13/04/2014 Sunday Politics East

Aternoon folks, and welcome to the Sunday Politics. As MPs head off for

their Easter break, campaigning for the European elections in six weeks'

time gets underway. In a Sunday Politics special, we'll debate the

issues at stake on Politics special, we'll debate the

senior party figures from the Conservatives, Labour, Liberal

Democrats, and UKIP. And as ever we'll be discussing the week ahead

with our panel of top political commentators.

Who is to blame for the failure of Norbert's incinerator plan?

newspapers which some claim are politically slanted and not

impartial about informing people of local services.

So all that to come between now and quarter to four and for the next

thirty minutes or so we'll be debating the European elections

Here in the studio we have Syed Kamall, leader of the Conservatives

in the European Parliament, Richard Howitt, chair of the Labour group of

MEPs, Sarah Ludford, deputy leader of the Lib Dems in Europe, and

Patrick O'Flynn, UKIP's director of communications. Welcome to you all.

In a moment, all four will give us their opening pitch for the

elections. A little earlier they drew lots to decide who'll go first.

And that privilege goes to Syed Before that, though, here's a quick

reminder of what all the fuss is about.

The vote to choose members of the European Parliament takes place on

Thursday the 22nd of May. The same day as local elections are held in

England and Northern Ireland. The UK sends 73

England and Northern Ireland. The UK sends NTP is to Brussels. And the

vote is a form of proportional representation. In total, there

vote is a form of proportional 751 MEPs from the 28 member states.

What do they do all day? The European Parliament's power has

grown. A vet of the EU commissioners and they can amend, approve or

reject nearly all EU legislation and the EU budget. Some laws MEPs have

been responsible for include price caps on mobile phone chargers,

banking regulation and cover food regulation two -- labelling.

Syed Kamall, you have 30 seconds. Europe cannot go on as it is. Europe

needs to change. And our relationship with Europe needs to

change. Only the Conservatives have a plan to deliver that change and of

the British people and in-out referendum. Labour and the Lib Dems

will not and UKIP simply cannot Only the Conservatives

will not and UKIP simply cannot the three yards, with Conservative

MEPs working alongside a conservative Prime Minister. For,

really is and above all a referendum. Sarah Ludford is next.

Your choice is simple. If you think Britain is better off in Europe

vote for the Liberal Democrats. The Lib Dems are the only party of Ian,

fighting to keep Britain in Europe and in work. There is nothing

patriotic about UKIP's desire to pull-out. That is playing Russian

roulette with Britain's economy and jobs. The Conservatives are flirting

with exit and Labour lacks the courage to speak up. Thought Liberal

Democrat on May the 22nd to say in Europe for jobs and security. Sarah

Ludford. Next, Richard Howitt from Labour. The European elections are

about who represents you. They are not a referendum on a referendum.

Labour MEPs believe in putting jobs and growth first. A guarantee to

help young people into work, reforming energy markets so that

bills are brought down for good Labour believes in reform in Europe,

but within. It is David Cameron who is risking your job and Britain s

prosperity because of divisions in his own party. Labour MEPs put

British interests first. Our fourth opening statement from Patrick

O'Flynn. The EU is old hat. It is a declining regional trade bloc in an

era of global trade. It is a 20th-century political project

designed to prevent conflict in Europe that is now reawakening old

hostilities. It is an attempt to force on the European people

European this as their primary collective identity. It has hollowed

out British democracy and now we do not even control our own borders.

That is why you should vote UKIP. That is the opening statements.

Let's get on with the debate. Why should people vote in the

selections? If you vote UKIP, we can deliver an earthquake that will rock

the foundations of British politics and the European political class. We

can send a signal to Europe that Britain has had enough, that Britain

wants to retain its nation state status and regain political power

and the ability to forge trading deals across the world. Britain

leading Europe to freedom twice in the last century through bloodshed.

We feel that a UKIP win in those elections could help Britain set an

example to lead European nation states back to free assembly again.

Syed Kamall, isn't it the case that many Tory voters will vote you clip

to keep you honest, to keep your feet to the fire? Whatever you think

of the European Parliament or the EU, the fact is that the European

Parliament as equal power with the 28 governments of the EU. When David

Cameron delivered the first cut to the EU budget, the first ever cut,

he needed a strong team of Conservative MEPs working alongside

him. But many of your supporters will vote for UKIP for the reasons I

gave. Many will vote Liberal Democrat. Not very many. Many of our

supporters will vote for us because we are the only party trying to

change the EU and offer reform. We have offered renegotiation and a

referendum. And how would you vote in such a referendum? We have no

idea whether he would vote yes or no. Let him answer. I will answer

that question. If the EU continues on this road, towards a United

States of Europe, and if there was no change at the time of the

referendum, then I would probably vote to leave. You have no

confidence in David Cameron? We Javier Culson opportunity to read

negotiate our relationship with Europe and the Conservatives are at

the forefront of that agenda. David Cameron have not given a list of

demands. He said that if things do not change, he will probably vote to

leave, is that right? If at the time of the referendum, things had not

leave, is that right? If at the time changed, I would vote to leave and

we have a golden opportunity to perform the agenda. Richard, the

last time the British people had a say on this was over 40 years ago.

Under a Labour government. Which was deeply divided on the issue. And

that was a say on the common market. Today's EU is a very different

animal from the common market. Why can we not, under another Labour

government, have another vote? First of all, we want it to be more than a

free trading area. We make no apologies about that. But in the

elections because this is half of Britain's exports and investment. If

you care about your job and business, you cannot hear from the

party of government that they probably want you to leave because

the CBI, the engineering employees in Federation and the chimp of

commerce, 80% of them say it is necessary to stay in. So why not

give us a vote? When David Cameron says he wants to repatriate social

powers, he means takeaway maternity rights and holidays. If the case is

so strong, why not give us an in-out vote? David Miliband has said that

there will be a referendum if there was a proposal to change powers Why

wait? This is based on a series of reforms. Labour has a set of

reforms. David Cameron is silent about what they would be. That is

because he knows that if he put them forward, they would either be

unsatisfactory to his Eurosceptic backbenchers and he would be out of

a job, or they would be unacceptable to European leaders. Why is your

leader missing to European leaders. Why is your

Miliband is unable to say even the positive things that you are saying.

He has run away from the argument. He actually said there would not be

a referendum in his time. For a conservative to say they will

have a referendum but not give the reforms, it is a mistake. Nick Clegg

gave Nigel Farage a huge opportunity in that debate. He said that the

Eurosceptic view was to leave Britain like Billy no mates. I can

say that he is the best qualified person to say that. Sarah Ludford,

you have said that lots of people are going to vote Lib Dem but that

is not what the polls are saying. You are 7% in two polls this

morning. Eclectic's decision to champion Europe has been a disaster

for you. You face wet out. We swayed a lot of people our way with Nick

Clegg's debate. Where is the evidence? We are the only party that

is completely united, saying that we are wanting to stay in. It is

essential because formally and jobs are supported by our trade with the

EU. Linked to the EU. We are finding a lot of moderate conservative

voters are actually fed up with the Tories being split and divided all

over the place. Syed Kamall saying that we might vote in rout. -- in or

out. We are consistent. A poll in London showed that 18% would vote

for us. I am delighted about that. London is not the whole country it

may surprise you. We need to move on to immigration, an important issue.

We are a member of the EU and the rules say that with a few caveats,

our fellow EU citizens are free to come here if they want. Why can we

not just accept that? Britain has a proud record when it comes to

immigration. We have been open to people across the world for

centuries. But we welcome people who come to our country to contribute to

pay taxes and two wards are a society positively. But there are

three real concerns that we have to address. The first one is numbers,

and secondly people who may come here not to work but for benefits,

and thirdly, getting a hang of the numbers. I think it is shameful that

only this week the office for National said that they did not

collect sufficient figures under a Labour government. 350,000 extra

people came in and they did not count the numbers. That is the size

of a city like Cardiff. That is shameful. 350,000 came from all over

the place. Do you accept the free movement of peoples within the EU? I

accept and am open to people who want to come here and contribute. In

the same way... Do you accept the free movement of peoples within the

EU? In our manifesto, we have said it is an issue for reform. We have

to make sure that people are coming here to work and contribute

positively, not simply to come here and take advantage of the system. I

will tell you what else is shameful. What is shameful is David

Cameron making a pledge to the British people on an issue that they

really care about, to bring net immigration down to the tens of

thousands a year, having no means of fulfilling that pledge. And we see

now it is back up to 212,000 a year because

now it is back up to 212,000 a year and no quality control from

immigration from our neighbours And that is a disgrace. How could UKIP

address that issue? Because we would leave the EU. How? Tell me how. You

do not have a single member of Parliament. He will not get a single

member of Parliament. How are you... ? TUC are hoping to get an

MEP. What do you say? -- he is here today hoping to get an MEP. All of

-- almost 2 million Brits live and work in the rest of the EU. Is that

worth having? The majority are wealthy, retired people. Why do not

object to bilateral agreements with countries with similar living

standards to us. France, the Netherlands, that works fine. But

these three people want Turkey to join the EU, 75 Na Li and people

running our country, only 10% of which... Syed Kamall is Michael year

to say whether they are in favour of free movement for work, not for

benefits... That is what I'm saying. You said you were unable to

be clear. That leaves 2 million British people absolutely unsure as

to whether they would have a right to continue to live in other

countries. It is a two-way street. You are putting those people in a

state of uncertainty. EU migrants have been good for the British

economy and contribute far more than they take out in services and

benefits. One in seven businesses were founded in -- by migrants. And

they cannot just turn up and claim benefits. The coalition government

has legislated to make sure that they cannot claim for three months.

They will not be able to claim for more than six months. Richard

Howitt, Jack Straw said it was A spectacular mistake for Labour to

allow EU migrants from Poland and Hungary to work in the UK from

2004." Why should we trust a party that makes spectacular mistakes and

hasn't apologised for it? We accept it is a mistake and I apologise We

make a firm commitment for new EU states we will put down transitional

controls. When I listen to the Conservatives and UKIP trying to

re-write history, saying immigration was out of control, uncontrolled,

open door, we hear it over and over again. It is not true. Anyone who

was around at the time... Come on, Richard. Hold on, you undercounted

by 350,000. You were letting 2 million in over the years, an

under-counted by 350,000 people you didn't know came in. You should have

tightened the benefit rules. The Conservative MEP today has, in four

years in government in Britain, is trying it blame the previous Labour

Government over the fact they won't count people in or people out.

Yvette Cooper - it is not easy for people to come to the country and

benefits are changing, changing the habitual residence

benefits are changing, changing the going to say that migrants can't

come and claim child benefit if their children are outside the

country. Labour a has shown they have listened to concerns but we say

it is a stronger, better, country because it is diverse and

multicultural snoo.d this is fantasy politics from all the Peters. They

are committed to a system with no volume control and no quality

control. You talk about benefits as if it is only out of work benefits.

In work benefits cost a lot of money for the British taxpayer. Big

businesses bring in minimum wage workers. It is ?5,000 per perschool

place What are you going to do? Have all the pensioners come back to

Britain? How will will you fund the health care? Do you really think

Spain and pour tu ghal their current situation, are going to turn their

backs on British property owners with wealth? -- Portugal. They might

not wanting pensioners to use their health service. Pensioners often

come back to Britain to use the health service. You have shown it

represents wealthy people's interests. A second Conservative

Party. Hang on a minute... Blue collar wages were down. They want it

character for the National Health Service, have cuts that go farther

and comprehensive education. This is a debate on the wider politics

between Conservatives and UKIP and Labour will... You can't both talk

time. UKIP - they haven't thought it through, thousand they will have

trade access in the EU, hasn't thought how they will have trade

deals that the Liberal Democrats support, like with the United

States: Would you have a cap on non-EU immigrants? We are not in

favour of a cap. No cap on either. No. Well it is a target. It is a

moving feast, as it were. Would you have a limit on non-EU limits? We

have limits on quality. We have people who are skilled migrants

coming in. Lip its? . By quality, not by quantity. -- Limits.

How do you do that? We need to move on to foreign affairs.

Should we pool more sovereignty to give the European Union more clout

in foreign and defence matters? I'm Labour's defence and foreign affairs

spokesperson. No we don't need to pull more powers into Europe. As we

undertake this live debate there are guns being fired in Ukraine as we

speak. Europe is facing, for the first time, since the end of

speak. Europe is facing, for the Second World War, Armies crossing

national borders and floatening peace. Doesn't it -- threatening

peace. Doesn't it need to come together of the We don't need more

powers. We need political will. With Vladimir Putin, in my view, he has

-- we have fallen short in the sanctions. But it is Europe, not

Britain. Remember Putin calling Britain little England a small

island with no influence. Labour doesn't agree with that. But if

that's the mindset that allows someone like Vladimir Putin to send

troops across borders threatening peace, it is worrying. And when we

have, in UKIP a party that say they admire Putin and support his

policies, that is no recipe for how Europe should be wrong. I was

waiting for that. Let me ask him. We don't admire Putin as a leader. .

Oh. No we don't. What Nigel Farage said, was he admired him as a

political operator. Testifies Franklin D Roosevelt who said a good

foreign policy was speaking softly but carrying a big stick. The EU

shouts its mouthed off while carrying a matchstick. It is fantasy

that you wiebl it stand up to Putin over the Ukraine. -- that you would

be able to stand up. Do you admire what Putin is doing in the Ukraine?

No. What matters in foreign policy is the outcould. We have a terrible

outcome in the Ukraine, like Syria, and Georgia... What would UKIP do?

What u skip would do, would be to keep our people safe -- UKIP.

How? And not commit our Foreign Office and troops Foreign wars.

Patrick O'Flynn. You brought up this issue of foreign wars. Now Nigel

Farage said in previous debates that Britain should leave the EU because,

"We have had enough of endless foreign wars." Which wars has the EU

taken us into? The EU has ban very important factor in the push towards

trying to get military intervention in Syria, for example. What wars has

the etch U taken us into it -- EU. Fortunately the EU doesn't have its

own army yet. It has wanted to sign up to an expansionist agenda. Did it

want Iraq? No, that was Labour. UKIP opposed Iraq, so did most of the

mainline Europeans. Germany was against Syria and Libya. No EU

policy. We had an Anglo French against Syria and Libya. No EU

on Syria. A by lateral deal. A European dimension. No, buy lateral.

We have a European Union that wants to expand ever-more into other

people's spheres of influence. If we are going to stand up to what Putin

is do, which obviously Nigel Farage has no intentions of doing, you have

to get your act together on economic sanctions and diplomatic force and

in trade matters, in supporting eastern European countries. Sayeria,

who and whose army? And NATO and working transatlanticically, is

important through NATO. I will come to you in a moment. Nick Clegg said

that the idea of an EU Army was "A dangerous fantasy that is simply not

true ""Why then, are we already working on etch U-owned and

controlled drones working on etch U-owned and

the President of the European Parliament has said that the

majority of MEPs want the EU to have "deployable troops." He is not

speaking for me or Liberal Democrats. The EU does not and will

not have an army. Our defence is mainly shaped through NATO. He is

President of the Parliament What we must do is to get equipment which

can operate together. We waste an awful lot of our spending in Europe

because we duplicate equipment. We don't get the bang for our bucks

that we should. It is a useful role for the EU, to get equipment working

together. That doesn't make sense. You say military equipment, a NATO

job. No, the EU, there is a kind of dimension of the EU members of NATO,

in working together on a common quument o o so they can talk to each

other -- on common equipment, quument o o so they can talk to each

they can talk to each other. The EU has a role but not an army. So a

European defence agency, that helps our defence industries and those

jobs are extremely important and would be threatened if the

Conservatives and UKIP took us out of Europe but it is 100 years since

the start of the fist world war Remember that Europe was set up to

try to get a secure peace within Europe T succeeded. Now look on

Ukraine but also on the southern borders to the Arab Spring countries

in North Africa. It is more important than ever that we work to

keep keep peace and stability on our borders. Can I say to Syed and the

Conservative MEPs. You talk about the three Rs, I have a fourth,

retreat. If you take us out of the European Union, it will be the worse

retreat by Britain since Gallipoli. Let him answer If he wants answers

-- the British Parliament is the right place with a British Foreign

Secretary to decide our foreign policy. You say that, but can I

quote David Cameron, this is germain to what you are saying, David

Cameron said "There is no doubt that we are more powerful than

Washington, Beijing and Delhi, because we are a powerful player in

the European Union." Do you agree? He is saying that there are times

when it comes to international foreign affairs when you have to

cooperate with partners. Often they are EU partners but often they are

not. The problem we have... Washington have made it very clear

that it wants Britain to talk through Brussels. No, not at all.

Talk through the French and Italians, come on, wake up? Through

the EU collective. I'm vice chair of the EU delegation. I hear it from

the American counterparts. They want the EU to get itself together and

not least on Ukraine. Why should our sovereignty be at the behest of .. ?

I want to hear from Syed calm amplgts the British Parliament is

the right place to decide our foreign poll sinchts sometimes we

work with our European partners sometimes we work with our

non-European partners. It is our choice to pull sovereign trito work

together. G, we move on to our foirt area. We hear a lot in this country

about MPs expenses. Snted the real scan dalt MEPs gravy train. -- isn't

the real scandal, the MEPs gravy train? You all have your snouts The

trough? I don't think so. There is transpancy. The way we use our

expenses is online and anyone can ask to examine those. We have

actually voted to reform MEPs' allowances. We regularly vote but

unfortunately the majority in Parliament don't. Have you voted to

cut them? Yes. By how much? About 5%. A 5% We hoped to have economies

I never fly except across the Atlantic. Difficult to do it any

other way. I didn't swim. But we voted for economy flutes We

voted for European Parliament policy of transparency which other groups

haven't. UKIP don't turn up to vote. They don't earn their salaries.

Dhoent do anything. They should hand their salaries and allowances back.

You can't ause UKIP of being on the gravy train and the other that we

don't claim our attendance allowance because our MEPs are not there. Your

attendance allowance is if you are there, you are saying we don't turn

up You are in the building and claim the allowances. You are not an MEP,

UKIP are so ashamed of what their MEPs have done in Brussels, they

didn't field a sitting MEP for today's debate. I think each party

decides who it wishes to field. I have the honour of being the UKIP

representative. I would say by going in the past few weeks, xeeming to me

saying - we are sick of the others. -- people saying to me. : We are

quite excited. Can I ask Patrick O'Flynn. He says he touched a chord

and his party is strong in the polls today, between 18% and 20%. Haven't

you also struck a chord with hip crasscy. Two of your MEPs were

jailed for expenses and benefits' crasscy. Two of your MEPs were

fraud. Two more asked to pay back ?37,000 for using European funds.

Nigel Farage has boosted about getting ?2 million in expenses and

he went on to employ his wife as a secretarial allowance after telling

other members not to People who do wrong and break the law, go to ja. I

have no time. -- go to jail. People who spend money they are not

entitled to should pay it back and that's right. But what UKIP does and

the good UKIP MEPs do, is use the allowances they are given to pursue

the political agenda they put up when elected which is to get Britain

out of this superstate. Instead of using it for parliamentary work

Very interesting. Richard Howitt. We were the first British political

party to have independent audits of our MEPs' expenses, from 1990, way

before the expenses crisis blew up. The Maria Miller scandal has of

course hit David Cameron and the Conservative Party hard as it should

do. But you are right, even in my own region you have UKIP candidates

and councillors who have been charged with fraudulently filling

out election papers and other shot lifting. Another independent inquiry

found he made racist comments. We had a European candidate last week

in Hertfordshire who got a parking ticket from the police and called

the police fascists. These people aren't here.

I'll let you have a quick reply We can bring up parochial cases. Let

him answer. Not so long ago a Liberal Democrat councillor was sent

down for firebombing, I don't say they are a bunch of arsonists, but

now I think, Nick Clegg might have burnt some cactuses, once. I'm glad

you pronounced that word carefully. Syed Kemal, the EU's auditors, they

are strongly critical of the EU s financials saying "Errors permist in

all main spending areas", the financials are poorly managed. It is

a shambles And that's something that all parties agree on. As we agree on

expenses, the British parties are at the forefront of transpancy. Every

year when we vote for the discharge of the budget, the Conservatives

also vote for it but we don't get enough MEPs from other countries to

investigate in favour. The Liberal Democrats have put forward to make

each Finance Minister, George Osborne and his counterpart to sign

a declaration to say all EU money is properly spent in my country.

Funnily enough they don't want to do that but I look forward to you

confirming that George Osborne will sign it. All the time we hear it is

about the money we pay in, about ?150 per family per year. What about

the money that comes back? ?1. billion that comes to Britain's

regions because of being in Europe. I myself helped to negotiate a fund

to help Britain's food banks to ensure so. Poorest and most

destitute people... Isn't it our money that went there first. Can I

tell you the Conservative-led Government have blocked us from

claiming that money. If you want to have the clearest choice at these

European elections, it is between... Tell us why. It affects our rebate.

Tony Blair gave away our rebate He is quite right. Lib Dems

Tony Blair gave away our rebate He make sure that we apply for money to

help with flooding. That is what the Tories were blocking. If you want

the clearest example at the European elections, the Conservative Party

and MEPs blocked the cap on bankers bonuses, and then blocked a Labour

victory to get money for free banks. We need to move on to the

future. It is important and people are watching. The EU's Justice

Minister says that we need to build a United States of Europe with the

commission as its government. Is she right? Not at all. But the future,

if we take the next ten years, thinks about climate change and the

fact that we are not going to hit of the two degrees target. Europe has

led and needs to lead towards getting a new sustainable world It

is the political will to use these powers, so she is wrong. It is about

the threats from abroad. Labour reforms like getting a commissioner

for growth and rebalancing the budget, reforming the common

agricultural policy, all of those things will need to happen to make

Europe more democratic and open But against the rise of Brazil and

China... We do not need more treaties and powers. We need more

action with more Labour MEPs. Sarah Ludford, you would sign up to that?

No. Unless they do not think that should concentrate on institutional

matters. What we need to do is concentrate on making Europe

progrowth and competitive and create more jobs in a competitive world. We

need more trade deals to open up our exports, we need to streamline the

EU. We need less red tape and Liberal Democrats have done a lot on

that. We need better scrutiny of EU legislation at West Munster because

the national parties... More powers or less for the EU government? In

some areas, I would like to see it slimmed down. Including, I am not

sure whether the EU should be funding food banks. I think that is

a national responsibility. Dearie me. The EU have to concentrate on

the economy and climate change. This is the coalition talking. If we want

to fritter away political capital on things which are interfering in

national matters, then we do not have the support to tackle those big

challenges. Would have the support to tackle those big

join the Euro one-day? Now is not a good idea. We wanted the Eurozone to

still be sound, which is why... Did not ask you that. Do you want to

join the Euro one-day? If it is a success and it did the economy. Now

is not the time but in principle, the idea of a single currency has

advantages. That was a yes. We are not ruling it out for ever but not

in the foreseeable future. It is not on the horizon. What would our

relationship be with Europe in the future if UKIP got its way and we

left? We would be trading partners with Europe and we would seek

partnership in specific serious I'd tell you what, can I just say..

Would we be Norway? We would be stronger than Norway because we are

the biggest export market in the Eurozone. We can negotiate a bespoke

trading agreement reflecting our enormous importance. Not on

services, which make up 80% of the economy. We are the biggest export

market in the Eurozone. Our biggest exports are services and they would

have to agree to free trade and services. They still have not. Can I

read you something? Let me read you something. There would be a free

trade agreement in place the day after our exit. Germany would demand

no less. Who said that? Not somebody from UKIP, but Digby Jones. Mr

business. He is talking about goods, not services. Norway has that

and they have no say. You would have to accept the EU rules without any

say. No MEPs are commissioners. Let me give you another. Enough. One is

enough. Syed Kamall, is it not looking forward pretty much Mission:

Impossible for Mr Cameron to get anything like the repatriations of

powers that would satisfy your irreconcilables? My father was a bus

driver in the 50s and one of the reasons I am here today is because

he told me that you can achieve anything if you work hard. He said

to me, do not listen to the doubters. When people tell you that

something cannot be done, it is a sign of their limitations, not

yours. They said that we could not pull Britain out of the bailout

mechanism but we did it. He said we could not be to a -- veto European

treaty and we did that. They said we would never cut the budget and we

did that. The first ever. But overall, we are paying more into the

European budget. And they are not sticking to it. More, not less. They

say that we cannot achieve reform but we have achieved reform and we

are at the forefront of that. Science's father came to Britain

because Britain was open and looking outward. What the Conservatives now

have, with leaderless Cameron, is an inward looking attitude. They are

allowing the rise of UKIP. They are putting so much at risk. People

should vote Labour. We are going to have to stop now. No point talking

because we are about to finish. I think you all for a spirited debate.

I'm sure Nigel Fries and Mr Clegg will have learned a lot about how to

debate. -- Nigel Farage. It's just gone 3pm, and you're

watching the It's just gone 3pm, and you're

goodbye to viewers in Scotland who leave us now for Sunday Politics

Scotland. Coming up here in twenty minutes,

Welcome to the programme. I am a Etholle George. Coming up, the

school claiming that it is being pushed into being an Academx,

despite the wishes of parents and staff. It should not be forced to

become an Academy when the parents and staff do not want it. Plans to

build an incinerator is scr`pped when a decision is failed to be met.

No one knows what the Secretary of State will do in regards to the

planning report on the incinerator. It is still outstanding. Let us meet

our guests. Baroness Angela Smith for Labour. And the Lib Mahdr of

Bedford. The only elected m`yor in the East. `` Lib Dem mayor. Vince

Cable met people running sm`ll businesses when he opened a college.

There are very good projects in parts of the country like this and

weather our we are putting hn money. There are factories with

high`tech work bringing in private investment and providing long`term

unemployment. This is about rebalancing the economy in the

North. I weigh not missing out as a region? We would like to be getting

more money because we can hdlp the growth that the country needs. I

understand Vince Cable's pohnts about rebalancing that I thhnk that

the growth can get from somd of the innovative projects in our region is

good. Angela Smith, are we getting our fair share? I am quite worried 6

million out of three hundred does not sound like making the most of

the Eastern region. These are only bets `` bids and we have to get the

money to the people so they can spend it and create jobs. Some

people have pulled out altogether. Dave Hodgson, are some businesses

coming forward? We are encotraging people from Beds and it is hmportant

that we support them and make the best case. We need to reducd the

bureaucracy. Too many pulling out and not getting the money at the

end. And no to a David and Goliath battle over Academy schools. Academy

is a free from local authorhty control and are funded directly from

central government. They give greater freedom to schools over

things like curriculum. The government believes Academy schools

perform better and has a policy that all schools and those in spdcial

measures should become an Academy. One school, Cavell Primary School,

is being forced to become an Academy even though it has come out special

measures. This family has two children, seven and four. One goes

to school at Cavell Primary School and the other two are nastily linked

to the school. `` and the other to a nastily `` nursery links to the

school. Michael Gove says all schools in special measures must be

turned into academies. This is why Mr Ward and other parents h`ve

formed a campaign group. Thdre has been no proper consultation and we

have been told this is happdning and will happen from the 1st of July and

that is it. I do not think that anything we say will make any

difference whatsoever. John of Gaunt is a cooperative trust and that is

what parents of Cavell Prim`ry School on their school to bdcome.

Cooperative trusts also follow the national curriculum whereas Academy

schools are not obliged to do so. Last month, Ofsted give John of

Gaunt a good report and people are putting this down to it being a

cooperative school. Everybody has a say and we are looking at w`ys that

we can make sure that all the ideas come from everybody. Back in

Norwich, this man is a formdr governor of Cavell Primary School.

He is applying for a judici`l review at the High Court. I feel

disappointed and angry and H think that Cavell Primary School has been

treated very harshly. It is a school that is improving and is out of

special measures and should not be forced to become an Academy and the

parents and staff they did not wish it to become an Academy. Thd

National Association of head teachers is also supporting the case

and says it could have wide consequences. It could becole a

landmark case and there is ` danger that forced academies nation will

continue and that is a real worry. You are powerless when it comes to

what the government wants for the academies, are you not? We `re, yes.

We have 50 academies in Norfolk and now and it is outside my control.

The interim executive board was appointed to decide Academy status.

It implies interference frol the County Council and government,

saying, the pressure from the local authority and the Department for

Education to promote this is alienating people and creatdd an

atmosphere of suspicion and mistrust. At the moment, thd school

will become an Academy in Jtly. The decision of the High Court will

determine what happens in other schools across the country. We

wanted to put the points in the film to the Department for Education but

they declined an interview. They did send us this statement.

Angela Smith, the DfEE say that sponsored academies are improving

faster. . Was not time that something had to be done? The school

was turning around and you do have two mind what parents save. That is

what Cavell Primary School hs done. They are not education expects but

they work with the experts. The changes this government has made to

academies has become ideological. Academies can no longer specialise

nearly as an do no longer h`ve the same consultation issues we had

under the last government. Who wants to have parents and happy? H think

the trust school that we saw there, you saw how they engage in the

community and in every case those schools improve. That can not be

said of the academies. Dave Hodgson, you have a similar school that was

deemed to be failing six months ago and as soon `` and has now been told

it will be becoming an Acaddmy. Where do you stand on this? I think

it is being led by dogma and ideology. It is no kind of choice.

We should come back to a local decision for local people and

parents and governors working with the local authority. We continue to

invest in the school improvdment team. As an elected Maher, ``

mayor, do you have any powers? Know I don't. Does that not have to be a

cut`off somewhere? If the school has been struggling for four ye`rs, the

line has to be drawn? What would've happened under last governmdnt issue

would have is asked if the parents wanted an Academy and you would have

given the choice. The government say that it has been decided th`t this

has happened. It is led by dogma. While the government is keen to

enforce its views on educathon, it is not so forthcoming when ht comes

to planning decisions. Plans were rubber`stamped by councillors to

abandon a proposed incineration plant in King's Lynn. The council

says it is pulling the plug now because the Local Government

Secretary, Eric Pickles, sthll has not decided whether to grant the

scheme. The delay is set to add ?140,000 per day to the project and

the council says by the sumler it will no longer offer value for

money. The building industrx says cases like these are worrying

examples of how government indecision and wreck import`nt

projects. Derek Murphy says that novel has been dropped in it by the

government. He says the planning process must be speeded up. No one

knows what the Secretary of State will do in regards to the planning

report. It is still outstanding It did not adhere to itself imposed

deadline of January this ye`r. If he had done, project we were long gone

forward but as he has not, `nd as we have no knowledge of when hd will

make a decision, it was verx difficult to do so. He has not come

out with any reason yet why he should refuse planning permhssion.

He has said he has written to the Planning Inspectorate were some

questions that have yet to be answered but we do not know what

these questions are and it would be nice if he were more open and

upfront cos this is such an important project for Norfolk

because it has involved hugd amounts of money. Both the opponents of this

project and those who wanted it to go ahead on to a decision. Ht has a

very debilitating effect on potential infrastructure projects of

the large amount of money which take a lot of time to develop. Once

something has been called in by the Secretary of State you know you re

in difficult circumstances. However it is true that the process could be

made faster. This is about jobs and promoting growth on the grotnd and

that is why we have talked `bout prioritising original infrastructure

that can deliver growth. We are 24th out of 30 in the global lead for

infrastructure. Earlier this week, Andrew Sinclair met Henry Bdllingham

who was opposed to the plan from the start. He asked why it was taking

the Secretary of State, Eric Pickles, so long to make a decision.

The inspector spent six weeks to seven weeks because he had so much

to deal with. The report is not in any way unusual in the line of time

that it takes because the previous secretary of state to two ydars to

decide about the other Cory Wheelabrator incinerator at

Bexleyheath. But he said he made a decision in January but we still do

not know when it will be. That is all part of meeting targets but this

was a particularly, dated rdport and he was never at in all realhsm going

to be ready by January. The government keeps talking about

speeding up the planning process. What message the descent of the

construction industry? I thhnk it makes sense to Cory Wheelabrator.

You have to get the community onside if you're working on a big

construction project. But the fact that so long has been taken to make

the session, does that not lake communities where they? The

community was engaged in Suffolk and it was handled incredibly

professionally and very well and sensitively and it went through

This has been handled in a crass and ridiculous and stupid way. Whenever

you have a big infrastructure projects such as expanding `nd a

road are building a new nuclear power station at Sizewell, xou will

always have people complainhng. That is why we have a Secretary of State

moving things forward. As soon as that referendum to place, the County

Council and Cory Wheelabrator said they would not go ahead. We cannot

overcome that level of opposition. They tried to bulldozer through over

local people and you cannot do that. This was a Conservative County

Council which decided to put ahead `` push ahead. How do you mdnd

fences? This has been a verx bruising and difficult five years

and I have been at war with Conservative county councillors and

I do not want to start workhng with them again `` I do want to start

working with them again in ` constructive way for the benefit of

people in Norfolk. That was no official statement. Angela Smith,

there could be an enquiry into how Norfolk has got into this mdss. Do

you think they could have done better? I really feel for the

council on this one and the government is good on passing

legislation. The government has taken that further and are trying to

make it quicker but the Secretary of State holds the whole thing up and

that is a real danger for the council and I imagine the council

regrets having to spend the money cancelling the contract but I do not

see what choice they have if they have lost the money from thd

government. Dave Hodgson, where do you stand on this? I think there are

better ways to deal with waste and we have an even larger incinerator

which has had planning permhssion which was the only decision taken by

the infrastructure planning commission against local fedlings.

The bypass and Bedford has support and other projects about support

from the public, but it's dhfficult to see how it can work centrally

when we're talking about making more decisions locally. To be 24th out of

30 in the league does not sound great for infrastructure. Something

is going badly wrong and I would not want to ride roughshod over local

opinion. I thought Henry Bellingham made a very good point about

engagement. We have to look at where incinerators and waste facilities

are built and how the impact on local people. These things lust be

taken into account. That surely government and local governlent can

work together to achieve a luch better process. Eric Pickles said he

could do it in January. How do you balance this? The big incindrator

has had planning permission but the company is up for sale so hopefully

it may not go ahead. When the Secretary of State has said

January, we need to stick to that date. That does affect what happens

locally. This week, once thd new flood defences proved to be

unwelcome. Southend council approved plans for a seven foot high sea

wall. Two Northamptonshire LPs have launched their own referendtm on

whether Britain should stay in the European Union. It is an idda of

giving the biggest referendtm since the 1970s. The MP for South

Northamptonshire has become the new economic Secretary to the Treasury.

Harriet Harman set out the vision of labour for Milton Keynes. Wd have to

work hard to win the trust of every voter. David Cameron offered advice

for a little light reading. The novel by the Honourable fridnd for

mid Beds. Dave Hodgson, do xou get much time to read? If I had the

choice I think I would read the Secret Diaries of Adrian Mole. I

love spy books and I am looking forward to the James Naughthe book.

I'm also looking forward to the Peter Hennessy book. Dave Hodgson,

is there a book in you? Verx briefly, no. That is all from us. We

are off for two weeks over Daster and we will bring you the

risk. We have run out of time. - particular candidates. Back to you,

Andrew. The sun's out, Ed Balls has run the

London Marathon, and MPs leave Westminster for their Easter break.

Let's discuss what's coming up in the Week Ahead.

We will get more of what we have just seen. Let's look back on the

debate. What did we learn from the argument is? That it is going to

bore and irritate whole lot of people, this election campaign. Four

parties shouting at each other about things that most people do not know

much about. They know very little about how the European Parliament

works, what an MEP is supposed to do. A lot of heat and not a lot of

light. I've updated well, all of them, but the net effect is not

going to encourage people to go out and vote and not many do. One thing

that struck me was that on Europe, the Labour and Lib Dem positions are

not that far apart. They are pretty much the same. And yet the knocks

lots of each other. I suppose they feel that they had to do that

because that is the format. I'd agree with Polly. Their word UKIP

and the Tories to attack two we try to make it exciting, and we know the

issues are important. But people out there have not heard of these

individuals. It is not very exciting. That is worrying because

these are huge national questions for us. We need to find a way of

making it more fun. People may not know these MEPs, they may not know

the detail of the debate, but it is an issue on which people have strong

opinions. It is a visceral thing for many people. Especially on the

immigration issue. The debate took off and became more vociferous at

that point. To a large extent, you wonder whether not only this

European election but the eventual referendum will be a referendum on

the issue of immigration and free movement. If we did not learn much

from the argument, the thing we did learn is that the structure

from the argument, the thing we did televised debate influences the

outcome. One of the reasons that Nigel Farage did well in the debate

is that in a two-man debate, each man has as good a chance as the

other. If it is four people, one man can be ganged up on. Patrick O'Flynn

did well for a man who is not an elected politician yet. At times, 40

came under attack and did not hold the line as well as you would

expect. Does that create a perverse incentive for the main parties to

agree to a four way debate before the general election? I do not think

the David Cameron has nearly as much to worry about from a televised

debate in the run-up to the elections than his spin doctors

believe. When you put him up against Ed Miliband, and we have not

actually seen Ed Miliband in that format, I think he will come off all

right. This is an election which the polls would have us believe that the

battle for first place is between UKIP and labour. It certainly is.

Obviously, it is neck and neck and we will not know until we are

closer. And it matters a lot to both of them. If Mr Miliband does not

come first, that is not good news for the main opposition at this

stage. Except to some extent all of the people will put it to one side

and say that this is a bizarre election. A plague on both your

houses, let's vote UKIP. It is not clear how much that translates into

the next election. It is not too disastrous for Labour. It would be

better if they came first. If Mr Miliband comes first, not a problem,

but it becomes second and UKIP soars away, what are the consequences I

think there is a widespread expectation already at Westminster

that UKIP is very likely to come first. If Ed Miliband fails to come

first, there will not be a great deal of shock in the West Mr

village. Else think what is remarkable about Ed Miliband is that

despite consistently poor personal leadership approval ratings, the

overall Labour poll is consistently very high. We have seen that budget

blip, it seems to have taken us back to where we were before. Leadership

is not everything. Mrs Thatcher was miles behind James Callaghan but in

the end, it was the party politics that mattered more. If Mr Cameron

comes third and the Tories come third, maybe a poor third, is it

headless chicken time on the Tory backbenchers? It has often been said

that the Tory Party has two modes, complacency and panic. You will see

them shift into panic mode. By June, I think. Many of the stories in the

sun will be about David Cameron s personal leadership and his grip on

the party. There will be pressure on conference by the time that comes

around. It is a natural consequence of being the incumbent party. The

Lib Dems are 7% in two of the polls today. It was widely thought that in

the first and second debates, Nigel Farage won both. In retrospect, was

the challenge strategy a disaster for Mr Clegg? I do not think it was

because he had nothing to lose. But he is lower in the polls than when

he started. He has not lost a great deal. The polls were quite often

that low. I think it was a good thing to do. It raised his profile.

It made him the leading party in. That may be a difficult place to

be. That is how you end up with 7% in the polls. The reason he is

fighting with Labour is that he knows very well that all he has to

do is to get his votes back that have gone to Labour and labour have

to fight hard to make sure that they do not go back. Every party looks to

where it is going to get it support. If it is a wipe-out for the

Lib Dems, and they lose all their MEPs, not saying that is going to

happen but you could not rule it out for, are we back in Nick Clegg

leadership crisis territory? One of the astonishing things about this

Parliament is the relative absence of leadership speculation about Nick

Clegg will stop at the first couple of years, his position seems

tricky, but maybe that is because Chris Hughton is gone and he was the

only plausible candidate. This cable is not getting any younger, to put

it delicately. That was not delegate at all! And we have reached a

desperate stage where Danny Alexander is talked about as a

candidate. That was not delegate either! Maybe he is holding onto

power the lack of alternatives. If they ended up with no MEPs at all,

and a less than double digits score... With Danny Alexander, it is

clear that Scotland, one way or another, will be moving further

away. You could not have the leader of a national party be a Scot. But

he does not have the following in the party. I'm glad you're liberal

attitudes to immigration extends to me. I would not have been here for

43 years. There will be leadership talk after that holes. It has been

bubbling in the background, but you have to talk to the grass roots

activists. -- after the polls. The grass roots activists are

despairing. If things are bad, they lose their network of activists who

they need to fight the next election. I think you mean, not that

you could have a Scot, but that it would be more difficult to have a

Scot from a Scottish constituency. Absolutely. I think a Scottish

constituency, so many things will be different. Or to hold the great

offices of state. Let's come onto the Crown Prosecution Service is. It

is an English institution. Where does the CPS and after losing yet

another high-profile case come this time Nigel Evans? They had nine

counts against him and they did not win on one. It is obviously very

embarrassing. They will have a bit of explain to do but I guess the

threshold for bringing these cases is high. There has to be considered

at least a 50-50 chance of actually winning the case. We do not know

what went on behind the scenes when they weighed up whether to bring the

case. Nigel Evans makes an interesting point about whether it

is legitimate to bundle together a number of stand-alone relatively

weak accusations, and when you put them together to militantly, the CPS

uses that to make a case. Is that a legitimate thing to do? He was a

high-profile figure, not just because he was a Tory MP. He was the

deputy speaker of the House. And yet the CPS are certainly the police, to

begin with they did not have that many people to testify against him.

And then they trawled for more. You wonder if they would have done that

if it was not for the fact that he was a public figure. The trouble is,

they are dammed if they do and dammed if they do not. Particularly

with politicians and the reputation they have these days, if there is

any suggestion that they let somebody off because they are a

high-profile politician, and they are saying that about Cyril Smith,

that is the accusation. A strange story. Most unlikely and very

bizarre. But that is the accusation. If there is any with of that, I can

see why the CPS says, we better let the courts try this one. Also, they

are in trouble overrated cases because their success rate on

bringing people to court for rape is so thin. When it looked as if his

accusers were not really accusing him, it looks quite weak. You cannot

help but feeling that they are falling over backwards now in

high-profile cases because of their abject and total failure over Jimmy

Savile. I think this is exactly the kind of case that happens when you

are trying to make a point or redeem a reputation or change a culture.

All of these big things. As opposed to what criminal justice is supposed

to be about, which is specific crimes and specific evidence

matching those crimes. The CPS has no copper a fleet joined in this

list of public and situations that has taken a fall over the past five

or six years. We have had Parliament, the newspapers, the

police will stop I think this is as bad a humiliation as any of those

because it is Innocent people suffering. You are the most recent,

being a lobby correspondent in Westminster, and we now see on

Channel 4 News that basically, Westminster is twinned with Sodom

and Gomorrah. Yes. I know. Is this true? It is all rather the red. I do

not move in those circles. And you were in the lobby at one stage? Not

that long ago. Is it right. Is it right to be twinned with Sodom and

Gomorrah? I'll ask him for his opinion. Being technically a member

of the lobby, I can observe some of this stuff. And what surprises me is

that journalists, when the complain about Sodom and Gomorrah, write

themselves out of it. It is as if it is just MPs. We are unalloyed and

unvarnished. Actually, the fact is it has always been a bit like Sodom

and tomorrow. Of course it has always been a bit like Sodom

Think about how we have had wave after wave of stories and scandals.

But less of it recently. It was I think that attitudes have slightly

changed. I'll also think that if you get 650 people in any organisation

and you put that much scrutiny on them, you will find an awful lot

going on in most people's officers of a scurrilous nature. Even in the

BBC In 2013, the public voted for

a portrait of At times he's interesting,

at times he's very funny, My life is a very happy life

and I'm a very happy person. Will you feel nervous

when this is unveiled? I suppose being the centre

of attention but for ever.