12/01/2014 Sunday Politics East


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 12/01/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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.


Download Subtitles