problem for the Conservative Party, but a serious issue for us


all and we are addressing it. David Cameron wants to change it. But he


is going very slowly. A moment for the East Midlands to be


proud, that is how unions at Bombardier have reacted to news of a


?1 billion contract to build trains. The contract for the 0


?1 billion contract to build trains. The contract for the new Crossrail


line in London guarantees jobs at the plant for five years and could


generate hundreds more. It comes just two years after the firm missed


out on a similar contract for Thames Link. The mood is certainly


different there now. This is an area I'm very familiar


with because I grew up just down the road. Great news for Bombardier,


let's see how people feel about it. Tracey, Bombardier ` great news.


Fantastic news for me. I've not long had this cafe. About a year now. So


it is tremendous. We already do Bombardier here, but quite a few got


laid off just before Christmas so it is fantastic news for me.


It is great news for the town itself. The company. It's really


good news. It's going to help to regenerate jobs, ensure the jobs


that are really going to last. I think it is absolutely fantastic


news, not just for ourselves, but for the nation. Being a British


industry. Fantastic news. With a smile like 0 0


industry. Fantastic news. With a smile like that, I can tell you


heard the news about Bombardier. Great news. I think it is smashing.


I'm pleased for them. Chief Executive of the local


enterprise partnership D2N2 is with us, David Ralph. Smiles all round


there. Everyone saying it will have a massive knock`on effect for the


whole Midlands. In what way? It is great for Bombardier and the supply


change there. Lots of firms out there who work with Bombardier and


we think there will be hundreds of jobs generated in Bombardier and the


smaller medium`sized enterprises as well. We have heard the unions say


that losing that Thames Link contract a couple of years ago


actually did the industry a favour in a way because it raised the


profile of manufacturing in this country. We are pushing very hard in


rail, planes, automobile sector, which is big in this part of the


world. With this agenda moving into manufacturing, we want to move away


from the public sector economy into more jobs in the private sector and


manufacturing. Losing Thames Link was very negative for this part of


the world. As well as the obvious joy, there is relief as well. Yes,


because jobs are now protected, there will be more jobs, 80


apprenticeships needed. It is going to be a massive thing. That is just


the employment at Bombardier. We have got all the knock`on supply


chain and that is going to be fantastic for them. It gives them


more certainty. As politicians, we should be promoting our local


smaller and medium`sized companies and building on 0


smaller and medium`sized companies and building on that. Derby is a


centre of excellence for engineering and we need to build on that and


have more companies coming into Derby to capitalise on that factor.


It is not just Derby, the whole of the East Midlands. There is a real


emphasis on manufacturing across the East Midlands. Derby is a linchpin


around rail and Rolls`Royce. But there are similar qualities in


Leicester and Nottingham. It sounds like the government's emphasis on


manufactureing is paying dividends. All of us welcome what has happened


with respect to Bombardier. A sense of relief 0


with respect to Bombardier. A sense of relief and a sense of joy.


Clearly, manufacturing is really important. I think, and I think


there is a consensus across parties about the fact that it is important,


it is the skills agenda, developing apprenticeships. It is important


that people go to university. But it is also the skills and engineering


and the skills and the other trades as well. Pauline, would the


government have dared not give this contract to Bombardier after what


happened with Thames Link? It was not the government's agenda, it was


Crossrail, it was down to them to decide. I did lobby Boris Johnson


very hard. But it was not ministers' decision. It was outside of


government. I am just so thrilled. Derby is now attracting other


businesses in. There will be better employment opportunities in


mid`Derbyshire. That has got to be a good thing. Now that Derby has got


it, how to we build on this? The rail sector is growing. That is


important. Let's have the HS2 Academy in this part of the world.


We would like to see that in Derby and in the D2N2 area. What are the


chances of that happening? I shall be lobbying very hard. But there are


other MPs lobbying as well. I will be doing my best to get it to Derby.


There is so much going on in the area, businesses are being attracted


here because of the engineering focus. If we get that academy in


Derby, that would be fantastic. What are you hoping in terms of the


knock`on effect? It gives a whole area of the region a boost. Just to


say, that whatever government it is, there is a role to play in this. If


somebody is not good enough, you cannot give them the contract. But


government procurement, government has a role to play. Let's look at


what British industry can do. With the East Midlands, that is around


engineering. The big thing that comes out of this is that Britain,


once again, led by the Midlands, is seeing manufacturing is important.


It took a long time to get to this Crossrail project. It is a different


economic model. The last boom time was based on the service sector and


London. And there's a sense of trying to rebalance the economy. The


East Midlands is leading that. We have the health and creative


industries... We will be encouraging further investment in skills. There


is no denying this is fantastic news. Let's play devil's advocate.


Is manufacturing really the future? It is not going to go back to the


days when Bombardier was employing thousands of people. The future is


advanced manufacturing. We have some of the highest level of skills and


technology in this part of the world. We have to train the


workforce. That is really important. We haven't talked about exporting,


this is a global market. We need the skills in the local area. There is a


high quality apprenticeships at Rolls`Royce, and there are other


apprenticeships coming through this. There are opportunities there. The


future is bright, but we have to make the most of it. In the East


Midlands, there is an offer you that you do not see elsewhere. The


knock`on effect to small businesses, they will be high skilled jobs and


that will be right 0 they will be high skilled jobs and


that will be right across our region as well. And we need for girls to go


into manufacturing and engineering. It is not the dirty, oily rag job


that it used to be. It is much more skilled opportunity.


Thank you, David Ralph. Celebrations in Derby. But there has


been anger elsewhere in the East Midlands. Many in the region's Sikh


communities in the area are not satisfied with the government's


account of how the British helped India to plan an assault on the Sikh


temple in Amritsar in 1984. Hundreds of people died when troops moved in


against Sikh militants. Some people put the death toll in the thousands.


This week, the government said British advice was limited and not


followed. The Indian home ministry put police


on alert all over India, warning them to stand by to protect public


areas. That warning was issued with the news that the Army had captured


the Golden Temple at Amritsar. It is seen as one of the most


significant events in in Sikh history. When the Indian army moved


against militants barricaded inside the Golden Temple, hundreds died.


Some accounts say thousands. It's never been forgotten by the Sikh


community here in the East Midlands. They were horrified to learn in


papers accidentally released earlier this month that the British


government had been asked for and provided help.


With over 400,000 Sikhs within Britain, you ask yourself, we were


just kicked in the face really. After pressure on the government, an


enquiry was quickly launched into what help the British had provided


30 years ago. The Cabinet Secretary's report


concludes that the nature of the UK's assistance was purely advisory,


limited and provided to the Indian government at an early stage in


their planning. The government is keenly aware of


the influence of the Sikh community, numbering hundreds of thousands in


the UK and many in marginal constituencies.


British Sikhs have made and continue to make a vital contribution to our


national life. From serving in two world wars to running businesses and


playing a massive part in our communities today. I never forget


this. Last year, the Prime Minister


visited Amritsar. But the results of the enquiry have not pleased


everyone in Leicester's Sikh community.


We want a full enquiry. We want an apology from the British government.


It's not a matter of the Sikh community only, it is a matter of


the whole community. Others acknowledge a complex issue


and feel the attack on the temple was inevitable.


What was she determined, Indira Gandhi did what was good for her.


You can investigate it as much as you like, but at the end of the day,


you will find that it was not in the British hand.


But many Sikhs still feel the issue is not being taken seriously by the


government and want to see a full public enquiry into British


involvement in one of the bloodiest chapter in their history.


We are joined now by Pramjit Singh Gill, a former Lib Dem MP. You have


had a meeting at government level. The government has responded, are


you happy? Can I say first of all that twice in


the last century in its time of need, Sikhs came to the aid of


Britain, fighting and dying in two world wars. Along the way, they won


a disproportionate number of Victoria Crosses. I think the


revelations came as a shock to Sikhs. In the UK and across the


world. Sikhs are angry and upset. They were shocking revelations. How


a UK government could be complicit in providing advice to India to


launch an attack on the holiest shrine. Naturally, there is a great


deal of upset. Give us an idea of how seriously...


The enormity of the attack. It is like as if the UK provided advice to


attack the Vatican, or perhaps the Kaaba in Mecca. It would evoke an


enormous reaction. Do you think the government has done


enough on this? This report is very comprehensive. They are talking


about 30,000 documents that have been through, 200 files, it is not


the government that has done it, it is a senior civil servant. They have


looked very hard and they cannot find that a lot of people... One


civil servant went out to help advise the Indian government. After


they advised 0 advise the Indian government. After


they advised the Indian government, things changed. There were many,


many more people in the temple. The Indian government had to make a


decision as to what it was going to do. I don't think they necessarily


used the advice that was given. Can I say, 0


used the advice that was given. Can I say, it is wrong on principle,


morally wrong, to be advising a foreign country to launch an attack


on a holy shrine, regardless to the degree that it is taken on board.


What is Labour's view? Clearly, there are unanswered questions.


There are still documents that probably should be released that


have not been released. They were released accidentally? There are


still other documents that, for the confidence of the Sikh community who


have contributed enormously in the past and now, I think there is a


need for a full enquiry. The other thing that I think is important is


that the review that was done was just up until June 1984. There is a


need for us to look further at what happened after that as well. We met


with the Cabinet Secretary on 29 January and said, the remit of your


review, it is too narrow. It only goes up to June 1984. Later in that


year, there was a genocide of Sikhs in India. Some estimate more than


100,000 men, women and children were killed. What we are asking for now


is that there ought to be an independent, judge led enquiry which


can look at documentation that has not been released and for the


government to bring forward the release of that documentation. There


is still a lot of dissatisfaction over this and the Sikhs are a


powerful lobby. Are votes at stake because of this? It is inevitable


that Siks have been hurt and with the pain they are feeling, they are


going to say we 0 the pain they are feeling, they are


going to say we will have to demonstrate and reflect that in our


votes. We have got European elections coming on, local elections


and next year the general election. And we have a lot of Sikh


communities within our region. But it is about truth and justice. These


things are so important. People want to know what happened, what was the


justification, they want to know the truth and then they will make their


judgements. You have experience of government at that level, how do you


handle such a sensitive issue as this? To be fair to the Prime


Minister, if you look at the Bloody Sunday enquiry, lots of documents


were published and he had universal praise for that. As I have said,


there is a need for us to look at some of the documents that have not


been published, to look at those, a full enquiry. Will there be a full


enquiry now? It is going to depend on people like Vernon and Pauline,


whether they sign up to a full enquiry taking place. Clearly, there


is a demand out there for the truth to be told and I think the Sikhs,


given the gravity of the decision taken, that is the least they


deserve. I don't think anybody is saying we do not want the truth. We


want to 0 saying we do not want the truth. We


want to know what happened in 1984 and afterwards. I hope you're not


saying that the genocide you claim happened was something to do with


the British government. I'm sure it was not. Genocide is not from an


outside organisation, usually. The threat of saying if you do not do


what we want, we will vote against you... I'm just saying that people


will reflect in their votes the pain that they are feeling. In terms of


your point about the report, there were Ministry of Defence documents


that were destroyed in 2009. They were vital to shed light on this.


They knew full well... Some of the ones that were destroyed in the


Foreign Office were actually in other departments. A lot of stuff


has come out... Documents were destroyed and it was so serious...


It is something we will come back to.


Now other stories across the East Midlands. Here is 60 Seconds.


After a series of defections to UKIP, East Midlands conservatives


are celebrating someone coming the other way. Steve Hassall, a former


UKIP branch secretary, is standing for the Conservatives in May's


elections. MEP Emma McClarkin has welcomed an


EU ruling introducing a Europe wide licence to Internet music providers.


Another MEP is praising the European Parliament. The Liberal Democrat


Bill Newton Dunn has welcomed a law to strengthen rights for air


passengers. `` a 0 to strengthen rights for air


passengers. `` a move. Anyone would think there is an election coming.


Oh, there is. We will be choosing our next MEPs in May.


Derby is becoming a sister city to Hebron in Palestine. After a visit


by the 0 Hebron in Palestine. After a visit


by the mayor of Derby, the city is to set up links between primary


schools and sponsor a student in the West Bank city.


What do you think about that? Hebron and Derby. I don't have a problem


with that, except Derby City Council say 0


with that, except Derby City Council say they cannot afford this, that


and the other and they are cutting funding to worthwhile charities


while a jolly... Councillor Hussain paid for the


delegation out of his own pocket. That is very generous...


It wasn't a jolly. That is unfair to call it a jolly.


Thank you for being my guests. Next week, a special Sunday politics on


the crisis in our county councils ` thousands of jobs at risk, hundreds


of millions of pounds to cut. We'll be speaking to the people who make


those vital decisions on what jobs and what services have to go ` the


leaders of Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, and Leicestershire


county councils ` and we'll be hearing from the people affected.


Londoners who otherwise may not have 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.


Download Subtitles