24/11/2013 Sunday Politics East


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 24/11/2013. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Morning, folks. Welcome to the Sunday Politics.


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


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


Shapps. Five years on from the financial


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


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


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


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


days, not so much. Has the plan to make


Here: Our mental health services hope you can join `


Here: Our mental health services heading towards crisis point because


of heading towards crisis point because


warned that benefit falls will be to homelessness and population ships.


What is the evidence? And as always, the political panel


that reaches the parts other shows can only dream of. Janan Ganesh


Helen Lewis and Nick Watt. They ll be tweeting faster than England


loses wickets to Australia. Yes they're really that fast.


First, some big news overnight from Geneva, where Iran has agreed to


curb some of its nuclear activities in return for the partial easing of


sanctions. Iran will pause the enrichment of uranium to weapons


grade and America will free up some funds for Iran to spend. May be up


to $10 billion. A more comprehensive deal is supposed to be done in six


months. Here's what President Obama had to say about this interim


agreement. We have pursued intensive diplomacy, bilaterally with the


Iranians, and together with our partners, the United Kingdom,


France, Germany, Russia and China, as well as the European Union.


Today, that diplomacy opened up a new path towards a world that is


more secure, a future in which we can verify that Iraq and's nuclear


programme is peaceful, and that it cannot build a nuclear weapon.


President Obama spoke from the White House last night. Now the difficulty


begins. This is meant to lead to a full-scale agreement which will


effectively end all sanctions, and end Iran's ability to have a bomb.


The early signs are pretty good The Iranian currency strengthened


overnight, which is exactly what the Iranians wanted. Inflation in Iraq


is 40%, so they need a stronger currency. -- information in Iran.


France has played a blinder. It was there intransigence that led to


this. Otherwise, I think the West would have led to a much softer


deal. The question now becomes implementation. Here, everything


hinges on two questions. First, who is Hassan Rouhani? Is he the


Iranians Gorbachev, a serious reformer, or he's here much more


tactical and cynical figure? Or within Iran, how powerful is he


There are military men and intelligence officials within Iran


who may stymie the process. The Western media concentrate on the


fact that Mr Netanyahu and the Israelis are not happy about this.


They don't often mention that the Arab Gulf states are also very


apprehensive about this deal. I read this morning that the enemies of


Qatar and Kuwait went to Saudi king. -- the MAs row. That is the key


thing to watch in the next couple of weeks. There was a response from


Saudi Arabia, but it came from the Prime Minister of Israel, who said


this was a historic mistake. The United States said there would be no


enrichment of uranium to weapons grade. In the last few minutes, the


Iranian Foreign Minister has tweeted to say that there is an inalienable


right -- right to enrich. The key thing is the most important thing


that President Obama said in his inaugural speech. He reached out to


Iran. It failed under President McKenna jab. Under President


Rouhani, there seems to be progress. There is potentially now what he


talked about in that first inaugural address potentially coming through.


In the end, the key issue - and we don't know the answer - is the


supreme leader, not the president. Will the supreme leader agreed to


Iran giving up its ability to create nuclear weapons? This is the huge


ambiguity. Ayatollah Khamenei authorise the position that


President Rouhani took to Geneva. That doesn't mean he will sign off


on every bit of implementation over the next six months. Even when


President Ahmadinejad was president, he wasn't really President. We in


the West have to resort to a kind of Iranians version of the study of the


Kremlin, to work out what is going on. And the problem the president


faces is that if there is any sign... He can unlock these funds by


executive order at the moment, but if he needs any more, he has to go


to Congress. Both the Democrat and the Republican side have huge


scepticism about this. And he has very low credibility now. There s


already been angry noises coming from quite a lot of senators. It was


quite strange to see that photo of John Kerry hugging Cathy Ashton as


if they had survived a ship great together. John Kerry is clearly


feeling very happy. We will keep an eye on this. It is a fascinating


development. More lurid details about the


personal life of the Co-op Bank s disgraced former chairman, the


Reverend Paul Flowers. The links between Labour, the bank and the


wider Co-op movement have caused big problems for Ed Miliband this week,


and the Conservatives have been revelling in it. But do the Tory


allegations - Ed Miliband calls them "smears" - stack up? Party Chairman


Grant Shapps joins us from Hatfield. Welcome to the programme. When it


comes to the Co-op, what are you accusing Labour of knowing and when?


I think the simple thing to say here is that the Co-op is an important


bank. They have obviously got into difficulty with Reverend flowers,


and our primary concern is making sure that that is properly


investigated, and that we understand what happened at the bank and how


somebody like Paul Flowers could have ended up thing appointed


chairman. You wrote to edge Miliband on Tuesday and asked him what he


knew and when. -- you wrote to Ed Miliband. But by Prime Minister s


Questions on Wednesday, David Cameron claims that you knew that


Labour knew about his past all along. What is the evidence for


that? We found out by Wednesday that he had been a Labour councillor


Reverend Flowers, and had been made to stand down. Certainly, Labour


knew about that, but somehow didn't seem to think that that made him


less appropriate to be the chairman of the Co-op bank. There was no


evidence that Mr Miliband or Mr Balls knew about that. I ask you


again, what are you accusing the Labour leadership of knowing? We


know now that he stood down for very inappropriate images on his


computer, apparently. You are telling me that they didn't know. I


am not sure that is clear at all. I have heard conflicting reports.


There is a much bigger argument about what they knew and when. There


was a much bigger issue here. This morning, Ed Miliband has said that


they don't have to answer these questions and that these smears


This is ludicrous. These are important questions about an


important bank, how it ended up getting into this position, and how


a disastrous Britannia -- Italia deal happen. -- Britannia deal


happened. And we need to know how the bank came off the rails. To be


accused of smears for asking the questions is ridiculous. I am just


trying to find out what you are accusing Labour of. You saying that


the Labour leadership knew about the drug-taking? Sorry, there was some


noise here. I don't know what was known and when. We do know that


Labour, the party, certainly knew about these very difficult


circumstances in which he resigned as a councillor. I think that the


Labour Party knew about it. We knew that Bradford did, but not London.


Are you saying that Ed Miliband knew about the inappropriate material on


the Reverend's laptop? It is certainly the case that Labour knew


about it. But did Mr Miliband know about it, and his predilection for


rent boys? He will need to answer those questions. It is quite proper


to ask those questions. Surely, asking a perfectly legitimate set of


questions, not just about that but about how we have ended up in a


situation where this bank has made loans to Labour for millions of


pounds, that bank and the Unite bank, who is connected to it. And


how they made a ?50,000 donation to Ed Balls' office. Ed Balls says that


was nothing to do with Reverend Flowers, and yet Reverend Flowers


said that he personally signed that off. Lots of questions to answer.


David Cameron has already answered them on Wednesday. He said that you


now know that Labour knew about his past all along. You have not been


able to present evidence that involve Mr Miliband or Mr Balls in


that. So until you get that, surely you should apologise? Hang on. He


said that Labour knew about this, and they did, because he stood down


as a councillor. If Ed Miliband didn't know about that, then why


not? This was quite a serious thing that happened. The wider point is


about why it is that when you ask perfectly legitimate questions about


this bank, about the Britannia deal, and about the background of Mr


flowers, why is the response, it is all smears? There are questions


about how Labour failed to deal with the deficit and how it hasn't done


anything to support the welfare changes, but there is nothing about


that. Let us -- lets: To the wider picture of the Co-operative Bank.


Labour wanted the Co-op to take over the Britannia Building Society, and


it was a disaster. Do you accept that? The government of the day has


to be a part of these discussions for regulatory reason. The


government in 2009 - Ed Balls was very pleased... But you supported


that decision. There was a later deal, potentially, for the Co-op to


buy those Lloyds branches. There was a proper process and it didn't go


through just recently. If there had been a proper process back in 2 09,


would the Britannia deal have gone through? First, you accept that the


Tories were in favour of the Britannia take over. Then your


Chancellor Osborne went out of his way to facilitate the purchase of


the Lloyds branches, even though you had no idea that the Co-op had the


management expertise to become a super medium. Correct? The


difference is that that deal didn't go through. There was a proper


process that took place. Let's look at the process. There was long


indications as far back as January 2012 that the Co-op, as a direct


result of the Britannia take over which you will party supported, was


unfit to acquire the Lloyds branches. By January 2012, the


Chancellor and the Treasury ignored the warnings. Wide? In 2009, there


was political pressure for the Britannia to be brought together.


Based on the information available, this was supported, but that process


ended up with a very, very problematic takeover of the


Britannia. Wind forward to this year, and when the same types of


issues were being looked at for the purchase of the Lloyds deal, the


proper process was followed, this time with us in government, and that


purchase didn't go through. It is important that the proper process is


followed, and when it was, it transpired that the deal wasn't


going to be done. But it was the Treasury and the Chancellor who were


the cheerleaders for the acquisition of the Lloyds branches. But there


was a warning that the Co-op did not have enough capital on its balance


sheet to make those acquisitions, but instead of heeding those


warnings, your people went to Brussels to lobby for the


requirements to be relaxed - why on earth did you do that? Our


Chancellor went to argue for all of Rajesh banking, not specifically for


the Co-op. He was arguing for the mutuals to be given a special


ruling. The idea was to make sure that every bank in Britain could


have a better deal, particularly the mutuals, as you say. That is a


proper thing for the Chancellor to be doing. We could go round in


circles here, but in the end, there was not a takeover of the Lloyds


branches, that is because we followed a proper process. Had that


same rigorous process been followed in 2009, the legitimate question to


ask is whether the Co-op would have been -- would have taken over the


Britannia. That is a proper question to ask. It is no good to have the


leader of the opposition say, as soon as you ask any of these


questions about anything where there is a problem for them, they come


back with, oh, this is all smears. There are questions to ask about


what the Labour government did, the debt and the deficit they left the


country with, the way they stopped work from paying in this country.


The big question your government has two answer is, why, by July 201 ,


when it was clear there was a black hole in the Co-op's balance sheet,


your government re-confirmed the Co-op as the preferred bidder for


Lloyds - why would you do that? Well, look, the good thing is, we


can discuss this until the cows come home, but there is going to be a


proper, full investigation, so we will find out what happened, all the


way back. So, we will be able to get to the bottom of all of this. Grant


Shapps, the only reason the Lloyds deal did not go ahead was, despite


the Treasury cheerleading, when Lloyds began its due diligence, it


found that there was indeed a huge black hole in the balance sheet and


that the Co-op was not fit to take over its branches. That wasn't you,


it wasn't the Government, it was not the Chancellor, it was Lloyds. You


were still cheerleading for the deal to go ahead... Well, as I say, a


proper process was followed, which did not result in the purchase of


the Lloyds branches. At that proper process been followed with the


purchase of the Britannia, under the previous government... Which you


supported. Yes, but it may well be that under that previous deal, there


was a excess political pressure perhaps put on in order to create


that merger, which proved so disastrous. The Tories facilitated


it, Grant Shapps, they allowed it to go ahead. I have said, we are going


to have a proper, independent review. What I cannot understand is,


when you announce a robber, independent review, the response you


get to these serious questions. The response is, oh, this is a smear. It


is crazy. We are trying to answer the big questions for this country.


We have done all of that, and we are out of time. The Reverend Flowers'


chairmanship of the Co-op bank was approved by the regulator at the


time, which no longer exists. It was swept away by the coalition


government in a supposed revolution in regulation. But will its


replacement, the Financial Conduct Authority, be different? Adam has


been to find out. Come with me for a spin around the Square mile to find


out how we regulate our financial sector, which is almost five times


bigger than the country's entire annual income. First, let's pick up


our guide, journalist Iain Martin, who has just written a book about


what went so wrong during the financial crisis. The FSA was an


agency which was established to supervise the banks on a day-to day


basis. The Bank of England was supposed to have overall responsible


at for this to Bolivia the financial system and the Treasury was supposed


to take an interest in all of these things. The disaster was that it was


not anyone's call responsibility, or main day job, to stay alert as to


whether or not the banking system as a whole was being run in a safe


manner. And so this April, a new system was set up to police the


City. Most of the responsibly delays here, with the Bank of England, and


its new Prudential Regulation Authority. And the Financial


Services Authority has been replaced with the new Financial Conduct


Authority. Can we go to the financial conduct authority, please?


Canary Wharf, thank you. Here, it is all about whether the people in


financial services are playing by the rules, in particular, how they


treat their customers. This place has got new powers, like the ability


to ban products it does not like, a new mandate to promote competition


in the market, the concept being, more competition means a better


market, plus the idea that a new organisation rings a whole new


culture. Although these are the old offices of the FSA, so maybe not


quite so new after all. It has also inherited the case of the Co-op bank


and its disgraced former chairman the Reverend Paul Flowers. The SCA


will be part of the investigation into what happened, which will


probably involve looking at its own conduct. One member of the


Parliamentary commission into banking wonders whether the new


regulator, and its new boss, are up to it. I have always said, it is not


the architecture which is the issue, it is the powers that the regulator


has, and today, it does not seem to me as if there is any increase in


that. And with the unfolding scandal at the Co-op, it feels like the new


architecture for regulating the City is now facing its first big test.


And the chief executive of the Financial Conduct Authority, the


SCA, Martin Wheatley, joins me now. Welcome to The Sunday Politics. The


failure of bank regulation was one of the clearest lessons of the crash


in 2008, and yet two years later, in 2010, Paul Flowers is allowed to


become chairman of the Co-op - why have we still not got the regulation


right? We have made a lot of changes since then. We have created a new


regulator, as you know. At the time, we still had a process which allowed


somebody to be appointed to a bank and they would go through a


challenge, but in the case of Paul Flowers, there was no need for an


additional challenge when he was appointed to chairman, because he


was already on the board. But going from being on the board to becoming


chairman, that is a big jump, and he only had one interview? That is why


today, it would be different. But the truth is, that was the system at


the time, the system which the FSA operated. He was challenged, we did


challenge him, and we said, you do not have the right experience, but


at the time, we would not have opposed the appointment. What we


needed was additional representation of the board of people who did have


banking experience. You can say that that was then and this is now, but


up until April of this year, it was still the plan for the Co-op, under


Mr Flowers, and despite being seriously wounded by the Britannia


takeover, to take on 632 Lloyds branches. That was the Co-op's


plan. They needed to pass our test as to whether we thought they were


fit to do that, and frankly, they never passed that test. It was not


the regulator that stopped them It was. We were constantly pushing


back, saying, you have not got the capital, you have no got the


systems, and ultimately, they withdrew, when they could not answer


our questions. You were asking the right questions, I accept that, but


all of the time, the politicians on all sides, they were pushing for it


to happen, and I cannot find anywhere where the regulator said,


look, this is just not going to happen. I cannot comment on what the


politicians were doing, but I continue what we were doing, which


was constantly asking the Co-op have you got the systems in place,


have you got the people, have you got the capital? And they didn't.


But it only came to a head when Lloyds started its own due diligence


on the bank, and they discovered that it was impossible for them to


take over the branches, it was not the regulator... In fairness, what


we do is ask the questions, can you do this deal? And we kept pushing


back, and we never frankly got delivered a business plan which we


were happy to approve. Is the SCA going to launch its own inquiry into


what happened? -- the FCA. The Chancellor has announced what will


be a very broad inquiry. There are a number of specifics which we will be


able to look at, relating to events over the last five years. Could


there be a police investigation I think the police have already


announced an investigation. I am talking about into the handling of


the bank. It depends. There might be, if there is grim low activity,


which we do not know yet. You worked at the FS eight, didn't you? I did.


Some of those people who were signed off on the speedy promotion of Mr


Flowers, are they now working there? Yes, we have some. I came to


join the Financial Services Authority, to lead it into the


creation of the new body, the SCA. We had people who were challenging


and they did the job. There was not a requirement to approve the role as


chairman. There was not even a requirement to interview at that


stage. What we did do was to require that he was interviewed, and that


the Co-op should get additional experience. One of the people from


the old organisation, who signed up on the promotion of Mr Flowers to


become chairman is now a nonexecutive director of the Co op,


so how does that work? Welcome he was a senior adviser to our


organisation, one of the people who made the challenges, and who said,


you need more experience on your board. Subsequently he then went and


joined the board. Surely that should not be allowed, the regulator and


the regulated should not be like that. Well clearly, you need


protection, but we have got to get good people in, and frankly, we want


the industry to have good people in the industry, so there will be some


movement between the regulator and industry. We all wonder whether you


have the power or even the confidence to stand up if you look


at all of the really bad bank decisions recently, politicians were


behind them. It was Gordon Brown who pushed the disastrous merger of


Lloyds and RBS. It was Alex Salmond who egged on RBS to buy the world.


All three main parties wanted the Co-op to buy Britannia, even though


they did not know the debt it would inherit, and all three wanted the


Co-op to buy the Lloyds branches - how do you as a regulator stand up


to that little concert party? Well, that political pressure exists, our


job at the end of the day is to do a relatively technical job and say,


does it stack up? And it didn't and we made that point time and time


again to the Co-op board. They did not have a business case that we


could approve. The bodies on left and right -- the politicians on left


and right gave the Co-op special support. They may have done, but


that was not you have made a warning about these payday lenders, but I


think what most people would like to see is a limit put on the interest


they can charge over a period of time - will you do that? We have got


a whole set of powers for payday lenders. We will bring in some


changes from April next year, and we will bring in further changes as we


see necessary. Will you put a limit on the interest they can charge


That is something we can study. You do not sound too keen on it? Well,


there are a lot of changes we need to make. One change is limiting


rollovers, limiting the use of continuous payment authorities.


Simply jumping to one trigger would be a mistake. Finally, an issue


which I think is becoming a growing concern, because the Government is


thinking of subsidising them, 9 % mortgages are back - should we not


be worried about that? I think we should if the market has the same


experiences that we had back in 2007 - oh wait. We are bringing a


comprehensive package in under our mortgage market review, which will


change how people lend and will put affordability back at the heart of


lending decisions. -- 2007-08. You have not had your first big


challenge yet, have you? We have many challenges.


It was once called the battle of the mods and the rockers - the fight


between David Cameron-style modernisers and old-style


traditional Tories for the direction and soul of the Conservative Party.


But have the mods given up on changing the brand? When David


Cameron took over in 2005, he promoted himself as a new Tory


leader. He said that hoodies need more love. He was talking about


something called the big society. He told his party conference that it


was time to that sunshine win the day. There was new emphasis on the


environment, and an eye-catching trip to a Norwegian glacier to see


first-hand, supposedly, the effects of global warming. This week, party


modernise and Nick bone has said that the party is still seen as an


old-fashioned monolith and hasn t done enough to improve its appeal.


The Tories have put some reforms into practice, such as gay marriage,


but they have put more into welfare reform band compassionate


conservatism. David Cameron wants talked about leading the greenest


government ever. Downing Street says that the quote in the Son is not


recognised, get rid of the green crap. At this point in the programme


we were expecting to hear from the Energy and Climate Change Minister,


Greg Barker. Unfortunately, he has pulled out, with Downing Street


saying it's for ""family reasons"". Make of that what you will. However,


we won't be deterred. We're still doing the story, and we're joined by


our very own mod and rocker - David Skelton of the think-tank Renewal,


and Conservative MP Peter Bone. Welcome to you both. I'm glad your


family is allowed you to come? David Skelton, getting rid of all the


green crap, or words to that effect, that David Cameron has been saying.


It is just a sign that Tory modernisation has been quietly


buried. I do think that's right Modernisation is about reaching out


to the voters, and the work to do that is now more relevant than ever.


We got the biggest swing since 931, and the thing is we need to do more


to reach out to voters in the North. We need to reach out to non-white


voters, and show that the concerns of modern Britain and the concerns


of ordinary people is something that we share. And what way will racking


up electricity bills with green levies get you more votes in the


North of England? We have to look at ways to reduce energy bills. The


renewable energy directive doesn't do anything to help cut our


emissions, but does decrease energy bills by ?45 a year. We should


renegotiate that. That is a part of modernisation and doing what


ordinarily people want. And old dinosaurs like you are just holding


this modernisation process back I am very appreciative of covering on


this programme. The Tory party has been reforming itself for more than


150 years. This idea of modern eyes a is just some invention. We are


changing all the time. I'm nice and cuddly! So you are happy that the


party made gay marriage almost a kind of symbol of its modernisation?


Fine Mac the gay marriage was a free vote. David Cameron was recorded as


a rebel there because more Tories voted against his position than ever


before. It was said that this was a split between the old and young but


it actually was a split between those who were religious and


nonreligious. It is a misinterpretation of what happened.


Is a modernisation in retreat? I think modernisation is an


invention. Seven years ago, in my part of the world, we got three


councillors elected, two were 8 and one was 21. A few months ago, a


25-year-old was chosen to fight Corby for the Conservative Party. He


came from a comprehensive School. He was one of the youngest. The Tory


party is moving on. So you found three young people? Hang on a


minute. You can't get away with that. Three in one batch. Does


modernisation exist? Modernisation is about watering our appeal and


sharing our values are relevant to voters who haven't really thought


about voting for us for decades now. Modernisation is about more than


windmills and stuff, it is about boosting the life chances of the


poorest, it is about putting better schools in poorer areas. It is also


saying that modernisation and the Tory party... When has the Tory


party been against making poorer people better off? Or against better


schools? Do you think Mrs Thatcher was a moderniser when she won all


those elections? The problem we have at the moment is that UKIP has


grown-up. If we could get all of those people who vote UKIP to vote


for us, we would get 47% of the vote. We don't need to worry about


voters on the left. We need to worry about the voters in the north, those


people who haven't voted for us for decades. Having an EU Referendum


Bill is going to get people to vote. We have to reach out to


voters, but not by some sort of London based in need. You have to


broaden your base. I agree with you on that. We have to broaden our


appeal, but this back to the future concept is not going to work. We


need something that generally appeals to low and middle-income


voters, and something that shows we genuinely care about the life


chances of the poorest. Do you think that the people who vote UKIP don't


support those aspirations? We are not doing enough to cut immigration.


We don't have an EU Referendum Bill stop we have to get the centre right


to vote for us again. Do that, and we have it. Tom Pursglove, the 5


euros, will be returned in Corby because we cannot win an election


there. -- the 25-year-old. Whether you are moderniser or


traditionalist, people, particularly in the North, see you as a bunch of


rich men. And rich southerners. You are bunch of rich southerners. We


need to do more to show that we are building on lifting the poorest out


of the tax. We need to build more houses. There is a perception that


the leadership at the moment is rich, and public school educated.


What we have to do is get more people from state education into the


top. You are going the other way at the moment. That is a fair


criticism. Modernisers also say that. I went to a combo hedge of


school as well. -- do a comprehensive school. We need to


show that we are standing up for low income. Thank Q, both of you. You


are watching the Sunday Politics. Coming up in just under


Coming up: The rising pressure on Tory tie the knot in a partnership.


Coming up: The rising pressure on mental health services where


patients struggle to find a bed. Recently we have been told beds are


far away, as far away, as far`away as Glasgow. Labour takes its message


to supporters at its rally in the east. Two become one ` Labour and


Tory face the funding cuts together. But first, let's meet our guests.


Labour's Corby MP, Andy Sawford and the Conservative leader of Suffolk


Council, Mark Bee, who we've just seen. And I'd like to start with the


vote this week brought by Essex MP, John Baron, on the changes to our


armed forces. He's objecting to government plans for a reduction in


regular soldiers and an increase in reservists. The bottom line is


sometimes you have two rise above party politics and discuss issues of


principle. This is one. Well, Defence Secretary, Philip Hammond


managed to head off John Baron's rebellion was that a good thing? I


voted with John Barron this week and a number of Conservative MPs from


across the region. We are worried that, whilst reservists do a


fantastic job, they are not a substitute for full`time soldiers.


His argument is that radical plans were approved. How uncomfortable is


it, Tory fighting Tory? I perfectly reset `` respect where he is coming


from but we have to look at the wider picture. We are no longer in a


Cold War situation. We need a more flexible reserve list and Armed


Forces. We need to ensure we have got the ability to move to the


numbers we require. We are looking to move the reservists to about


30,000. As Andrew has just said, they do a fantastic job. A friend of


mine was in the territorial Army and he went to Iraq on a six`month tour.


They were treated like regular soldiers and he was able to do the


job and be respected. What about the concessions? And the annual reports


to the house? Through this major defence review and others is that we


have seen big decisions taken by the government, perhaps in haste,


without thinking of long`term defence needs. We are in a situation


now where we have aircraft carriers without aircraft. We could not


defend the Falklands if we needed to and we're not sure if we can meet


commitments with our troop numbers and there is a real concern about


that. Now to the crisis in our mental


health service. Work is one that cuts to budgets could cost lives.


The Norfolk and Suffolk NHS foundation trust needs to say ?40


million. It is planning to reduce beds by another 20%. It aims to lose


around 400 jobs. It has emerged that the trust 's new chief executive


will not be appointed till next year. Here's Kevin Burch.


It's reckoned that one in four of us will experience a problem with


mental health at some point in our lives. It's a statistic which


reminds us of our fragility and which helps to explain why this


radical plan to cut budget, jobs and beds is proving so controversial.


Emma Corlett is a mental health nurse in Norfolk and an official


with UNISON. She says resources were stretched before this proposed


shake`up. Now things have reached breaking point. Since the cuts


started, it has been reported that people can't find a bed locally. It


might be someone from kindling admitted to great Yarmouth. People


recently were told the nearest bed is in Glasgow `` Kings Lynn. This


worker has been involved locally in mental health care for seven years.


She wanted to talk about her worries, but remain anonymous. Her


words are spoken by someone else. The government needs to realise you


can't cut the money because it will lead people to suicide. They are


putting us under pressure all the time and the people we look after


our under stress. You feel choked up when you leave the person at how


vulnerable they are. This mental health nurse worked for 35 years and


is now helping to assess the impact of the plans changes. A major


consultation is planned in January and she is part of the


pre`consultation panel. We will have a lot of people slipping through the


net. What happens then is people try to manage but they can't see a way


out. That is when you get suicidal ideas. It is then a spiral. Looking


back down the generations can help give some context for today's


debate. This exhibition at the Time and Tide Museum in Great Yarmouth is


on until the Spring. It looks at how textiles have been used for


centuries to help people struggling with depression, sadness and loss.


Throughout history, people have gone through difficult experiences and


severe mental ill health problems are not a modern phenomenon. We'll


see much `` modern occupational search `` therapy as something that


started in the 20th century. Three years ago... Three years ago, this


woman's husband was diagnosed with timers and could no longer stay at


home. But to assessment wars have been


shut and she is worried about what the future holds for him and others


like him. Opting more scared in the community, she says, would be a huge


mistake `` opting for more care in the community. There would be no one


to call on. Carers cannot call on two of us. What will they do? For


six years, he was at home and for the last eight months I did not


sleep. I know what pitch I got to. I could have hurt him. Who do you go


to? Who do you talk to? David is the most precious thing in my life and I


need him to be safe. Meanwhile, 79 staff from the Norfolk


and Suffolk NHS trust who were expecting redundancy were surprised


to learn they are to get a reprieve. There are claims the trust is


failing to meet its own target. There are occasions when we have to


send people outside the area. Some of those are specialist placements


where we don't have the ability to care for them inside the trust and


it is right that they are sent somewhere where they can be properly


looked after. Within Norfolk, we have had 2000 at missions into our


acute wards and there have been 51 occasions where we have had to send


people out of area and that is 51 to many. It is not good for the service


user or their families and nor does it make sense `` sense financially


for the trust. In Suffolk, out of area placements are very rare


indeed. I you happy with the way the trust is being run? I am. It is a


difficult time and I will not pretend otherwise. We have been


confronted with needing to make savings of ?20 million over the next


four years. That is the financial envelope within which we have to


work. Worryingly, there has been a rise in the number of unexplained


deaths in the trust. From April to August this year, there were 20


unexplained deaths. What you say to the relatives of those people? Every


single one of the incidence is a tragedy for the people involved and


I mean that very sincerely. We have done some initial analysis. In


Suffolk, the number has gone down. In Norfolk, there was a spike over a


short period of time and we have looked at each of these


individually. There is a detailed report being done which will come to


the board at the end of this year and we will take that report public


because I commit to being transparent about this. It is also


true to say that if you look at those deaths over a longer period of


time, they are not inconsistent with the historic picture, nor the


national picture. We also hear that targets are not being met. This was


a report and it is a work in progress. Targets are nearer to 80%


but that is still not good enough. We are putting on extra staff to


work Friday evenings and weekends and early on Monday mornings because


the weekend period causes us the problem but I want to hit 100%. What


about the cut in bed than how much pressure does that put on services


you can offer? Should it be happening? In Suffolk, there have


been no reduction in beds as a result of the strategy


implementation. In Norfolk, 44 beds have been taken out of service. We


are moving towards consultation with the clinical commissioning groups.


The first one starts in the New Year. Together with the care quality


commission and the public consultation we can decide what


number of beds is required. I am sure we will have the right number


of beds and we should not take any more out until we are sure we can


meet the needs of the people. We have an institutional bias against


mental health within the health service. When the last government


introduced waiting time targets for people with physical health


problems, the 18 week target from referral to treatment... They left


out mental health. That means them money flows to acute hospitals and


away from mental health. But this trust is missing key targets? It is


and that is why I say that I have very real concerns about the way it


is being led and that is why I want to bring people together to find a


way forward. How does this fit with you personally because this is your


responsibility? It is your government making these 20% cuts. It


is really important I think for the BBC to be accurate about what the


financial position actually is. Throughout this Parliament, this


government has maintained and, indeed, slightly increased funding


for the health service. There is absolutely no cut imposed by the


government on mental health services. There clearly are cuts


that are affecting mental health services otherwise we would not be


discussing the lack of acute beds. Let me explain. The government has


maintained funding for the health service `` mental health service and


increased it. At a local level, care trusts and commissioning groups have


to decide how to spend the money locally. Because there is an


institutional bias against mental health with no rights of access


which exist in physical health, and I have changed that from 2015 there


will be new access standards for mental health. As long as we have


the bias against mental health, local commissioners will


disadvantage mental health and that is why cats are happening. They


can't find any more money though? If you can tell me where there is more


money available then please do so. This government has chosen to


protect funding for the NHS. We have to make sure mental health services


gets its fair share. That hasn't happened until now because the


system sucks money into acute trusts and away from mental health and that


is what has to end. This is your mental health trust so


how does that make you feel? There are concerns and we need to monitor


that and I share the view that Norman Lamb expressed in your film


that we need to keep a close eye on this. The great thing about this and


the partnership between Norfolk and Suffolk county councils is that we


see the Norfolk and Suffolk mental health trust is one we can work


together on. Do you feel reassured by his assertion that there is on a


budget cut? What I am really reassured by is that we are trying


to look at this complex issue of mental health. It is one that is


emerging really in the way that has been described in your film because


it is a complex subject. We cannot look at simplistic ways of dealing


with it. The health trust you are referring to, the mental health


trust, has GP referrals which ensure people can be challenged ``


channelled in the right way and the commissioning group is happy with


that. I hope the trust can move forward. Are you reassured by Norman


Lamb saying there is not a budget cut? Clearly there has been a year


budget cut in real terms. We know there are 2000 less beds across the


country and your own figures show across our region there are fewer


beds. Northamptonshire has held onto them for the time being but they are


now reviewing it. We have seen a rise in the suicide rent and


problems in treating minor had mental health problems. One in five


people wait more than 12 months to receive talking therapies and those


problems then become my `` major mental health problems. What about


the point that money flows to acute hospitals to meet targets which


Labour instigated? In terms of the big issue of men `` money moving


around the system, is then high number of private butts `` Private


beds. I don't want to see money going to private companies. I want


to see us getting more money into preventative mental health care in


this country and to see this not just as an NHS problem. The CBI


ought to be thinking about our workplaces. In is a school this


morning we talked about well`being of young people. Mental health


well`being is everywhere. You want to have the key person but I want to


come back to something that Andrew said. We have to tackle mental


health issues on eight case`by`case basis. One thing we are looking at


in Suffolk is a care file where GPs can refer people to go and do work


on a farm on a farming by prescription basis. And that is


helping people on low mental health issues to find back in the


community. Thank you. This week, has been a chance for the Labour Party


to hone their pre`election issues. Labour has 13 target seats in the


Eastern region. Party sources have told us that they will not be happy


if they win less than eight of them. The conference was kicked off by Ed


Miliband on Friday. What Labour Party members are feeling is that


Labour has been setting the agenda, talking about the fact we have a


government which says everything is fixed on the economy but ordinary


people do not feel that. They think, who will stand up for us? The key


issue of energy prices where Labour has set the agenda and we say we


will freeze prices until 2017 if we win the election and we will use the


time to sort out a broken energy market. That is what I call standing


up for ordinary families in this country. Your first year as a Labour


MP. How does it feel to a newcomer? We have a big challenge in the


Labour Party to win people 's trust. We are making good progress. Ed


Miliband has shown at the conference with his pledge to freeze energy


prices that we understand the real problem is that people 's living


standards are being squeezed and that is getting through to people.


They feel the Tories are out of touch. Labour is fighting hard to


gain Waverley. Will you hold it? I believe we can and we are working


hard to make sure it happens. In this phoney war situation now, in


the long run`up to 2015, we are in a unique position because we know the


date of the next general election. We are seeing a lot of slow burning


campaigning as we build up to the election. Do you think this is the


beginning of the real election campaign to mark the Conservatives


have hired a man who specialises in dirty campaigning, frankly. I want


the next election to be about ideas. To make sure people have good jobs


and health services. Not getting down in the gutter. What do think


the main issues will be here the East? It is about the economy, jobs


and people feeling confident in the future in the money they will have


left over each week or month in their pay packet. I can see why


Labour are doing what they are doing in trying to ensure people about the


cost of living. But we can see and improving economy and I hope by the


time we get to 2015 people will feel the benefit. What about the eight


seat target? Is it realistic? We need to make significant gains in


the Eastern region and we are working hard in seats like Thurrock


and Harlow and Ipswich. They are important targets for us. That is


why Ed Miliband, Ed balls and Harriet Harman have been here this


weekend. A partnership between red and blue to fight for services in


the future. That is all in the 62nd round up of the week. 62nd.


On the dark side of the street, well Council make a point about litter,


cleaning one side only. While objections to the proposed road toll


on the a 14 were voiced by one MP at Prime Minister 's questions. They


are increasingly fearful that the proposed road toll will put the area


at a serious competitive disadvantage. Ed Miliband hit out at


cuts to sure start Seth `` centres in Essex. The proposal is to close


at 11 centres and downgrade 37. The leaders of Suffolk and Norfolk


county council 's are delighted to have signed a partnership agreement


to help save money. Tim Yeo has been cleared of any wrongdoing by the


Parliamentary standards committee. He was accused of lobbying ministers


on behalf of a company. We saw you in the meeting on the


bridge. What does the merger mean in practical terms? We are not a


merger. We will steal `` still be two councils but we are going to


pool resources and find ways of sharing services to meet the


challenge we have with the all`important financial situation.


Between us we have 30% savings in our budget so, working together and


sharing our resources, we can find solutions. From a party political


point of view, what do you make of it? I work with both councils and I


encourage them to do that and they do. It is to be welcomed that Mark


is working closely with Norfolk county council and I hope they can


bring benefits in terms of local services. Does it matter what your


politics are? It is thought to be the first blending, if you like.


Where it is carried `` a collaboration, we have what is


unique between county councils although district and borough


councils have done it. I think, to answer your question, it is more


about us being Norfolk and Suffolk and the historic rivalries that are


brought together in politics. Thanks for joining us. You can keep in


touch fire our website where you will also find links to all the


latest political updates. We are back at the same time next


week when we will We are back at the same time next


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


you. A little bit of history was made at


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


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


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


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


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


have had some interesting interventions from front edges past


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


announces that in Parliament! Because the Prime Minister picked up


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Labour has some issues around funding generally, and they are


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


launched one of his classic blunderbuss operations this week,


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


protection. # A lot of love and affection.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Download Subtitles