30/03/2014 Sunday Politics East Midlands

Morning folks. Welcome to the Sunday Politics.

Can Ed Davey keep the lights on? Can he ever deliver cheaper power? Or

the investment our energy market badly needs? We'll be asking the

Energy Secretary. Why has the anti-independence Better

Together campaign suddenly got the jitters? We'll be quizzing Scottish

Secretary Alistair Carmichael. And whatever happened to the BNP?

They could be heading And in the East Midlands: The cuts

to mental health services which put patients and the public at risk.

And talk like an East Midlander ` should politicians sound more like

us? In London, changes to the authority

which runs the capital's Fire Service. The Mayor has a political

move designed to silence his critics.

And with me, as always, the most useless political panel in the

business, who we're contractually obliged to insult on a weekly basis.

But not today, because they are our chosen ones. They are the brightest

and the best, we've even hired a plane to prove it: Helen Lewis,

Janan Ganesh and Nick Watt who'll be tweeting throughout the programme.

Right, left and centre of the Westminster Establishment have been

unanimous in saying there would be no chance of monetary union with the

rest of the UK for an independent Scotland. Then an unnamed minister

spoke to our Nick saying that wasn't necessarily so, and that made the

Guardian's front page. The SNP were delighted and the anti-independence

campaign rushed to limit the damage. The faux pas has come at a time when

the Better Together side was already beginning to worry that things were

going the Nationalists' way. Let's speak to a leading light in that

campaign, Scottish Secretary Alistair Carmichael, who's in

Aberdeen at the Scottish Liberal Democrat spring conference.

Alistair Carmichael, why is there a sense of crisis now engulfing the no

campaign? I think that is something of an overstatement. What you have

got is, I am getting my own voice played back in my ear. What you have

got here is one story from an unnamed source, a minister who we

are told, we do not know for certain, who has speculated on the

possibility of a currency union actually happening. I do not think

that is helpful but it is not any big deal. You have to measure it

against what we have got publicly named on the record. We have got a

detailed intervention of the Governor of the Bank of England,

Mark Carney, outlining all the reasons why a currency union would

not be a good idea. And then you have got independent advice from the

permanent Secretary of the Treasury himself saying actually, this is

such a bad idea, that I would never advise a chancellor to go ahead with

it. You set one against the other and you see that pretty much the

force of argument is very much against those of us who want to

remain in the United Kingdom. All the minister was saying is come the

day, if Westminster is negotiating with a new independent Scotland, a

deal is to be done, Faslane where the nuclear deterrent is, there is

nowhere else in the UK to put that is, certainly not for the next 20

years, a deal would be done, the nuclear weapons would stay in

Faslane and Scotland would get a monetary union with the rest of the

UK. That is perfectly plausible, isn't it? No, I'm sorry, it is

simply not plausible. The economy is more important than anything else.

What you have had here is very clear advice from the treasury officials

saying it is not in the economic best interests of the people of

England Wales, Northern Ireland, any more than it is in the interests of

people in Scotland. Where do you put the nukes? The outcome will not

change. Where do you put the nukes when the Nationalists kick you out?

I do not believe that will be a problem because I do not believe

Scotland will vote for independence. But you might be asking the Scottish

Nationalists, who are apparently promoting this, are they then not

sincere when they say they want to remove nuclear weapons from

Scotland? It seems to be a curious mixed message. As you know, I have

not got the Nationalists, I have got you, so let me ask you the

questions. You are widely seen as running a campaign which is too

negative. The Nationalists are narrowing the gap in the poll found

you are squabbling among yourselves. This campaign is going pear shaped,

isn't it? No, let's deal with the polls. All the polls show that the

people of Scotland want to stay as part of the United Kingdom. Yes,

there were a couple of polls last week that said the gap was narrowing

a little. The most recent poll of all, the poll on Wednesday which

actually polled people's voting intentions on the question come

September showed that only 28% of people in Scotland were prepared to

say they were voting yes, as opposed to the 42% who were on our side of

the argument saying they wish to remain part of the UK. That poll

said women were skewing towards a yes vote and it showed that the

don't knows were beginning to skew towards a yes vote. That is why you

yourself wrote this morning that if your campaign does not get its act

together, you would be sleepwalking into a split to quote yourself. No,

to quote myself I said it was not impossible that the Nationalists

could win that. That is absolutely the case. The biggest danger for the

United Kingdom camp in this whole argument is people will look at the

polls. They show us with a healthy lead consistently. As a consequence,

they think this will not happen. It can happen. I have got to tell

everybody that it could, not least because the Nationalists have an

enormous advantage in terms of the amount of money they have at their

disposal to buy momentum. They will be advertising in cinemas, in

football matches and on social media. We have got to realise what

is coming and as a consequence, we have got to get our arguments in

place and our campaign as sharp as theirs. Thank you for joining us.

Nick, this unnamed minister who gave you the story, did he or she know

what they were doing? I do not think they were sitting there wanting to

blast this out there, because the agreed government position was there

will not be a currency union, if there is a vote for independence.

But what I was managing to get hold of whether thoughts that are in the

deeper recesses of people's minds, when they are looking at the polls

which have been narrowing, or there was Alistair Carmichael quite

rightly says, the pro-UK vote is still ahead. People are looking down

the line, what would happen after the 18th of September this year, not

just the next day but the next year, in those very lengthy

negotiations that would take place, when there would be a lot of moving

places on the table. You talked about Faslane, what would happen

then and that is what I managed to get hold of, that there are thoughts

about all those pieces that would be on the table. It is not surprising

that some in Westminster think that. Let's take the Shadow

Chancellor Danny Alexander at his word, they do not want a monetary

union. But if they are faced with giving the Scots a monetary union in

a post-independent Scotland, or having to remove the nuclear

submarines from Faslane, where they have nowhere else to put them,

probably except North America, there is a deal to be done. I think

whatever minister gave Nick his story is probably onto something. If

the Scots vote for independence, of course a deal will be done about the

currency because it is not in London's interests to have a

rancorous relationship with Edinburgh. Even if the deal is not

done, how does one country stop another country using its. That is

different. All London can really do is prevent Scottish intervention on

the monetary policy committee. The interest rate would be set without

any regard to the Scottish interest. Even that is only a fatal problem if

the Scottish economy becomes so out of sync with the UK economy. Except

it is a problem for Scotland's financial system because if you go

down that route there is no means of injecting liquidity into the

financial system in the financial crisis. That is why they would

rather have a monetary union. Is it not remarkable to hear the Secretary

of State for Scotland here that the Nationalists are spending too much

money, when he represents a campaign which brings together all the major

parties in the UK and all the resources of the UK and he is

bleating about the Nationalists having more to spend? I did think

that was a funny line and it was in the Observer. It lays into Alex

Salmond's plucky upstart idea that he's taking on this big

establishment. I thought it was a bizarre open goal, I am losing my

football metaphors, forgive me. The polls are so in favour of a no

vote. But the trend has been going their way. We have six months left

which is not enough to close the gap. They always tell you Alex

Salmond is a strong finisher. The plucky upstarts have this funding

from a millionaire. The Better Together campaign are being

incredibly cautious about where they get their money from. They do not

want to go to the City of London Police say, give us a couple of

million. Being Energy Secretary used to be a

bit of a dawdle, especially when North Sea oil was flowing. Now it's

very much a hot potato as Ed Davey has been finding out the hard way.

High household energy bills have been top of his inbox. The big six

energy companies account for 95% of the market. Off Johnson -- Ofgem

said there had been possible tacit coordination in the timing of price

rises and ordered an investigation by the competition and markets

authorities which will look at whether the big six should be broken

up. Where does that leave investment? The boss of Centrica

made the point that you would not spend money building an extension if

you knew in two years time your home might be bulldozed. The spare

margin, that is what is left in the generating system to cope with a

surge in demand on a cold winter's night, is due to drop to

historically low levels in 2016, according to Ofgem. Normally at

around 15%, capacity could drop to 2% after the next election and that

could lead to a surge in the sale of candles. Now where is that light

switch? Energy Secretary Ed Davey, joins me

now. Oh, we have found the light switch! The gap between a peak

winter demand and generating capacity could possibly reach 2%

next winter or the winter after. We will keep the lights on, that is for

clear. When we came to power, energy investment had been relatively low.

The Labour Party had failed to deal with the energy deficit. From day

one we have been pushing up massively. Investment has been 8

billion a year. Last year was a record. Spare capacity is now

heading to 2%. Why are you allowing it to get that no? Because we have

been increasing investment massively, last was a record level,

we will be able to keep the lights on. Some of the figures you are

showing suggests we are not doing anything. We have not only done

enough in our last three years, we have put in measures to stimulate

huge amounts of extra investment. We have the healthiest pipeline

investment in our history. We will come onto investment in a minute.

None of that change is the fact that we will be close to 2% next winter

or the winter after that. We have one major power station shut down,

or a cold winter away from having major problems with energy supply.

It is still 2%. Let me explain. The figures assume we are not doing

anything but we are doing something. Look at the National Grid. They are

able to bring in energy from interconnector is because we are

connected up to Europe. They are able to create a reserve so if we

get to problems, they will have a mothballed plant they can bring on.

You have not agreed with anybody on that. The decision was taken last

July. But no supplier has agreed to under mothball its plant. We would

not expect them to do that yet. Our plan is in place. On time, on

schedule, as we already thought it would be. But you have not got a

single agreement with a power supply who has mothballed plant to on the

ball it. We did not expect to. Our plan is in me National Grid will do

an election to allow those plants to come on. There is a huge amount of

interest. There are gigawatts of power that can come in to come on.

There is a huge amount of interest. There are gigawatts of power that

can come into that auction and we are not other measures we can take

and that is just in the short term. We have a plan for the medium-term.

We will be running the first auction for new capacity. The final decision

will be taken and we have learned lessons from what they do in North

America and other European countries so we can stay minute mothballed

plants and new plants to be built. I am absolutely clear there is not a

problem. You only build 9000 megawatts of new capacity from

2011-13. You have closed almost 22,000 megawatts. Why would you be

so cavalier with a nation's power supply? The last Government was

cavalier because we knew those figures are happening because we've

known for a long time a lot of power plants were coming to the end of

their life, coal power plants, nuclear power plants, and we had to

increase the rate of investment, but we... That shows clearly you are

closing twice as much, you have to date, closed twice as much as you

have opened, hence the lack of spare capacity. We knew a lot of them are

coming back for the last Labour Government knew. We have increased

the new so that's increasing significantly, far faster than under

the last Government but also remember, you were very wrong at the

beginning of your clip, margins at 15% are very own usual. They are

historically high. The average margin was 25%. That was wasting a

huge amount of money. But since privatisation, we've had margins

between 5% and 10%. Normally, high margins historically, which is

costly. Now we will have historically low margins. People

have to pay for that, so we make sure the lights stay on, we have a

short-term policy I have described to you, and medium-term policy and a

long-term policy. The long-term policy comes huge investment between

nuclear and optional, policy comes huge investment between

on. Ofgem, Independent, says the chance of blackouts by 2016 has

increased fourfold under your watch. What they say, if you read the

report, if we did nothing, they would be problems. But we have been

working with Ofgem. We have been working with National Grid, and we

have agreed that there will be a reserve capacity which can come on

if we get to the peak for the Best not just on the supply side but

demand and into connectors. You talk about industry having to move to

off-peak times. We say, they are prepared to that you paid for it,

and it makes commercial sense for them, it's a sensible thing for the

Wii will pay them to move to off-peak. You have huge diesel parks

for the you talk as if that something new but it's been around

for a long time for the 200 these contracts out there. We want to

expand that. You have hundreds of diesel generators to click into,

haven't you? There's a whole range of generators. Diesel generation,

dirty fuel. There's a of mothballed gas which can come. If you look at

the increase of the independent generators, many companies, a range

of power companies who are building a new power station and want to

build new ones. This is a healthy situation. You say you made over 100

billion new investment between now and the end of the decade to restore

capacity and meet renewable targets. Now you have referred the

Big Six to the competition commission, how much of that to

expect to come from them? We will see what the market delivers. We

have always expected independent generators to do a lot more than is

happening in the past. How much from the Big Six? It's not for me to say

it's going to be best from that company. The real interest is we

have huge amounts of companies wanting to invest. If you look at

independent analysis, they say Britain is one of the best places to

invest in energy in the world. We are the worldly do in offshore

wind, one of the best for renewables, one of the only

countries getting nuclear power stations. Rather than the bleaker

picture you're painting, the reverse is the case. We are seeing an

investment renaissance. You say that. Let me give you some facts.

Under this Government, only one gas plant has been under construction,

only one started under your watch for the others were done under

Labour. You have none in the pipeline. The Big Six has pulled

back from further investment including new offshore wind

investment and none of what you're talking about will come before 2020

anyway. That's simply not true. The balance reserves I've talked about,

the reserve planned: Making sure the mothballed plant could come on, I

capacity market incentivising new power, will happen way before 2020,

so that's not true. But doesn't answer the extra capacity. You have

no answer between now and the end of this decade. We have three answers.

Let me repeat them for you. I said permanent, not the short-term ones

you are putting in place to try to do with spare capacity. We have a

short-term plan, of course, that's very sensible. Medium-term plan,

auctioning for new power stations. That can lead to both mothballed

plant and when you plant, permanent plant being built, and the long-term

plan, to stimulator long-term investment, some of which will be

built and come online way before the end of the decade. I'm afraid, it's

a far rosier picture than your painting. It's also far more

expensive, too. Let's look at how you are replacing relatively cheap

energy with much more expensive sources of energy. Wholesale prices

is ?50 per megawatt. You have done a deal with EDF, nuclear, ?92 50. You

have indexed it for 30 years at 2012 prices.

All of that puts up our bills. First of all, the support of the low

Carbon is just 4% on bills. What has been driving peoples bills over the

last decade has been wholesale gas prices. No one knows what guys

prices are going to be in the future -- gas prices. When you look at the

Ukraine and other market indicators, many people are worried that by the

time nuclear power stations come online for example, the price of gas

could be significantly higher. You have indexed linked that for them by

the time you get any power from this, it'll be up to ?125 per

megawatt hour. The price of gas been going up far higher. Not recently.

Despite Iran, Ukraine, Libya, not recently. The long-term forecast,

Andrew, it's going to go higher but more importantly than that, this is

an area we could disagree on but it's very important that power

plants pay the cost of pollution. In those prizes, all of those prices

except the wholesale out a steep price, you have those power stations

paying the cost of air pollution. If gas and coal where paying the proper

carbon price, you would see nuclear and renewables as competitive. It's

very important that we ensure that power plants pay the cost of the

pollution. When you were last on this programme to talk about this in

May 2012, you said that the price of offshore wind was coming down fast.

You told me it would be down by 30% in the next few years. That figure

is 155, and for the deeper stuff, it's going to be ?165. That's the

first year of a limit control framework which had it coming down.

If you talk to many companies, Siemens had invested with their

partners, ?310 million with two new factories. They are talking about

lower prices because what they are saying to me is that, rather than

the 30% cost reductions I talked about, I was wrong, they are

targeting 40%. You said prices would come down 30% in two years for that

that was 2012 and they have gone higher. I absolutely did not say

that. Your exact quote was 30% in the next few years. Your exact few

years. You said two years, I sell a few years. I haven't changed a

single moment that you said two years, I said a few years. That's

what we are projecting. They will come down. You have to invest in

technology. Let me give you this example. When people invest in

mobile phones to start off with, they were expensive, and they were

clunky and the costs were going down for the one final question. You put

the Big Six into investigation because they made a 5% return on

investment and you're done a deal with EDF, nuclear power, which will

guarantee them a return of 10% - 15% every year for 30 years. Doesn't

that underline the shambles of your energy policy? You have mixed up two

separate things. The 5% Ofgem are talking about is on the supply

retail side. The percentage you quoted for EDF is in the wholesale

side of two different markets. It's the same return. It's not. You are

comparing apples and pears, dangerous thing to do. You have to

do have a high return but in the retail market, with a 5% stake,

there is less risk, says a low return. Ed Davey, I'm sorry we

haven't got more time. Thank you. Have me back. We will. Whatever

happened to the BNP? The far right party looked as if it was on the

verge of a major breakthrough not so long ago. Now it seems to be going

nowhere. In a moment we'll be speaking to the party's press

officer, Simon Derby. But first here's Giles. His report contains

some flash photography. For a moment in 2009 Nick Griffin and the BNP had

a spring in their step, smiling at their success of winning two seats

in the European Parliament. They already were the second largest

party in a London council and had a London Assembly seat. Despite

concerns from mainstream parties their vote was up. Our vote

increased up to 943,000. Savouring success was brief that morning as

anti-far right protestors invaded and egged the press conference and

forced the BNP MEPs into a hasty retreat. What is more significant is

that, in the years since, that retreat has been matched internally,

electorally and in the minds of those who had given them that vote.

For a number of years they were performing better than the UK

Independence Party and other smaller parties like the Greens and respect.

The problem for the BNP if they didn't make any inroads into other

groups, they didn't go into the middle class, the young, they didn't

go into women and ethnic minorities for obvious reasons. So the party

was quickly handicapped from the outset. Not that you would have

known that at the outset. In 2006 in Barking and Dagenham, the party won

12 council seats against a back drop of discontent with the ruling Labour

council and Government and picking up on immigration and housing

concerns in the borough. It's because of all the different

nationality people moving in the area, they are taking over

everything. My Nan and grandad lived there all their lives. I thought I

would vote for BNP. Hopefully, yeah, they will get elected over here.

When I came to Barking, Dagenham and Redbridge in 2006, the BNP with a

second largest party in one of the local councils. You can even find

non-white people who voted BNP. Now they have no counsellors, and even

though can when you talk to people, you will find among the older white

working-class population concerned that the BNP claim to represent,

everyone says they are nowhere. So what happened to that about? On

behalf of all the people in Britain, we in Barking have not just beaten,

that we have smashed the attempt of extremist outsiders. The local

Labour MP was as clear in 2010 as she is now. I always knew if we

could manage to ensure that wasn't a single BNP councillor left on the

council and I won my seat, it would stop the process of disintegration.

But what beat the BNP here in 2010 was a mobilisation of the Labour

vote. And today it is not hard to find the same discontent over the

same issues. It's just finding a new political home. A couple of years

ago, I used to vote Labour. Obviously, they haven't done nothing

around here as much now, with jobs and unemployment, and housing and

stuff like that about, basically, BNP ain't around here no more. Now

it's more about UKIP and I believe that these UKIP are saying are true.

If I thought BNP would make the difference, I would vote but is not

in the people behind them. They all get bandaged with the same brush.

I'm going to vote UKIP because BNP didn't get anywhere. What they say

in UKIP, with a bit of luck, they will get somewhere. It's not racist

but it's just that our kids haven't got jobs. Nick Griffin's dislike of

UKIP is mutual but his once fellow MEP Andrew Brons who's now left the

party issued a statement to this programme saying BNP failure is

closer to home post 2010. It was after that election discontent arose

amongst sections of the membership. Those members who left or were

thrown out by Nick Griffin had already felt let down by his

appearance on Question Time. It was a national platform for the BNP,

something they felt they had the right to through electoral success.

This was no big breakthrough moment for Griffin, unlike it was for John

Marina pen when he appeared on national television in France. He

went on to mobilise a national force. Despite there being some

voters tuned to their message, for the BNP, becoming such a force here

has never looked quite so difficult. And Simon Derby from the BNP joins

me now. Welcome to the Sunday Politics. It was not long ago you

had 55 councillors up and down the land, you now have two. You are on

the brink of extinction. That is not true. I have watched the film. It is

very negative as I would expect. The party has faced a few problems. The

main thing to bear in mind is that the issues, the problems the country

faces have gone away. We won nearly a million votes in the European

elections. We brought that mandate to the establishment and we were

denied. Let's face it, we would -- were denied any opportunity to take

place in the political apparatus. You have been destroyed by a pincer

movement. UKIP has taken away or more respectable voters and the EDL

is better at anti-Muslim protests and street thuggery. The EDL is not

a political party. I take your point about UKIP. The power structure took

a look at us and so we were a threat to power. We were not making this

stuff up, we meant it and they have co-opted our message. This shameless

promotion of UKIP, you have evenly had him presenting the weather on

this programme. That is unbelievable. That was a joke.

Across Europe, in France, your sister party the National front will

probably do very well. You can see the rise of the far right across

Western Europe so why are you in decline? We are not far right, I

reject that label. How would you describe yourselves nationalists and

Patriots. Why are you in decline and other similar parties to yours are

on the rise? You mentioned Barking and it is very interesting because I

was involved in that campaign. What Margaret Hodge and her Labour Party

did, they replaced the white indigenous population in Barking and

Dagenham with Africans, that is how they won that election. For that was

true, you would be doing well elsewhere. You have now got a leader

who is declared bankrupt and your party is heading for bankruptcy.

No, it is not. It is over. You would like that. What I would like is

irrelevant. Your membership is in deep decline. All parties have highs

and lows. In 2009 they said it is no way you will win any seats in the

European election. We did. And then you lost them. Parties win and lose

seats. The Lib Dems will be annihilated. You deny you are far

right. People used to say the BNP were neo-Nazis. Then Nick Griffin

appeared with Golden Dawn. They are not neo-Nazis, they are Nazis. It is

part and parcel of being in politics. You have to appear with

them? Of course we do, we have to speak to ordinary people. I am

perfectly happy speaking to you at the BBC, the BBC have a terrible

reputation but I am happy to be here. Mr Griffin has asked me, when

will the BBC apologised for trying to put him in prison twice, merely

for exposing a Muslim scandal. Why can't Nick Griffin appear on TV and

self? He would not appear. He was in Syria. He literally flew out to

Damascus and prevented a war. We decided we would not interfere in

Syria. The BBC never covered that. Please do not make out we are just

an ordinary political party you cover like everybody else. It is

completely different. All the signs are, membership, performance at the

polls, performance at elections, the problem with your leadership is you

are now going the way of the National front, heading for

oblivion. As I said to you before, that may be the case, if all the

problems we had not highlighted and how we got a huge vote so many years

ago, six years ago now, five years ago, in 2009, if they were not

around. These things are only going to get worse. We are looking at a

prototype Islamic republic that is going to be set up in this country.

That will lead to huge problems. Only the British National Party are

prepared to say that and deal with it. Word leaked out that I was doing

this interview with you before the weekend. Isn't it a sign of how

irrelevant you now are that not a single person has turned up at New

Broadcasting House this morning to protest? Used to be hundreds would

turn up when we said the BNP were on. That is the left for you, they

put the clocks forward and they could not be bothered to get out of

bed. I think they are still in bed. Thank you.

You're watching the Sunday Politics. We say goodbye to viewers in

Scotland who leave us now for Sunday Politics Scotland. Coming up here in

In the East Midlands: A growing crisis in mental health care ` poor

service in our hospitals and patients relying on cash`strapped

charities. They give me food parcels, he comes round to my house

every week and helps me with bills. I suffer from mental health problems

and alcohol problems. And talk like an East Midlander!

Should politicians be speaking our language to get their ideas across?

We don't understand what they're saying. One minute it's one thing,

the next time we see them on TV there's saying the opposite. They

don't want us to know what they're doing.

Hello, I'm John Hess, and my guests this week, two politicians who

always tell it how it is ` Stephen Dorrell, the Conservative MP for

Charnwood in Leicestershire, and John Mann, who's Labour's MP for

Bassetlaw in North Nottinghamshire. But first, the news that Atos is

pulling out of its contract to carry out assessments to see if people on

benefits are fit to work. It's an issue we've looked at before ` back

in November, we featured a Derbyshire man, Gary Swift, who has

one arm. He told us he'd been asked if his arm would grow back at an

Atos interview, although the company denied the claim. And the Bolsover

MP Dennis Skinner launched a savage attack in the House of Commons over

the case of a constituent he said had died from cancer whilst

appealing against an Atos decision that he was fit to work. Two things

the Prime Minister should do. One, with immediate effect, make a

payment to his widow to cover the suffering, the pain and the loss of

income. And secondly, abolish this cruel, heartless monster called

Atos. Get rid of it. A typically powerful argument from

Dennis Skinner there. Stephen Dorrell, did David Cameron take that

advice on board? I think many MPs, myself included, have had cases in

their constituency surgeries where the service delivered by this

business was not what we would want to see, which is why the government

takes action to change the service so that it does meet standards.

There are no party politics in this. Atos were appointed in 2008 by

predecessors. They did not deliver. They will be changed. Who will take

it on? The ministers made it clear that they are open to proposals from

a wide range of potential partners. No party politics in this? Well,

good riddance to bad rubbish. That is what they were. They were just

stitching decent people up. But Labour introduced it in the first

place. It was a bad Labour decision and this lot have worsened it,

telling them, here are your targets, not treating the disabled as human

beings, but as economic fodder. Will not a future Labour government have

to have a similar setup? We need doctors to make an assessment and

the NHS are the ones that should be doing that, deciding how disabled

people are and what help they need. Is that practical? I don't think it

is necessary to have a doctor doing everyone a doctor doing every one of

these assessments. The assessment is fair and when people cannot qualify,

we should all agree that the amounts are set.

Next, there are warnings that cuts in mental health treatment are

putting patients and the public at risk. Unions say some parts of the

East Midlands are facing a 25% cut in the number of mental health

workers, who treat some of the most vulnerable people in our society.

Chris Doidge has been taking a closer look.

In Derbyshire, Donovan tells me about his experience of getting help

for mental illness. You seem to go in and they've got one key worker.

Sorry, that keyword is off. Or they change your work. See you have to go

through your life story again and again. It happened this year about

three times already and it's only March. Many of the charities helping

people with mental illness have found their funding squeezed. Derby

City Council have taken away all the funding, which has caused

operational difficulties. We're going to have to reduce the

involvement. They're been cut across the mental health sector. Firstly,

local councils have reduced grant funding. Secondly, in the NHS,

mental health trusts have had to reduce the number of beds available

because of the financial pressure they are under. Among the mental

health units in trouble in recent years, this one at the Glenfield

Hospital in Leicester. After several bad reports from the Care Quality

Commission, health bosses say there are signs of improvement. I was

really pleased to see some improvements. I'm a doctor in my

background, a psychiatrist, so it is heartening to see the improvements

that have been made. Some of the comments that have been made so

serious that you wonder whether a health trust should have identified

some of problems itself. I agree. We collect hundreds of pieces of

information and were doing so, but we really have to focus on the

important pieces of information. What are patients and staff saying

about our services? With the recommend them? Savings in the NHS

partly depend on councils tackling mental illness earlier. In

Nottinghamshire, there are fears that the opposite will happen. The

council is planning to cut by 25% all social care jobs. That is a

dramatic cut in the service. Demographic changes and better

awareness mean mental health is becoming a bigger and bigger issue.

But in the East Midlands, as in the UK more widely, the funding for

mental health is not keeping pace. Well, Nottinghamshire County Council

told us they're prioritising mental health services, with ?10 million

pounds dedicated to it next year. But they also say they're having to

make cuts to services for vulnerable people because of government

cutbacks. And that's an issue Mark Simms knows all about.

Mark Simms is the chief executive of the Derbyshire charity P3, which

works with vulnerable people. What are some of the problems you deal

with? The simple truth of it is these cuts are impacting harshly on

people with mental health problems from two angles. One, the welfare

benefit reform and the impact that is happening `` having. But also the

cuts to social care. There is no requirement, no statutory duty to

support vulnerable people. There are duties to do other things, but if

you are simply someone vulnerable with a set of need, there is no

statutory requirement to support you. We're talking about people who

present with multiple and complex needs. People who sometimes get

letters they don't understand, they fall behind in their rent. It is a

downward spiral because there is no safety net to stop that happening.

Stephen Dorrell, this will not come as a surprise to because of the

report you published last year. A quote said the situation was so bad

it was an infringement of the human rights of patients. What did your

committee mean by that? We published several reports on mental health

services. That particular quote I think refers to the abuse of

sectioning powers. The NHS is allowed to treat patients

compulsorily in closely defined circumstances and occasionally we

were concerned some psychiatrists have been abusing that power to

subject people to compulsory medical treatment that they did not want.

That was the abuse of human rights. What I agree with Mark about is the

need to ensure there is proper provision in the community to enable

people to leave `` to lead lives. This is why the government has

introduced what is known as the better care fund, which is doing

something health ministers have talked about for half a century.

They are making the health service and the social care system work more

closely together to join them up in order to deliver better care for

elderly people and for other people who suffer. Is this the picture you

recognise? These are the sneaky NHS cuts. The cuts next year will be

bigger than this year. The year after that will be bigger still.

They say they are not cutting the NHS but these are massive cuts.

Local authorities will have to cope even more in the future. This is

precisely what is going to get cut. Are these cuts underhand? We are

carrying out what the Health Select Committee has set out. It was first

set out in 2009, this challenge, by Andy Burnham when he was Health

Secretary. The resources available to the health and care system are

certainly more constrained than they were in the last decade. That is

precisely why we need to address some of these gaps in services, so

people don't fall down the cracks in the way that was illustrated there.

Loads of people are falling through the cracks. But many more will next

year. For families who have someone with mental health problems, who

needs that treatment, it is going to be horrendous. The government is not

prepared to be honest and allow the public to have a debate about it.

They are claiming there are no cuts. These are massive cuts and mental

health is taking the brunt of them. What is your reaction to all this?

What impact do you think it will have going forward? I think there

are not cracks appearing, there are enormous crevasses. Voluntary sector

funding is being cut by 80%, 100% in some cases. Where are these cases

going to do `` to go? Were talking about families in real chaos

sometimes. And sometimes it is small interventions that prevent that. We

get a link them into support, more solid structures of how to live and

survive. But the support that we provide, when that is taken away,

people try to access that support through the health care system and

put those systems under more pressure. It is a downward spiral.

You are a former Health Secretary, chairman of a highly influential

select committee of MPs. What can be done to sort this out? This is why

the health committee were doing a review of the child and adolescent

mental health services. Some of the biggest problems in the mental

health world are to be found in those services for children and

adolescents. In particular, when they leave the child and adolescent

service and going into the adult service. At a time when resources

are more constrained than they were, there is no point denying that, it

is clearly true and likely to remain true after the election, whatever

the results, but that is why it is so important to ensure the services

are properly designed to avoid people falling between different

elements of the service. Money is tight and mental health has surely

always been the Cinderella of the health service. And it will become

more so. Where will these people and out? On the streets, in crime, in

prison. So eventually, we will all have to pay for it. This is the

wrong kind of cut. Vulnerable people are going to be terribly hurt. The

argument in a sense is stronger than that. So often, they don't end up

where you say. They actually end up in acute hospitals when they don't

need to be. It is by improving community services and links with

the voluntary sector as well statutory services that we can

enable people to lead better lives. Mark, what do you think? It is a bit

smoke and mirrors. We have to leave it there, I'm afraid.

Some plain speaking from both of our politicians there. But is there

enough of that around? Last week, John Mann, you said Ed Miliband

needs to talk more like they do in Bassetlaw rather than Hampstead.

We'll get your views shortly, but first, Des has been to Bassetlaw to

get the local lingo. Do politicians speak our language?

To find out, we are here in Worksop on the high street, or as a

politician might say, an area with potential for retail and catering

opportunities. They speak a load of rubbish. They all speak the same.

They learn it at university. They don't really conversed with the

normal person in the street. I don't really listen to it. If they spoke

more like the common man, would you get more into it? Probably. Just

normal English, no fancy words, just ordinary. Like normal people on the

street. Wide evening a taut jargon? I've no idea. `` why do you think

they'd talk in jargon? It probably makes them feel better. One minute

they're saying one thing, the next time we see them on telly they are

saying the complete opposite. They don't speak plain English that

ordinary people can understand. Wide evening they do that? `` why do you

think they do that? Because they don't want you to know what they are

doing. That should be obvious. Were there any surprises there? No

surprises whatsoever. Politicians could have some real fun. Starting

to use the same phrases ` it's the right thing to do. It's incredibly

important. Hard`working families. This kind of jargon time and time

again, the political class is separating itself and is going to

pay a heavy price. Have you used that phrase? I tried to avoid

jargon, I can't say that has never passed my lips. It is the curse of

the sound bite. I always tried to avoid endlessly repeating the same

sound bite. You do have to make the same point, but to try to find a way

to make it with fresh language every time is more likely to find an

audience. Critics of your government will say, look around the Cabinet

table, a lot of posh voices. Does that shaped decision`making in

government, that maybe the government are out of touch? I think

all the major parties try hard to bring in a broader range of voices.

It is certainly true John and I are exactly the same in this respect. We

are both white males of an indeterminate age. All three parties

are trying to bring in people from an ethnic minority, more women.

Younger members, I think it is all`important. There is no easy fix

but I think listening to what people are saying will make one party more

electable. So does it really matter what

politicians sound or even look like if they're doing their job? Well, an

expert from Nottingham University has been studying what the public

want from their political leaders. Professor Phil Cowley told us it

does matter. People will often say parliament is becoming less

diverse, or sometimes more diverse, I'm not sure it is. It is becoming

diverse in different ways. 40 years ago, there were much larger number

of working`class MPs than there now. Lots of people who had worked in

manual jobs and then went on to Westminster. But there were no

women. Now, there are more women but the place is much more middle class.

So whether it is becoming more less diverse overtime is tricky. It is

unrepresentative now and it was unrepresentative then. Researchers

also found voters overall want Parliament to be more reflective of

society but they don't expect their MPs necessarily to have those issues

taken on board. They don't expect their MPs to reflect the whole of

society, but they do expect Parliament to. Is there a

contradiction? I don't think people will be calling for Dennis Skinner

to be replaced by a 20`year`old Oxford graduate. MPs should be seen

to be in touch with their constituency. That is more of a

missing ingredient. MPs don't live in their constituency, spend much

time there. They use clever technology to communicate rather

than being seen. I think that divides politicians and the public

and resentment is beginning to grow. Do you see that resentment? Yes, I

do. First of all, Parliament does not work if there are not voices in

Parliament that people feel are speaking their language, saying the

things they want to see said in Parliament. But it has to do

something else as well. It is no good having a parliament that does

not address the real issues. It needs to address health failings, as

we've been talking about, education, the deficit. It has two deal with

real issues. The language has to reflect peoples views. Has that

changed in the time you been in the Commons? Yes, I think politics has

become too concerned with the way things look rather than ensuring the

real issues are explored in depth in language that people understand. One

measure that might change all this, you think. Well, I'd have people

choose the candidates at the primaries. I think that would

liberate the Labour Party and we would be far more representative. We

would sell into power. ``sail. And now for a round`up of some of

the other stories of the week in 60 seconds, with Rob Pittam.

A move by the North West Leicestershire MP to save people who

don't pay their TV licences from getting a criminal record is set to

become law. The Conservative MP got the backing of 150 of his fellow

MPs. I said, will you support my amendment. They actually couldn't

believe it was a criminal offence. It is. People don't realise. The Lib

Dems have chosen a candidate for mid Derbyshire in the next election.

Hilary Jones will take on the sitting MP.

Residents and businesses in Nottingham will soon be able to use

a car hire scheme introduced by the City Council. The charge is from ?5

an hour. Leicester City Council is asking

people for their views on a shake`up of parking. Plans include payment by

debit and credit card and reducing the parking zones in the city

centre. That's the Sunday Politics in the

East Midlands, thanks to my guests John Mann and Stephen Dorrell. Don't

forget to catch up with my political blog. Next week, our guests are

Loughborough's Nicky Morgan and the Chesterfield MP Labour's Toby

Perkins. Now, back to Andrew Neil. Thanks very much indeed. Andrew,

back to you. Now let's get more from our

political panel. If the BNP finished? They were never

spectacularly successful to begin with but one of my childhood

memories was a huge fuss in London about the fact that they won a few

council seat on the Isle of dogs back in 1993. That was enough to

cause a panic. As if they are falling from a great tit and I think

the big difference with the National front in France is that they are

building on decades of successful that they finished second in the

presence of elections in 2002, I think. And, even in the 60s, they

were versions of their politics. So they are building on a lot whereas

the BNP are working with incredibly few raw materials in this country.

It is interesting that the BNP does seem to be in decline in terms of

its membership and financially, but in France, the far right party, not

as far right as the BNP, but pretty far right, will probably do well in

the second round of the French local elections. You could say the same

about Golden Dawn in Greece. Parties prosper when the picture is

pre-rolled for them. If mainstream parties talk endlessly about

immigration, saying you cannot get a council house because it has gone to

an immigrant instead of saying it is because there are not enough council

houses, that creates the conditions in which the far right can thrive.

We are lucky that all the members of the BNP fell out with each other. As

extreme members of the far right and left do. You can see that with the

comedian in France, he has got a lot of support from people on the left

as well. I asked Simon Derby was here victim of a pincer movement

that UKIP were taken away voters and EDL has captured the Street protest.

Yes, and Giles still not mention that the Labour Party has got its

act together. They got the act together in Dagenham. Margaret Hodge

and Jon Cruddas did a very good job. I think UKIP would say, not a racist

party but they are picking up votes from people who would once have

voted BNP. But it is interesting the difference between Britain and

France. Why is it that the Front Nationale came second in 2002 when

they are not far right? I think they were on a five-year cycle because

the next election was 2007. 2002 they came second when Jean-Marie Le

Pen came second. They are not as far right as the BNP. Marine has put

them -- cleaned them up a bit. Diplomatically there is a much

harder vote which spreads further across the electorate in France than

there is in this country. This is a much more tolerant country. If

Marine Le Pen does well today, she will not win that many because the

centre-right and centre-left will always gang up against terror in the

second round, but it sets the tone for the European elections. It does

and for the next French presidential election as well. I think what she's

doing masterfully is combining a far right politics with what you might

call a far left economic politics. She's not just picking up votes from

xenophobes, she is picking up votes from who feel victimised from

globalisation. They are people who would be voting for socialists but

are put off by the current president. That is what I do not

think the British far right parties have been able to do. You sort Simon

Derby try to tell you that the BNP are not far right party. I think he

was going to say if you look at issues of protectionism, standing up

against globalisation, they are quite statist. That is where the

phrase National Socialist comes from. That is why a little bit of

electoral success is often a killer for far right parties. They get a

few council seats and then they are rubbish. They are not getting

people's bins collected so they become part of the system that

people were voting against in the first place. Lets go on to the

Labour Party. If you are a Labour Party supporter and you want to be

cheered up, you pick up the Sunday Times where you see a poll where the

leader is up to seven points. If you are Tory Lib Dem and you want to be

cheered up, you pick up the Observer, the left-wing paper, where

the Labour leader is still 1%. I have read in the paper that there is

quite a lot of of the record briefings going on at the top of the

Labour Party. Give us a sense of the mood. Clearly, they are unsettled.

One pol looks OK but there has been a run of polls where there is a lead

over the Tories which is closing. There are worrying number of people

who are what are called the 35s and they are people who thought all the

Labour Party needs to do is sit still because there are a number of

Liberal Democrat voters who hate the coalition. Because the Conservatives

did not get through the boundary changes they needed to win, we can

sit tight and it will all be fine. What a few wise old heads are

concerned about is they feel this has a feel of 1987 about it when the

Labour Party was united. They had a very good leader. The leader was

impressive, the party was united and then what happened? They met the

British people and an election. The British people said, terribly sorry,

you are not occupying the party political territory where we will

vote for you. There are some people from the Blair era who say it feels

a bit complacent and there may be a bit of a shock when they meet the

voters. We talk about people being unsettled but Ed Miliband is not

unsettled. His defining characteristic is you might call it

steadiness or you might call it a lack of agility. He could not

respond to the pension stuff in the budget which was thrown at him. But

he's very good at separating the signal from the noise. They may

think this will all change in me. The Tories may be on the back foot

after the European elections. He has the ability to set the political

weather. He did it with the price freeze. There is no doubt that Mr

Davey would not be referring these energy companies to the competition

authorities if it had not been for that speech by the Labour leader.

And we read today he has come up with another policy which will be

attention grabbing to cut student tuition fees. It is easy to forget

that before he announced the price freeze he was in as much vertical

trouble as he is now. I think the Labour poll lead will expand up to

five or 6% by the summer, assuming the Tories do badly. The question

is, is five or 6% enough? Nick through the analogy with 1987. This

reminds me of the Conservatives in 2009/10. You have a steadily sinking

poll lead, differences in what campaign they should be running and

personal animosity behind the scenes. It led to them throwing away

an election which seemed to be winnable. There is an important

difference with the 1980s which was because you did not know when the

election would be. Will it be in 87 or 88? They do not need to make up

their mind until next year. What they are telling the pollsters now,

we do not like this government because of course, you do not like

the government. But next January or February they will be making up

their minds. Is there a lot of animosity among the leading Labour

figures behind-the-scenes? It must be personal or tactical because

there are not big ideological differences between them, is there?

Yes and no. What is striking is how little support Miliband gets from

the shadow cabinet. He does not have outriders. That has been a

continuous theme. Said he feels he is on his own? That they feel they

do not get support from him. There was a column by Jenni Russell saying

he is distant and detached. And Andrew Walmsley touched on this in

the Observer. One of the divisions is Ed versus Ed. There is a terrible

structural problem between those two. It is a real problem. Ed

Miliband believes Ed Balls has not done enough to get economic red

ability. Ed Balls believes Ed Miliband is making airy fairy

speeches and it will not cut with the electorate. Neither Mr Cameron

nor Mr Miller band took part in the debate which happened earlier this

week between the Lib Dems and UKIP. We have got another one coming up on

the BBC on Wednesday night. Let's remind ourselves of what happened in

last week's debate. I will ask Nick to open the batting.

We are better off in Europe... Frankly not working any more. A

referendum on Europe. I agree with you. I agree with you. If you can

read the small print. Pull up the drawbridge, pool drawbridge up... We

have 485 million people... It is simply not true! Not true. Not true.

Not true. Identical with Nick. I don't agree with Nick. Based on

facts, facts, the facts, facts, the facts... Thank God we did not listen

to you. The food is getting better here. Jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs. You

have never had a proper job. Great not little England. Good night.

I think it is seven o'clock BBC Two. Helen, what was the outcome of that

and how do we mark our card for this week? It was not a great time for

pundits. Everybody called the debate for Nick and then they said

actually, we think it has gone the other way. Consensus emerged later

on that Nick Clegg made a difficult argument. I think the most important

thing Nigel Farage said was he distinguished out the immigration

policy by saying we're not just closing day over, we want people to

come, we just do not want mass EU immigration. That is an important

thing for him to say to get away from the echoes of the far right. I

suspect Nick Clegg will not ask us to read the small print. That was 11

turn he took. It compounded his reputation for being sneaky. I

slightly disagree about the pundits. I say this as someone who thought

far it would win. -- Nigel Farage would win. The fact that the public

disagree with you and the public favoured Nigel Farage does not mean

the public were wrong. The question is, who is going to tune in for the

second one? What is the answer to that? Phil Collins argument is a man

who is on 8% is fantastic. It is a binary choice in this debate.

Clearly they need to brush up on opposite areas. Nigel Farage needs

to brush up on facts and Nick Clegg needs to brush up on the motions

because he did not connect very well. Where Nick Clegg may go after

Nigel Farage is when the -- when he said the EU has blood on its hands

with Ukraine. He then came back to talk about the vanity of EU foreign

policy and said European Union had made what was going on in Syria

worse. It is one thing to say I do not think the UK should be part of

the joint European foreign policy, it is part of another thing to say

that Europe which will act with or without the UK is responsible for

blood on the streets of Kiev and also responsible for exacerbating

the Civil War in Syria. Maybe an hour is too long for Nigel Farage's

shtick? That may be the case but Nick Clegg has precedence. He does

that show and he has had to deal with the worst thing with dealing

with what is thrown at him so he has honed his view consistently. We will

see what happens in part two. That's all for this week. The Daily

Politics is on BBC Two at lunchtime every day this week. I'll be here

next week at the usual time of 11 o'clock. Remember if it's Sunday,

it's the Sunday Politics.