:01:29. > :01:32.Two councils, one staff. Is sharing the only way our local authorities
:01:32. > :01:42.can survive? And MP Nadine Dorries on UKIP, expenses and reality
:01:42. > :01:42.
:01:42. > :38:41.Apology for the loss of subtitles for 2218 seconds
:38:41. > :38:45.the programme. I'm Etholle George. Coming up:
:38:45. > :38:54.Share and share alike - the two councils with one staff. Is this the
:38:54. > :39:00.only way to go when money's tight and getting tighter? We could not
:39:00. > :39:04.continue as we were before. Two small district councils cannot
:39:04. > :39:09.afford now to be on their own. need partners. There is going to be
:39:09. > :39:14.treasure to merge the whole thing. It will certainly save money but I
:39:14. > :39:16.think it runs the risk of alienating people from local government,
:39:16. > :39:18.because the authorities that they live in are too big.
:39:18. > :39:21.First though, let's meet our guests. Stephen Giles-Medhurst leads the
:39:21. > :39:24.Liberal Democrats on Hertfordshire County Council and is also a Three
:39:24. > :39:27.Rivers district councillor. He was head of Customs at Stansted Airport
:39:27. > :39:30.before going into local politics full-time.
:39:31. > :39:36.And the woman who went into the jungle and out of the Conservative
:39:36. > :39:41.party, for six months at least. Now, Nadine Dorries is back in the fold,
:39:41. > :39:43.as the Tory MP for Mid-Bedfordshire. Of course, she's never afraid to
:39:43. > :39:48.speak her mind - famously describing the Prime Minister and the
:39:48. > :39:52.Chancellor as a "couple of posh boys". Welcome to you both.
:39:52. > :39:55.But let's talk first about public sector payoffs. This week, BBC top
:39:55. > :40:00.brass were given a dressing down by the public accounts committee for
:40:00. > :40:04.huge pay-offs to senior managers. And here we have our own row
:40:04. > :40:07.brewing. Norfolk County Council has launched an inquiry over a payment
:40:07. > :40:15.of �106,000 to its former Chief Executive, David White, who was made
:40:15. > :40:19.redundant in April. Councillors were not told about the full amount. The
:40:19. > :40:29.Conservatives controlled the council at the time. The then-leader Bill
:40:29. > :40:30.
:40:30. > :40:36.Borrett said there was no intention to cover anything up. We paid the
:40:36. > :40:40.Chief Executive 35 -- �35,000 for being made redundant. The honour
:40:40. > :40:47.money is three months notice, some money towards his pension. That is
:40:47. > :40:49.standard. The thing is, it he was paid a very large sum of money so
:40:49. > :40:52.all the features are big. From your standpoint on
:40:52. > :41:01.Hertfordshire County Council, does a �106,000 payoff to a Chief Executive
:41:01. > :41:07.sound like too much? It is obviously a large amount, nowadays. The
:41:07. > :41:11.question is whether or not that perch in person was -- that person
:41:12. > :41:14.is contractually obliged. It goes back to how he was employed
:41:14. > :41:19.originally on whether this was discretionary. This is not the first
:41:19. > :41:23.time we have had this problem in the East of England. We had the �200,000
:41:23. > :41:27.payoff to the Chief Executive in Suffolk a couple of years ago. It is
:41:27. > :41:30.a question of how the contract was drawn up originally. Has that person
:41:30. > :41:36.been paid what they are entitled to or been given extra bonus payments?
:41:36. > :41:41.Are we developing a witchhunt mentality towards the public sector?
:41:41. > :41:45.I don't think it's a witchhunt mentality. Its accountability. The
:41:46. > :41:50.problem is that many of these contracts which are drawn up I've
:41:50. > :41:57.done so with poor HR practice. So that when the time comes for a Chief
:41:57. > :42:02.Executive or whoever to leave, people in the BBC even, a massive
:42:02. > :42:06.pay-out seems immoral to the general public, although, legally, they are
:42:06. > :42:10.correct. You cannot criticise that payment because legally, it is as
:42:11. > :42:16.the contract was drawn up. It is as it should be. One has to ask who
:42:16. > :42:21.drew it in the first place and, morally, this is something that will
:42:22. > :42:25.be Republican Guard -- will be repugnant to the general public.
:42:25. > :42:28.We've been talking about a council chief executive but MPs look set to
:42:28. > :42:35.lose their �33,000 Golden Goodbyes when they leave Parliament. Are you
:42:35. > :42:40.happy with that? When I first became MP, we used to get two and a half
:42:40. > :42:44.years salary and it was dropped down to �33,000. I think the problem is
:42:44. > :42:47.that the average life of an MP is eight years. Your future is not in
:42:47. > :42:51.your hands. It is in the hands of the electorate. You have to except
:42:51. > :43:00.that. And MPs pay - a 10% rise being
:43:00. > :43:03.While we're talking about public bodies saving money, here's a tale
:43:03. > :43:05.of two councils. Mid-Suffolk and Babergh are already next door
:43:05. > :43:08.neighbours. But now, the relationship has become much closer.
:43:08. > :43:12.They're the first in the country to share one staff team between them.
:43:12. > :43:14.It will save �1.8 million per year, every year. And that's 9% of the
:43:14. > :43:19.joint annual budget. District councils are under huge financial
:43:19. > :43:22.pressure. So are mergers the only way to stay afloat in the future?
:43:22. > :43:25.Liz Perryman really cares about local housing. An active member of
:43:25. > :43:35.her local tenants forum, she's now on the Joint Housing Board because
:43:35. > :43:36.
:43:36. > :43:42.Babergh Council and neighbouring Mid-Suffolk have pooled their staff.
:43:42. > :43:49.Now that they have merged, it is a lot better. So you would see it as
:43:49. > :43:56.an improvement? In terms of service, DS. Do you put that down to the fact
:43:56. > :44:01.there is one single team for both? Yes, I think I do. I have to say, I
:44:01. > :44:10.was a bit dubious. Now, it is working and it is all set up
:44:10. > :44:17.properly, it seems to be better than it was. These are Babergh district
:44:17. > :44:20.Council offices in Hadleigh. These are Mid-Suffolk's. Both councils
:44:20. > :44:23.have agreed to completely integrate their staff into a single team,
:44:23. > :44:26.serving to councils. These days, the leaders of the two
:44:26. > :44:29.councils have to spend a lot of time together. But if the result of a
:44:29. > :44:32.referendum in 2011 had been different, there would have been
:44:32. > :44:35.only one of them. A super authority would have been created, following a
:44:35. > :44:44.total merger of both councils. But the vote wasn't in favour - so
:44:44. > :44:48.they've gone for a complete staff integration instead. If you merge,
:44:48. > :44:52.you are sending out a very different picture. We felt that we should go
:44:52. > :44:57.out to the public. We had agreed between the councils that it had to
:44:57. > :45:01.be agreed on both or it would not go ahead. It was not agreed.
:45:01. > :45:06.Mid-Suffolk were for, Babergh were against. We still went ahead with
:45:06. > :45:09.integration and transformation. could not continue as we were
:45:09. > :45:14.before. No two small district councils can afford now to be on
:45:14. > :45:19.their own. You need partners. I think the communities expect us to
:45:19. > :45:25.do things differently. We live in a changing world. Local government
:45:25. > :45:34.cannot stay as it was. There was a referendum a couple of years ago,
:45:34. > :45:39.did you vote? No.Did you vote? did and said no. I like to have it
:45:39. > :45:42.here, the further away they go, the less chance of having any, you have
:45:42. > :45:48.local democracy, is what I thought you're going to have. It seems to
:45:48. > :45:51.want to get bigger and bigger and less personal. I voted against it
:45:51. > :45:59.because I would sooner have local accountability. But it's not
:45:59. > :46:02.happening, is it? It's pretty difficult to argue that the staff
:46:02. > :46:07.should be merged and yet the number of councillors should remain the
:46:07. > :46:13.same. There is going to be pressure to merge the whole thing. That
:46:13. > :46:17.brings a certain difficulties. It will certainly save money but I
:46:17. > :46:20.think it runs the risk of alienating people from local government because
:46:20. > :46:22.the authorities that they live in are too big.
:46:22. > :46:24.Whatever the concerns over the strength of the links between
:46:24. > :46:33.communities and their authorities, the traditional model of district
:46:33. > :46:36.councils standing alone appears to be in its death throes. It is very
:46:36. > :46:41.hard to see how the separate authorities can be retained. There
:46:41. > :46:45.will be pressure to merge and get better. While that might bring the
:46:45. > :46:48.economies of scale, it also brings disadvantages of people being
:46:48. > :46:51.disconnected from the local authorities they live in. Merged
:46:51. > :46:58.councils might be cheaper to run but they could lead to even more
:46:58. > :47:04.political disengagement. If we are changing everything else, why do we
:47:04. > :47:08.still want to keep the same number of councillors? Why? What rationale
:47:08. > :47:10.is behind it? There is not one. Those who would like more
:47:10. > :47:14.councillors representing fewer people and a more local democracy
:47:14. > :47:17.might disagree. Brandon Lewis is the Local
:47:17. > :47:20.Government Minister and also the MP for Great Yarmouth. He told Andrew
:47:20. > :47:30.Sinclair that sharing staff is the way only forward for district
:47:30. > :47:32.
:47:32. > :47:36.councils. Absolutely. We are actively encouraging local
:47:36. > :47:39.government conferences for small district councils to look at going
:47:39. > :47:43.down this type of fraud. There are variations and looking at what is
:47:43. > :47:47.right for every council will be slightly different. As a matter of
:47:47. > :47:53.principle, this is where a small districts should be going. Is there
:47:53. > :48:00.any evidence that this does save money? Absolutely. One of the first
:48:00. > :48:04.regions to do this was outside our region and the saving about 20%.
:48:04. > :48:11.When you have a �10 million budget, that is substantial. But regularly
:48:11. > :48:16.in terms of what the taxpayer funds. Many councils have done it. There
:48:16. > :48:23.are some very good examples as to how it works and the benefits.
:48:23. > :48:28.an interesting match, in Suffolk. Babergh increased council tracks and
:48:28. > :48:32.-- council tax and Mid-Suffolk slows theirs. That confirms why this works
:48:32. > :48:38.so well. You keep your local democratic sovereignty. Those
:48:38. > :48:44.councillors make decisions for their area. The fact that you get
:48:44. > :48:46.different decisions is fine. Babergh can make the right decision. The
:48:46. > :48:53.fact that their management team is shared with Mid-Suffolk does not
:48:53. > :48:59.change that. Even though Babergh increased taxes
:48:59. > :49:02.and therefore want to spend more money and Mid-Suffolk does not.
:49:02. > :49:07.of the reasons that some regions were able to do this is that they
:49:07. > :49:11.had a low base in the first place. It could be the have reticular
:49:11. > :49:14.services they want to focus on spin Bunny. That just proves that it
:49:14. > :49:20.works. Those local councillors, in that area, still have the
:49:20. > :49:23.sovereignty to make decisions for that area. Sharing management
:49:23. > :49:27.doesn't change that. In anything, you share offices and can get
:49:27. > :49:32.different views. Different experience. Is there not a danger
:49:32. > :49:37.that, even under this system, councils to become more remote and
:49:37. > :49:40.less accessible? You still have the local councillors in place, but the
:49:40. > :49:48.management is overseeing a much wider area and therefore cannot know
:49:48. > :49:54.the local area as well. I think what makes a Council accountable and
:49:54. > :49:56.local is the counsellor. They are who we elect. I want to see
:49:57. > :50:00.councillors have the best officers possible. It is the councillors were
:50:00. > :50:08.the decisions that. That is why it is important we keep that local,
:50:08. > :50:14.accountable democracy. Sharing Management allows the best financial
:50:14. > :50:17.prospects. This Government said that they will not go in for local
:50:17. > :50:23.government reorganisation. That is because it is expensive and
:50:23. > :50:28.top-down. This is about localism. We can encourage councils to do what we
:50:28. > :50:31.think is right and show them best practice, like Mid-Suffolk and! Are
:50:31. > :50:38.now showing. There are many others I could name but it will not take up
:50:38. > :50:41.all my time with that. -- all your time. That is very different to ours
:50:41. > :50:45.drawing a line and saying this is what we shall do. We are saying this
:50:45. > :50:48.is the right way to go for local taxpayers but they can decide who
:50:48. > :50:52.they wanted to partner with and how they want to structure. Then it is
:50:52. > :51:02.locally driven and decided. Are we seeing the end of our
:51:02. > :51:06.district councils? I don't agree with that. If residents want mergers
:51:06. > :51:11.of council that is how the board. In this instance, they did not want
:51:11. > :51:16.that. That was the Democratic well and the two councils accepted that.
:51:16. > :51:22.Since local government is facing enormous pressures, reduction in
:51:22. > :51:28.grants, shared services, backroom offices, in terms of staffing, is
:51:28. > :51:30.the way forward. It is not necessarily merging councils. The
:51:30. > :51:35.third of need to be local accountability and local
:51:35. > :51:39.decision-making. There is an issue, if you have a much larger authority,
:51:39. > :51:42.many people say county councils are remote if you live in one end of the
:51:43. > :51:50.county, 15 or 20 miles away from County Hall. There is the danger of
:51:50. > :51:54.that. Do you agree with that? As long as the services are good, do
:51:54. > :52:03.people really care whether they are shared? I agree about local
:52:03. > :52:07.constable to and local councillors. Able to want that. -- local account
:52:07. > :52:14.-- accountability. They wanted to be somebody they can approach easily.
:52:14. > :52:19.In Bedfordshire, we got rid of County Council and went unitary a
:52:19. > :52:23.few years ago. We now have three unitary authorities. You have to
:52:23. > :52:29.take into account the diversity of the areas where they operate offered
:52:29. > :52:34.and Luton and a rural area in the middle. We have three councils who
:52:34. > :52:38.address the needs specifically. in reality, a merger is on the
:52:38. > :52:45.cards, that is not what people voted for. It is not terribly democratic,
:52:45. > :52:48.is it? No. That would be for residents to tell their local
:52:48. > :52:55.councillors at the next local elections but that is not what they
:52:55. > :53:03.want and make it clear. There was a difference of opinion about the
:53:03. > :53:10.council tax. Is a worry about councillors' caseloads? If you are
:53:10. > :53:14.in a disparate area between urban and rural, there will be a different
:53:14. > :53:17.element of casework and different pressures. Areas of deprivation.
:53:17. > :53:27.They give problems for residents and the need to go to the council more
:53:27. > :53:52.
:53:52. > :53:55.with Nadine Dorries. You've just been re-adopted as Mid
:53:55. > :53:57.Beds' Conservative candidate for the next election. But you said in May
:53:57. > :54:02.that you're considering a joint Tory-UKIP ticket, is that still on
:54:03. > :54:06.the cards? I think the Conservative party have made it clear that there
:54:06. > :54:10.will be no joint tickets and they will not be going forward in a
:54:10. > :54:15.relationship with UKIP, it is not on the cards. I was not particularly
:54:15. > :54:23.concerned or myself, to be frank. I think the issue for me was more to
:54:23. > :54:26.do with my councillors. Many of the councillors in mid-Bedfordshire are
:54:26. > :54:32.all died in the wool Conservatives who embody those values. Actually,
:54:32. > :54:38.they have exactly the same policies and belief as any UKIP councillors
:54:38. > :54:41.standing next to them. I did not see the point of there being two people
:54:41. > :54:49.standing on the same ticket. For me, it was about saying to UKIP that
:54:49. > :54:52.we believe in many of the same things you do and so take your
:54:52. > :54:55.conservative firepower elsewhere. You're not defecting but you hardly
:54:55. > :55:00.curry favour with the leadership - famously calling David Cameron and
:55:00. > :55:02.George Osborne "arrogant posh boys". Do you regret that? I never regret
:55:02. > :55:06.anything I do. On the subject of MPs expenses,
:55:06. > :55:09.you've said you're not going to claim them and pay everything out of
:55:09. > :55:18.your salary. Is this anything to do with two ongoing investigations into
:55:18. > :55:25.your expenses? No. Actually, I have not claimed travel expenses for a
:55:25. > :55:30.while now. I think as a high profile MP, I am a sitting duck. Anybody who
:55:30. > :55:37.wants to have a pot at me can do so. All I have to do is pick up the
:55:37. > :55:42.phone and make a complaint. That is a position you put yourself in.
:55:42. > :55:48.have taken the decision that I do not want to claim any more
:55:48. > :55:55.expenses. I have never claimed for late-night meals or child care.
:55:55. > :55:59.there a witchhunt? It is interesting because somebody else in the BBC
:55:59. > :56:03.said to me that there is a small group of people who talk to each
:56:03. > :56:07.other every single day about you on Twitter on the Internet. The plot
:56:07. > :56:11.what they are going to do next. do you feel about that? I don't read
:56:11. > :56:17.it or see it but have to deal with the consequences. If I just removed
:56:17. > :56:20.myself from the expenses, it will cost me �30,000 a year and means I
:56:20. > :56:28.am doing my job for free. What about the money you earned from
:56:28. > :56:32.appearing on I'm a Celebrity. Are you going to declare it? You say you
:56:32. > :56:38.haven't earned it but it must have reached a bank account somewhere.
:56:38. > :56:43.One of the inquiries, I am very much forward to that report. When you
:56:43. > :56:51.have that thorough report, you will have that answer. Are you not go
:56:51. > :56:55.into answer any questions? I can't, there is an investigation ongoing.
:56:55. > :57:00.All I will say is wheat until the report is produced. I am looking
:57:00. > :57:05.forward to that. When you expecting an outcome? How do you feel about it
:57:05. > :57:09.hanging over your head? Very soon. I can't wait for it to come at. I
:57:09. > :57:16.can't wait for these reports to comment. The summer is coming and I
:57:16. > :57:23.would quite like to to just get over that. You did get paid, did you not?
:57:23. > :57:30.Wait till it comes out. You're not denying that you got paid? Wait
:57:30. > :57:36.until the report. What about Strictly Come Dancing? That is
:57:36. > :57:44.nonsense! That is a joke! I think somebody said to me on Twitter, I
:57:44. > :57:50.don't even remember, wasn't on Twitter or in an interview? Somebody
:57:50. > :57:57.ask me if I would do it and I said laughing that I had enough of
:57:57. > :58:01.reality TV and then said it would be fun. Would you do it?No. Your local
:58:01. > :58:09.party chairman told us he'd tie a ball and chain to your ankles to
:58:09. > :58:17.stop you. Would you do other reality TV? No. My constituents loved it, it
:58:17. > :58:27.was not inappropriate. What might -- what it has done is given me access
:58:27. > :58:28.
:58:28. > :58:31.to people I never had access to before, like teenagers.
:58:31. > :58:33.It's been a good week for our fisherman and Harlow's Robert Halfon
:58:34. > :58:35.has been standing out from the crowd in the Commons.
:58:36. > :58:39.Here's Ian Barmer with our 60 second round-up.
:58:39. > :58:41.Good news, this week, for east coast fishermen. Not the big trawlers but
:58:42. > :58:50.the one-man bands in small boats. With Government support, they now
:58:50. > :58:55.have a bigger slice of North Sea quotas. It is a lifeline for many of
:58:55. > :58:58.the fishermen along our shores. They want that quarterback, we want our
:58:58. > :59:01.fishing industry is to survive. MP Peter Bone introduced a bill to
:59:01. > :59:04.eradicate modern-day slavery. His ten minute rule bill passed
:59:04. > :59:07.unopposed but still needs government support.
:59:07. > :59:13.Energy Minister Greg Barker came to the Corby steelworks to hear they're
:59:13. > :59:17.losing business because gas and electricity are so expensive. And
:59:17. > :59:24.how could you miss Robert Halfon in a suit like that? The Speaker
:59:24. > :59:32.couldn't. Anything to catch your eye, Mr Speaker. And neither could
:59:32. > :59:36.the Communities Secretary. One knows when one has been tangled.
:59:36. > :59:40.The harlow MP is a man who knows being noticed is a big part of the
:59:40. > :59:50.political game. A very bright suit, Nadine Dorries.
:59:50. > :59:54.Is it important for MPs to keep a high profile? I think so. I think
:59:55. > :59:58.Robert should have gone into the jungle! Robert wearing that suit and
:59:58. > :00:01.doing anything he can to make sure that the residents of Havel know who
:00:01. > :00:04.he is and now his name will do him, serve him good.
:00:04. > :00:08.Is profile just as important at a local level? Have you got a
:00:08. > :00:13.brightly-coloured suit in the wardrobe? I have some colourful
:00:13. > :00:15.shirts but it is important to keep a high profile on the issues that
:00:16. > :00:18.matter to residents. Aren't we a bit obsessed with
:00:19. > :00:21.profile though? You went into the jungle to make yourself a household
:00:21. > :00:31.name, you say, but aren't you playing into a superficial celebrity
:00:31. > :00:34.
:00:34. > :00:38.culture? I don't think so, no. It's really interesting because I think
:00:38. > :00:41.one of the most important things as an MP is to make sure that people do
:00:41. > :00:45.know who you are and can access you and understand you and know what you
:00:45. > :00:49.were like. The one thing that I do know about being a high profile MP
:00:49. > :00:54.is that it means my caseload is much bigger than it ever was before. By
:00:54. > :00:56.office is far harder worked than it ever was before. That is because
:00:56. > :01:04.people know who I am and now they can approach me.
:01:04. > :01:07.Does profile translate into votes? We will know at the next election.
:01:07. > :01:12.It may or may not do. It depends on whether you can help those
:01:12. > :01:16.residents. The higher profile means you get more casework and if that
:01:16. > :01:20.helps people sell their problems and can find a way out for the issues,
:01:20. > :01:23.that is a good thing. Thank you for joining us. That's all from us for
:01:23. > :01:26.the summer, as the MPs go on their holidays next week.
:01:26. > :01:29.But you can still keep in touch via our website, where Deborah