12/01/2014 Sunday Politics East

Good morning, welcome. 2014 is barely under way, and the

coalition is fighting over cuts Nick Legg says Tory plans to balance

the books would hit the poorest hardest. He will not say what he

will cut. That is the top story Chris Grayling called for a

completely new deal with Europe as he battles will rings from the

European Court of Human Rights. He joins me.

Labour promises to shift house-building up a gear, but how

will they In the East: Counting the cost of

the tidal surge. A In the East: Counting the cost of

be serious. Have cuts left to the service being overstretched?

With me for the duration, a top trio of political pundits, Helen Lewis,

Jan and Ganesh and Nick Watt. They will be tweeting faster than France

or long scoots through Paris. Nick Clegg sticks to his New Year

resolution to sock it to the Tories, the is how he described Tory plans

for another 12 billion of cuts on welfare after the next election

You cannot say, as the Conservatives are, that we are all in it together

and then say that the welfare will not make any additional

contributions from their taxes if there is a Conservative government

after 2015 in the ongoing effort to balance the books. We are not even

going to ask that very wealthy people who have retired who have

benefits, paid for by the hard-pressed taxpayers, will make a

sacrifice. The Conservatives appear to be saying only the working age

pork will be asked to make additional sacrifices to fill the

remaining buckle in the public finances.

Nick Legg eating up on the Tories a, happens almost every day. I

understand it is called aggressive differentiation. Will it work for

them? It has not for the past two years. This began around the time of

the AV referendum campaign, that is what poisoned the relations between

the parties. They have been trying to differentiation since then, they

are still at barely 10% in the polls, Nick Clegg's personal ratings

are horrendous, so I doubt they will do much before the next election. It

is interesting it has been combined with aggressive flirtation with Ed

Balls and the Labour Party. There was always going to be some sort of

rapprochement between them and the Labour Party, it is in the Labour

Party's interests, and it is intent macro's interests, not to be defined

as somebody who can only do deals with the centre-right. A colleague

of yours, Helen, told me there was more talk behind closed doors in the

Labour Party high command, they have to think about winning the election

in terms of being the largest party, but not necessarily an overall

majority. There is a feeling it was foolish before the last election not

to have any thought about what a coalition might be, but the language

has changed. Ed Miliband had said, I cannot deal with this man, but now,

I have to be prismatic, it is about principles. Even Ed Balls. Nick

Clegg had specifically said that Ed Balls was the man in politics that

he hated. He said that was just a joke. Of course, it is about

principles, not people! When Ed Balls said those nice things about

Nick Clegg, he said, I understood the need to get a credible deficit

reduction programme, although he said Nick Clegg went too far. The

thing about Nick Clegg, he feels liberated, he bears the wounds from

the early days of the coalition and maybe those winds will haunt him all

the way to the general election But he feels liberated, he says, we will

be the restraining influence on both the Conservatives, who cannot insure

that the recovery is fair, and the Labour Party, that do not have

economic red ability. He feels relaxed, and that is why he is

attacking the Tories and appearing pretty relaxed. He could also be

falling into a trap. The Tories think what they suggesting on

welfare cuts is possible. The more he attacks it, the more Tories will

say, if you gave us an overall majority, he is the one it. He keeps

taking these ostensibly on popular positions and it only makes sense

when you talk to them behind the scenes, they are going after a tiny

slice of the electorate, 20%, who are open to the idea of voting Lib

Dem, and their views are a bit more left liberal than the bulk of the

public. There is a perverse logic in them aggressively targeting that

section of voters. In the end, ten macro's problem, if you do not like

what this coalition has been doing, you will not vote for somebody who

was part of it, you will vote for the Labour Party. The Tories are too

nasty, Labour are to spendthrift, Lib Dem, a quarter of their vote has

gone to Labour, and that is what could hand the largest party to

Labour. That small number of voters, soft Tory voters, the problem for

the Liberal Democrats is, if you fight, as they did, three general

elections to the left of the Labour Party, and at the end of the third,

you find yourself in Colour Vision with the Conservatives, you have a

problem. Chris Grayling is a busy man, he has

had to deal with aid riot at HM Prison Oakwood, barristers on strike

and unhappy probation officers taking industrial action.

Prison works. It ensures that we are protected from murderers, muggers

and rapists. It makes many who are tempted to commit crime think twice.

Traditional Tory policy on criminal justice and prisons has been tough

talking and tough dealing. Not only have they tended to think what they

are offering is right, but have had the feeling, you thinking what they

thinking. But nearly two decades after Michael Howard's message, his

party, in Colour Vision government, is finding prison has to work like

everything else within today's financial realities. The Justice

Secretary for two years after the election had previous in this field.

Ken Clarke. Early on, he signalled a change of direction. Just binding up

more and more people for longer without actively seeking to change

them is, in my opinion, what you would expect of Victorian England.

The key to keeping people out of prison now, it seems, is giving them

in a job, on release. Ironically, Ken Clarke was released from his job

15 months ago and replaced by Chris Grayling. But here, within HM Prison

Liverpool, Timpson has been working since 2009 with chosen offenders to

offer training and the chance of a job. Before you ask, they do not

teach them keep cutting in a category B prison. The Academy is

deliberately meant to look like a company store, not a prison. It

helps. You forget where you are at times, it feels weird, going back to

a wing at the end of the day. It is different. A different atmosphere.

That is why people like it. Timpson have six academies in prisons,

training prisoners inside, and outside they offer jobs to

ex-offenders, who make up 8% of their staff. It has been hard work

persuading some governors that such cooperation can work. I have seen a

dramatic change positively, working with prisoners, particularly in the

last five years. They understand now what business's expectation is.

Timpson do not just employ offenders, but as one ex-prisoner

released in February and now managing his own store says, the

point is many others will not employ offenders at all. From what I have

experienced, on one hand, you have somebody with a criminal conviction,

on the other, somebody who does not have one, so it is a case of

favouring those who have a clean record. Anybody with a criminal

conviction is passed to one side and overlooked. That, amongst myriad

other changes to prison and how we deal with prisoners, is on the desk

of the man at the top. Ever since Chris Grayling became Secretary of

State for Justice, he has wanted to signal a change of direction of

policy, and he is in a hurry to make radical reforms across the board,

from size and types of prisons to probation services, reoffending

rates, legal aid services, and there has been opposition to that from

groups who do not agree with him. But what might actually shackle him

is none of that. It is the fact that he is in government with a party

that does not always agree with him, he has to abide by the rulings of

the European Court of Human Rights, and in those famous words, there is

no money left. We would like to go further and faster. I would like him

too, but we are where we are. If the Liberal Democrats want to be wiped

out at the next election based on what they believe, that is fair

enough. We accept there has to be savings, but there are areas where

we feel that there is ideological driven policy-making going on, and

privatising may not save any money at all, and so does not make any

sense. The question is, we'll all of that means some of Chris Grayling's

reforms need closer inspection? Chris Grayling joins me now.

Welcome. We have a lot to cover If you get your way, your own personal

way, will be next Tory manifesto promise to withdraw from the

European Convention of human rights? It will contain a promise

for radical changes. We have to curtail the role of the European

court here, replace our human rights act from the late 1990s, make our

Supreme Court our Supreme Court they can be no question of decisions

over riding it elsewhere, and we have to have a situation where our

laws contain a balance of rights and responsibilities. People talk about

knowing their rights, but they do not accept they have responsible it

is. This is what you said last September, I want to see our Supreme

Court being supreme again... That is clear, but let's be honest, the

Supreme Court cannot be supreme as long as its decisions can be

referred to the European Court in Strasbourg. There is clearly an

issue, that was raised recency - recently. We have been working on a

detailed reform plan, we will publish that in the not too distant

future. What we will set out is a direction of travel for a new

Conservative government that will mean wholesale change in this area.

You already tried to reform the European Court, who had this

declaration in 2012, do you accept that the reform is off the table?

There is still a process of reform, but it is not going fast enough and

not delivering the kind of change we need. That is why we will bring

forward a package that for the different from that and will set a

different direction of travel. We are clear across the coalition, we

have a different view from our colleagues. You cannot be half

pregnant on this, either our decisions from our Supreme Court are

subject to the European Cup or not, in which case, we are not part of

the European court. I hope you will see from our proposals we have come

up with a sensible strategy that deals with this issue once and for

all. Can we be part of the Strasbourg court and yet our Supreme

Court be supreme? That is by point, we have to curtail the role of the

court in the UK. I am clear that is what we will seek to do. It is what

we will do for this country. But how? I am not going to announce the

package of policies today, but we will go into the next election with

a clear strategy that will curtail the role of the European Court of

Human Rights in the UK. The decisions have to be taken in

Parliament in this country. Are you sure that you have got your own side

on this? Look at what the Attorney General says.

I would be asking Strasberg a different question to that. If the

best in class, he is saying is enough is enough, actually somebody

in Strasberg should be asking if this has gone the way it should have

done. I would love to see wholesale reform in the court tomorrow, I m

not sure it is going to happen which is why we are going to the election

with a clear plan for this country. Would you want that to be a red line

in any coalition agreement? My mission is to win the next election

with a majority. But you have to say where your red lines would be. We

have been very clear it is an area where we don't agree as parties but

in my view the public in this country are overwhelmingly behind

the Conservative party. 95 Conservative MPs have written to the

Prime Minister, demanding he gives the House of Commons the authority

to veto any aspect of European Union law. Are you one of the people who

wanted to sign that letter but you couldn't because you are minister? I

haven't been asked to sign the letter. We need a red card system

for European law. I'm not convinced my colleagues... I don't think it is

realistic to have a situation where one parliament can veto laws across

the European Union. I understand the concerns of my colleagues, but when

we set out to renegotiate our membership, we have got to deliver

renegotiation and deliver a system which is viable, and I'm not

convinced we can have a situation where one Parliament can prevent

laws across the whole European Union. So you wouldn't have signed

this letter? I'm not sure it is the right approach. I support the system

I just talked about. Iain Duncan Smith has suggested EU migrants

coming to work in this country should have to wait for two years

before they qualify for welfare benefits, do you agree? Yes, I think

there should be an assumption that before you can move from one country

to another, before you can start to take back from that country's social

welfare system, you should have made a contribution to it. I spent two

and a half years working in Brussels trying to get the European

Commission to accept the need for change. There is a groundswell of

opinion out there which is behind Iain Duncan Smith in what he is

saying. I think we should push for a clear system that says people should

be able to move from one country to get a job, but to move to another

country to live off the state is not acceptable. You are planning a new

2000 capacity mega prison and other smaller presence which will be run

by private firms. After what has happened with G4S, why would you do

that? No decision has been made about whether it will be public or

private. What do you think it will be? I'm not sure yet. There is no

clear correlation over public and private prisons and whether there

are problems or otherwise. Oakwood is in its early stages, it has had

teething problems at the start, but the rate of disturbance there is

only typical for an average prison of its category. If you take an

example of Parc prison in Wales a big private run prison, run by G4S,

when it was first launched under the last government it had teething

problems of the same kind as Oakwood and is now regarded as one of the

best performing prisons. Why would you give it to a private company

then? We have only just got planning permission for the so we will not be

thinking about this for another few years. Some of the companies who run

prisons are under investigation with dreadful track records. In the case

of G4S, what we have experienced is acceptable and they have not been

able to go ahead with a number of contracts they might have otherwise

got. They are having to prove to the Government they are fit to win

contracts from the Government again. They are having to pay compensation

to the Government and the taxpayer. What has happened is unacceptable.

So why would you give them a 20 0 capacity mega prison? Or anyone like

them? It cannot be said that every private company is bad. In addition

to problems at Oakwood, you are quite unique now in your position

that you have managed to get the barristers out on strike the first

time since history began. What happens if the bar refuses to do

work at your new rates of legal aid and the courts grind to a halt? I

don't believe that will happen. When the barristers came out on strike,

three quarters of Crown Courts were operating normally, 95% of

magistrates courts were operating normally. We are having to take

difficult decisions across government, I have no desire to cut

back lately but we are spending over ?2 billion on legal aid at the

moment at a time when budgets are becoming tougher. You issued

misleading figures about criminal barristers, you said that 25% of

them earn over ?100,000 per year but that is their turnover, including

VAT. 33% of that money goes on their expenses, they have to pay for their

own pensions and insurance. People are not getting wealthy out of doing

this work. I don't publish figures, our statisticians do, with caveats

in place explaining the situation. Where you have high-cost cases,

where we have taken the most difficult decisions, we have tried

hard in taking difficult decisions to focus the impact higher up the

income scale. But do you accept their take-home pay is not 100, 00?

I accept they have to take out other costs, although some things like

travelling to the court, you and I and everyone else has to pay for

travelling to work. That is net of VAT. We have had a variety of

figures published, some are and some are not. Let's be clear, the gross

figures for fees from legal payments include 20% VAT. On a week when even

a cabinet minister can be fitted up by the police, don't we all need

well-financed legal aid? There is no chance that as a result

well-financed legal aid? There is no changes people will end up in court

unable to defend themselves. We have said in exceptional circumstances,

if you haven't got any money to pay, we will support you, but there is no

question of anyone ended up in court, facing a criminal charge

where they haven't got a lawyer to defend them. Let's look at how so

many dangerous criminals have managed to avoid jail. Here are the

figures for 2012. Half the people for sexual assault found guilty not

jailed. I thought you were meant to be tough on crime? Those figures

predate my time, but since 2010 the number of those people going to jail

has been increasing steadily. If you put the figures for 2010 on there,

you would see a significant change. We will never be in a position where

everybody who commits violence will end up in jail. The courts will

often decided to his more appropriate to give a community

sentence, but the trend is towards longer sentences and more people

going to jail. That maybe but it is even quite hard to get sent to jail

if you do these things a lot, again and again. In 2012 one criminal

avoided being sent to jail despite having more than 300 offences to his

name. 36,000 avoided going to jail despite 15 previous offences. That

is why we are taking steps to toughen up the system. Last autumn

we scrapped repeat cautions. You could find people getting dozens. As

of last autumn, we have scrapped repeat cautions. If you commit the

same offence twice within a two year period you will go to court. You

still might end up not going to jail. More and more people are going

to jail. I cannot just magic another 34,000 prison places. You haven t

got room to put bad people in jail? The courts will take the decisions,

and it is for them to take the decisions and not me, that two men

in a bar fight do not merit a jail sentence. These figures contain a

huge amount of offences from the most minor of offences to the most

despicable. Something is wrong if you can commit 300 offences and

still not end up in jail. That's right, and we are taking steps so

this cannot happen any more. Nick Clegg said this morning you are

going to make 12 billion of welfare cuts on the back of this, he is

right, isn't he? People on the lowest incomes are often not paying

tax at all, the rich... But these cuts will fall disproportionately on

average earners, correct? Let's look at the proposal to limit housing

benefit for under 25s. Until today, after people have left school or

college, the live for a time with their parents. For some, that is not

possible and we will have to take that into account, but we have said

there is a strong case for saying you will not get housing benefit

until you are some years down the road and have properly established

yourselves in work. And by definition these people are on lower

than average salaries. Give me a case in which those on the higher

tax band will contribute to the cuts. We have already put in place

tax changes so that the highest tax rate is already higher than it was

in every year of the last government. The amount of tax..

There is no more expected of the rich. We will clearly look at future

policy and work out how best to distribute the tax burden in this

country and it is not for me to second-guess George Osborne's future

plans, but we need to look at for example housing benefit for the

under 25s. Is it right for those who are not working for the state to

provide accommodation for them? Thank you for being with us.

All three major parties at Westminster agree there's an urgent

need to build more homes for Britain's growing population. But

how they get built, and where, looks set to become a major battle ground

in the run-up to the next general election.

Although 16% more house-builds were started in 2012/13 than the previous

year, the number actually completed fell by 8% - the lowest level in

peacetime since 1920. The Office for National Statistics estimates that

between now and 2021 we should expect 220,000 new households to be

created every year. At his party's conference last autumn, Ed Miliband

promised a Labour government would massively increase house-building. I

will have a clear aim but by the end of the parliament, Britain will be

building 200,000 homes per year more than at any time for a

generation. That is how we make Britain better than this. The Labour

leader also says he'd give urban councils a "right to grow" so rural

neighbours can't block expansion and force developers with unused land to

use it or lose it. The Government has been pursuing its own ideas

including loan guarantees for developers and a new homes bonus to

boost new house-building. But David Cameron could have trouble keeping

his supporters on side - this week the senior backbencher Nadhim Zahawi

criticised planning reforms for causing "physical harm" to the

countryside. Nick Clegg meanwhile prefers a radical solution - brand

new garden cities in the south east of England. In a speech tomorrow,

Labour's shadow housing minister Emma Reynolds will give more details

of how Labour would boost house-building, and she joins me

now. It is not the politicians to blame, it is the lack of

house-builders? We want a vibrant building industry, and at the moment

that industry is dominated by big house-builders. I want to see a more

diverse and competitive industry, where self build plays a greater

role. In France over 60% of new homes are built by self builders,

but small builders build more homes as well. 25 years ago they were

building two thirds of new homes, now they are not building even a

third of new homes. That's because land policies have been so

restrictive that it is only the big companies who can afford to buy the

land, so little land is being released for house building. I

agree, there are some fundamental structural problems with the land

market and that is why we have said there doesn't just need to be

tinkering around the edges, there needs to be real reforms to make

sure that small builders and self build and custom-built have access

to land. They are saying they have problems with access to land and

finance. At the end of the day it will not be self, small builders who

reach your target, it will be big builders. I think it is pretty

shameful that in Western Europe the new houses built in the UK are

smaller than our neighbours. But isn't not the land problem? France

is 2.8 times bigger in land mass and we are and that is not a problem for

them. There is a perception we are going to build on the countryside,

but not even 10% is on the countryside. There is enough for us

to have our golf courses. There is enough other land for us to build on

that is not golf courses. The planning minister has said he wants

to build our National Parks, I am not suggesting that. The single

biggest land border is the public sector. It is not. There are great

opportunities for releasing public land, that is why I have been asking

the government, they say they are going to release and of public land

for tens of thousands of new homes to be built, but they say they are

not monitoring how many houses are being built on the site. When your

leader says to landowners, housing development owners, either use the

land or lose it, in what way will they lose it? Will you confiscated?

This is about strengthening the hand of local authorities, and they say

to us that in some cases, house-builders are sitting on land.

In those cases, we would give the power to local authorities to

escalate fees. This would be the compulsory purchase orders, a matter

of last resort, and you would hope that by strengthening the hand of

local authorities, you could get the house-builders to start building the

homes that people want. Would you compulsory purchase it? We would

give the local authority as a last resort, after escalating the fees,

the possibility and flexible it is to use the compulsory purchase

orders to sell the land on to a house builder who wants to build

houses that we need. Can you name one report that has come back in

recent years that shows that hoarding of land by house-builders

is a major problem? The IMF, the Conservative mayor of London and the

Local Government Association are telling us that there is a problem

with land hoarding. Therefore, we have said, where there is land with

planning permission, and if plots are being sat on... Boris Johnson

says there are 180,000 plots in London being sat on. We need to make

sure the house-builders are building the homes that young families need.

They get planning permission and sell it on to the developer. There

is a whole degree of complicity but there is another problem before

that. That is around transparency about land options. There is

agricultural land that house-builders have land options on,

and we do not know where that is. Where there is a need for housing,

and the biggest demand is in the south-east of England, that is where

many local authorities are most reluctant to do it, will you in

central government take powers to force these authorities to give it?

We have talked about the right to grow, we were in Stevenage

recently. What we have said is we want to strengthen the hand of local

authorities like Stevenage so they are not blocked every step of the

way. They need 16,000 new homes but they do not have the land supply.

What about the authorities that do not want to do it? They should be

forced to sit down and agree with the neighbouring authority. In

Stevenage, it is estimated at ?500,000 has been spent on legal

fees because North Hertfordshire is blocking Stevenage every step of the

way. Michael Lyons says the national interest will have to take President

over local interest. Voice cannot mean a veto. The local community in

Stevenage is crying out for new homes. Do you agree? There has to be

land available for new homes to be built, and in areas like Oxford

Luton and Stevenage... Do you agree with Michael Lyons? The national

interest does have to be served with Michael Lyons? The national

will put the five new towns? We have asked him to look at how we can

incentivise local authorities to come forward with sites for new

towns. You cannot tell us where they are going to be? I cannot. We will

have to wait for him. When you look at the historic figures overall not

at the moment, Private Housing building is only just beginning to

recover, but it has been pretty steady for a while. The big

difference between house-building now and in the past, since Mrs

Thatcher came to power a and including the Tony Blair government,

we did not build council houses Almost none. Will the next Labour

government embark on a major council has programme? We inherited housing

stock back in 1997... This is important. Will the next Labour

government embark on a major council has programme? We have called on

this government to bring forward investment in social housing. We

want to see an investment programme in social housing, I cannot give you

the figures now. We are 18 months away from the election. Will the

next Labour government embark on a major council house Northern

programme? I want to see a council house building programme, because

there is a big shortage of council homes. That is a guess? Yes. We got

there in the end. -- that is a yes? We will be talking to Patrick homes

in the West Midlands in a moment. You are watching the Sunday

Politics. Coming up in just over 20 minutes, I will look at the week

ahead with our political Hello. Happy New Year. Coming up:

government bail them out? Hello. Happy New Year. Coming up:

Counting the cost of last month's flooding. Who is fitting the bill

and is the government doing enough? The district council spends ?3

million, and we are only expecting to get ?1.6 million through

insurance so we need help from the government. A New Year but another

hike in rail fares with commuters taking the brunt. And another

resignation at Colchester Hospital where investigations into cancer

waiting times rumble on. Let's meet our guests. Welcome to you. Let's

start with the fatal helicopter crash which happened earlier this

week. The US air force has paid tribute to the three men and woman

who died. It came down on marshes close to the sea and the accident

has sparked concerns about low`level flying in the area and the amount of

military aircraft in the skies. People, on the whole, are very proud

of the tradition of the RAF and US military being in our region but

communities have to feel safe and there are proper steps which need to

be taken to make sure the risk to communities is minimised. You are a

former shadow defence minister, do we need to tighten up on low`flying?

There have to be investigations into this accident. We have very mature

safety systems in this country so the short answer is no, we should

not jump to conclusions but there may be something to learn from this

to prevent further accidents. Military aircraft have to do

low`flying training. We do not know what went wrong. In your

constituency there are a lot of people living under the flight path

for Luton airport so it is the same for them, is it not? More than

aviation is a fact of life and we should be proud of aircraft safety

in this country. We have a fantastic investigation team who go in and

understand what has gone wrong and any lessons will be learned and

applied in other contexts. Do communities have to put up with

these risks and accept them as part of everyday life postmark yes, but

you can be reassured that aviation is the safest form of transport. Air

accidents are very rare and far more people are killed on the road. Does

it bring low`flying into question? It would be crazy to bring

low`flying into densely populated areas but that does not happen. Do

you agree? Broadly. The answer is we do not know yet. If low`flying was

involved in the incident then I am sure that will come out in the

incident. We should trust the military pilots from the East of

England. The last thing we want is a knee jerk reaction. Of course, it

has been a month since the biggest tidal surge for 60 years. Buildings

were destroyed and hundreds of homes were flooded. Clearing up the mess

is the responsibility of our local councils, and it is a costly

business. Research has shown that last month's storm has led to a bill

of ?3 billion. There are worries that it will not be enough. In many

places along the coast there is still a lot of work to do. Here in

North Norfolk, 100 metres of Promenade needs to be rebuilt along

with the local cafe. A few miles away BPF has been badly and large

chunks have been taken out of the bank. `` the pier. We reckon the

district council has spent ?3 million and we are only expecting to

get ?1.6 million through our insurance so we need help from the

government to plug that gap. If you do not get that help, what will you

do? We will have to dig into the reserves. For every authority along

the coast, last month's storm surge was expensive. North Norfolk was

worst hit but other councils say they will struggle to meet bills.

For the last 30 years there has been a scheme for financial assistance to

help councils who have incurred unforeseen expenses in dealing with

emergencies, particularly whether emergencies. Named after a former

Environment Minister, the scheme reimburses counsel for 85% of

eligible expenditure. It will also refund councils for repair work, but

only temporary repair work and that is one of the problems. North

Norfolk does not want to do temporary repair work which means a

lot of their costs may not be covered under the scheme. It is for

plugging the gap in the short term and we could not see the point in

doing that. Some of the breaches in defences, it was the matter of

getting them repaired in case it happens again. There are other

concerns about the scheme. Councils have to spend above a certain

threshold before they can claim and even then they may not get their

money back. With so much flooding elsewhere in the country, will there

be enough to go round? Meanwhile, MPs at Westminster have uncovered

another problem. They say the scheme works well for inland flooding which

can be repaired quickly and coastal damage takes longer to sort out.

Under the scheme, you have to carry out the works within two months and

foot the bill within three months. This is not appropriate within this

case where repairs could go on for many months. I do have concerns that

a scheme that was introduced in 1993 for events that happened

occasionally are now happening fairly regularly. I am concerned

about whether it is fit for purpose in today's world. Whether or not it

is down to global warming, bad weather seems to be happening more

often and growing demands are being put on our local authorities, but

the cost of responding could lead them out of pocket. Days after the

tidal surge, the government said up a committee to oversee the

reconstruction of homes and businesses. Brandon Lewis, we heard

in the film that you have to do have the work done within three months,

that is not realistic for larger projects, is it? On the East Coast

there are people dealing with insurance companies, local

authorities and the Environment Agency, working through what they

need to do. The Environment Agency are still doing local assessments.

The local councils are getting on with the clear up work and getting

people into the homes. What about compensation, what about the

three`month deadline? It is only for temporary were spares `` repairs?

There is a different issue their food is ``. The scheme will put what

people want to claim into central government. We have already had two

councils expressing in interest. For the longer term work, that

infrastructure work for the Department for Transport and the

Environment Agency will be putting their working. Let me put the points

to you again. Is three`month a sufficient amount of time to claim

under this scheme? It does work. The scheme has been in place since 1983.

Local authorities know how it works, they are used to it and it does

work. I would say to local authorities that if they have a

concern, come to see us and talked about and we will do what we can to

make sure we get the reparations right. What about the fact that the

scheme only covers temporary repairs? Well, that is where the

agencies like the highways agency and the Department for Transport,

they do their work separately to the scheme. It is a specific scheme for

unexpected emergencies for natural disasters like flooding. It helps

with the extra costs that were not expected. Do they need to rethink

it? It was to deal with infrequent weather events and we seem to be

getting them more often. It does work. Local authorities understand

how it works and it gets them the money they need. I always said to

local authorities, if they have a particular issue or concern, and I

was talking to great Yarmouth and North Norfolk in the days after the

the event, we will work with them and do what we can. They still have

to make a big outlay in their capital expenditure, is that right?

It depends on what the area and issue is. Local authorities

understand what the risks are. An area like Great Yarmouth knows it

has a flood issue and it had it in 2007 as well as in December. They

will make allowances for that in their budget. Where they do have an

increased cost that is out of their control, the scheme is there to

recover costs. Thank you for joining us. You had coastal flooding in your

constituency so are you satisfied that this will not cost your

constituents any money? We got off very lightly. It was about ?30,000

worth of damage. There was very little wind and the moon was out. We

got off very lightly. You have got a minister there representing coastal

constituencies, you cannot have anybody who understands it better.

The big capital schemes funded by the Environment Agency, and is

looking at some of the damage in your film, it is going to need

complete renewal and Apple have to come under capital schemes. We have

a big amount being spent on flood defences. Is the scheme fit for

purpose? It can be but I am looking for new solutions. Back in 2007, the

last time we had significant flooding inland and on the coast, we

funded 100% of the cost. We had a scheme in place for the East Coast

where you have significant coastal issues, and we were spending the

most that has ever been spent on flood protection. We know that

climate change is going to make this problem worse. Perhaps the scheme is

OK, but we could go further? Are their alteration that need to be

made to it? What about the money that needs to come out of local

authority contingency? Some of the sea wall embankments will need big

capital spend and that will have to come out of the programme. Luckily,

we are spending more than ever before on the major capital

programmes. The scheme is like any government policy. When you claim on

your own insurance, you will always find there are restrictions on what

you can claim on... They could amend the scheme? In practice, we did have

to tweak many of the details of the scheme, but it points towards a more

regular occurrence, and every pound you spend on flood defences, you get

?7 back in the economy. We have to leave it there. Two Southeast

Cambridge where it has been claimed that the local Tories may have

picked the wrong candidate to represent them. We reported that

Lucy Fraser was elected but there has been concern over the number of

votes she received. A crisis meeting was called. Lucy Fraser arrived

knowing there was a lot of anger in the local party about her election.

London barrister, highly regarded, she happened to be the favourite to

win. When complaints are merged about ballot papers not being

properly printed, Conservative headquarters told the local party to

sort out the shambles and decide whether to back their candidate or

rerun the election. We made a mistake and we put our hands up, and

we are going to openly and honestly run this whole campaign against. I

voted for Lucy, she is an amazing woman. The meeting, which took place

away from the cameras, was heated at times with the majority of speakers

calling for a rerun. When it came to the vote, the majority endorsed the

candidate. I wish for party unity and the desire to bring this to a

conclusion lay behind the decision to support Ms Fraser. Despite her

victory she left without making a comment. It has not been the best of

starts to her political career. For tens of thousands of people in the

east, the New Year brought another rise in rail fares and the cost of

commuting. Season tickets to the capital have increased by 3%, lower

than in previous years, but adds to this the spiralling cost of living,

and the New Year is looking bleak. I have not had a pay rise for four

years. The benefits of privatisation have now faded. We go to work, eat

and sleep, we do not have the money for anything else. The cost of a

season ticket to gluten from London is over ?3000 a year. `` Luton. You

criticise the coalition for these rises but it was Labour who

incessantly put up rail fares. Actually, we capped increases. Wages

were outstripping prices. In 41 out of the last 42 months, people are

spending more on goods than their wages. There needs to be dramatic

action taken. The fare from Colchester to London is ?4680. It is

a 2.7% rise. People's wages are stuck in a right and they have to

find another hundred pounds for their season ticket. You say you

understand the squeeze on ordinary families at the policies seem to

suggest otherwise. There is no magic wand. The economy is getting better

but I doubt whether people will feel that in their wage packets and their

standards of living. We inherited such a horrendous debt situation

from the previous government. That has to be put right. If you have

borrowed too much previously, then you have to put that right. Do you

not have the opportunity to freeze these rail price rises in the

future? I think there are things you could do. Not giving lows of money

out to private operators... Why will your party not commit to rail fare

freezes? We are a responsible government. We are tackling things

like the energy price freeze. It is also wages and if you are not going

to take action to decrease the cost of living crisis, then there is no

question. The amount of fares will cover operating costs soon. Is there

not a tipping point where the government can say, that is enough,

we will give it a restful. We hope we will cost tax increases in 2018.

It is very tough for commuters at the moment but we must try and put

the economy back on its feet. There is no magic wand, and we can only

carry on improving the efficiency of the railway. Under privatisation,

there was a big change in efficiency but under Labour, it went up the

spout. Next it is a new political year but one old hand is still

causing a stir in the House. Barristers and lawyers across the

region walked out over cuts to legal aid funding. Lawyers are not immune

from the economic pressures that apply to the rest of the country.

Companies helping economic migrants claim benefits came into criticism.

We do not want people coming to Peter Brett as benefit tourists. We

want people who will work. Prince William begins a course in

agriculture at Cambridge University. Colchester Hospital has lost its

deputy chief executive, Sue Barnett. There was consternation in the House

for the suggestion that UKIP leader Nigel Farage joins the lead debates.

So, Nick and Nigel is the question. I would rather have neither.

Colchester Hospital, a new chief executive, there have been several

resignations. You were there to back the management, were you not? You

have to back the people you think are doing the best job. He chose to

go and we always knew there was going to be a problem. A great many

positive changes were made by the previous chief executive. Do you not

feel now, in hindsight, that you did have the wool pulled over your eyes?

No, I did not. We knew other things would come out as a result of this.

These are problems that affect the whole of the NHS. The abilities of

the junior staff, and for the senior staff to be open and receptive to

what is going on. For the clinical staff to accept responsibility about

what is going on. You are still backing the hospital? This hospital

is much safer than it was three years ago but, like many other

hospitals, it has to make many improvements. Will you monitor the

hospital care facility? There is an organisation called Monitor that

inspects the hospital. I had a meeting with members of Parliament

to ask them how they are addressing the changes that have been

recommended. Thank you, both. the changes that have been

will not be revoked. And I wouldn't want it to go. Thank you, back to

Andrew. Can David Cameron get his way on EU

migration? Will he ever be able to satisfy his backbenchers on Europe?

Is Ed Miliband trying to change the tone of PMQ 's? More questions for

the week ahead. We are joined by Jacob Rees Mogg

from his constituency in Somerset. Welcome to the programme. You one of

the 95 Tory backbenchers who signed this letter? Suddenly. Laws should

be made by our democratically elected representatives, not from

Brussels. How could Europe work with a pick and mix in which each

national parliament can decide what Brussels can be in charge of? The

European Union is a supernatural body that is there for the

cooperation amongst member states to do things that they jointly want to

do. It ought not be there to force -- to enforce uniform rules on

countries that do not want to participate. It is the vision of

Europe that people joined when we signed up to it and came in in 973.

It has accreted powers to itself without having the support of the

public of the member states. This is just a way of preparing the ground

for you to get out of Europe altogether, isn't it? I do not big

so. There is a role for an organisation that does some

coordination and that has trade agreements within it, I do not think

there is a role for a federal state. Europe seems to be dominating the. I

remember your leader telling you not to bang on about Europe, your

backbench colleagues seem to have ignored that. Would you like to

restrict the flow of EU migrants to come to work in this country? Yes. I

think we should have control of our own borders, so we can decide who we

want to admit for the whole world. What we have at the moment is a

restrictive control of people coming from anywhere other than the EU

There is a big decrease in the number of New Zealanders who came in

the last quarter for which figures are available, but a huge increase

in people coming from the continent. Does it really make sense to stop

our second cousins coming so that we can allow people freely to come from

the continent? I do not think so, we need to have domestic control of our

borders in the interests of the United Kingdom. There are still lots

more people coming from the rest of the world than from the European

Union. That has been changing. But there are still more. A lot more.

The permanent residence coming from the European Union are extremely

high. In the period when the Labour Party was in charge, we had to put 5

million people coming here, of whom about 1 billion were from Poland. --

we had 2.5 million people coming here. We have no control over them.

Like the clock behind you, you are behind the times on these figures. I

have stopped the clock for your benefit, because it was going to

chime otherwise! I thought that might be distracting! Only a Tory

backbencher could stop a clock! Helen, when you at this up, it is

preparing to get out, is it not We have had this one bill about a

referendum that seems to have tied us up in knots for months on end. If

Parliament could scrutinise every piece of EU legislation, we would

never get anything else done. It would be incredible. Even Chris

Grayling said earlier that you can not have a national veto on anything

that the EU proposes. I am surprised that Jacob Rees Mogg is talking

about dismantling one of Margaret Thatcher's most important legacies,

the creation of the single market, and the person sent there to dream

it up under Margaret Thatcher said the only way you can run this

sensibly is by not having national vetoes, because if you have that,

guess what will happen? The French will impose lots of protectionist

measures. It was Margaret Thatcher's idea that national

parliaments should never veto. How could you fly in the face of the

lady? Even the great lady makes mistakes. Excuse me, Jacob Rees Mogg

says even Margaret Thatcher makes mistakes! No wonder the clock has

stopped! Even be near divine Margaret made a mistake! But on the

single market, it has been used as an excuse for massive origination of

domestic affairs. We should be interested in free trade in Europe

and allowing people to export and import freely, not to have uniform

regulations, as per the single market, because what that allows is

thought unelected bureaucrats to determine the regular vision. We

want the British people to decide the rules for themselves. If this

makes the single market not work, that is not the problem, because we

can still have free trade, which is more important. If David Cameron is

watching this, I am sure he is, it will be nice for you to come on and

give us an interview, he must be worried. He is beginning to think, I

am losing control. It is a clever letter, the tone is ingratiating and

pleasant, every time, you have stood up to Brussels, you have achieved

something, but the content is dramatic. If you want Parliament to

have a veto, you want to leave the EU, because the definition is

accepting the primacy of European law. The MPs should be clear about

that. It is almost a year since the Europe speech in which David Cameron

committed to the referendum. The political objective was to put that

issue to bed until the next election. It has failed. David

Cameron is going to have to pull off a major miracle in any

renegotiations to satisfy all of this. Yes, it makes me think how

much luckier he has been in coalition with the Liberal

Democrats, because there is a bit of the Tory party that is

irreconcilable to what he wants to do. The Conservative MPs are making

these demands just as David Cameron is seeing the debate goes his way in

Europe. Angela Merkel has looked over the cliff and said, do I want

the UK out? No, they are a counterbalance to France. France one

the UK to leave, but they do not, because they do not want to lose the

only realistic military power Tom other than themselves. Just when the

debate is going David Cameron's way, Jacob Rees Mogg would take us out.

Let me move on to another subject. That is nonsense. The debate is not

beginning to go David Cameron's way. We are having before us on Monday a

bill about European citizenship and spending British taxpayers money so

that Europe can go and say we are all EU citizens, but we signed up to

being a part of a multinational organisation. The spin that it is

going the way of the leader of a political party is one that has been

used before, it was said of John Major, it was untrue then and it is

now. It is, for the continuing deeper integration of the European

Union. I want to ask a quick question. Chris Grayling said to us

that the Tories would devise a way in which the British Supreme Court

would be supreme in the proper meaning of that, but we could still

be within the European Court of Human Rights. Can that circle be

squared? I have no idea, the Lord Chancellor is an able man, and I am

sure he is good at squaring circles. I am not worried about whether we

remain in the convention or not PMQ 's, we saw a bit about this week,

Paul Gorgons had died, so the house was more subdued, but he wants a

more subdued and serious prime ministers questions. Let's remind

ourselves what it was like until now.

What is clear is that he is floundering around and he has no

answer to the Labour Party's energy price freeze. The difference is

John Major is a good man, the Right Honourable gentleman is acting like

a conman. Across the medical profession, they say there is a

crisis in accident and emergency, and we have a Prime Minister saying,

crisis, what crisis? How out of touch can hate the? You do not need

it to be Christmas to know when you are sitting next to a turkey.

It is not a bad line. Is Ed Miliband trying to change the tone of prime

ministers questions? Is he right to do so? The important point is this

was a special prime ministers questions, because everybody was

really sad and by the death of Paul Goggins and in the country, the

legacy of the floods. That was the first question that Ed Miliband

asked about, so that cast a pall over proceedings. When it suits him,

Ed Miliband would like to take a more statesman-like stance, but will

it last? That is how David Cameron started. His first prime ministers

questions, he said to Tony Blair, I would like to support you on

education, and he did in a vote which meant Tony Blair could see off

a naughty operation from Gordon Brown. But it did not last, they are

parties with different visions. Jacob Rees Mogg, would you like to

see it more subdued? I like a bit of Punch and Judy. You need to have

fierce debate and people putting their views passionately, it is

excellent. I am not good at it, I sit there quite quietly, but it is

great fun, very exciting, and it is the most watched bit of the House of

Commons each week. If it got as dull as ditchwater, nobody would pay

attention. Three cheers for Punch and Judy. Ed Miliband is going to

make a major speech on the economy this week. You can now define the

general approach. We had it from Emma Reynolds, we have seen it over

energy prices, this market is bust, the market is not working properly,

and that will therefore justify substantial government intervention.

Intervention which does not necessarily cost money. It is the

deletion and reorganising industries. It constitutes an answer

to the question which has been hounding him, what is the point of

the Labour Party when there is no money left? He says, you do not

spend a huge amount fiscally, but you arrange markets to achieve

socially just outcomes without expenditure. It is quite serious

stance. I am not sure it will survive the rigours of an election

campaign, but it is an answer. Is that an approach, to use broken

markets, to justify substantial state intervention? Yes, and the

other big plank is infrastructure spending. The Lib Dems would not be

against capital investment for info structure will stop Emma Reynolds

talking about house-building, the idea of pumping money into the

economy through infrastructure is something that the Labour Party will

look at. Jacob Rees Mogg, you once thought Somerset should have its own

time zone, and today, you have delivered on that promise! Live on

the Sunday Politics! I try to deliver on my promises!

That is all for today, the Daily Politics is on BBC Two every day

this week, just before lunch. I aren't back next Sunday here on BBC

One at 11am. -- I am back. If it is Sunday, it is the Sunday Politics.