12/01/2014 Sunday Politics North East and Cumbria

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 Labour promises to shift

house`building up a gear but how will they get 1 million new homes

built by 2020. We hear from the Shadow Housing Minister. In the

North East and Cumbria, why tax is going up despite government

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

recover, but it has been pretty 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

has programme? We inherited housing 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

away from the election. Will the away from the election. Will the

next Labour government embark on away from the election. Will the

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 is a big shortage of council

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

in the West Midlands in a moment. Politics. Coming up in just over 20

minutes, I will look at the week ahead with our political

The sheer. We ask why so many town halls are refusing calls to freeze

bills. Could an independent Scotland

reopened dishes railway lines. Here are my first guess of 2014. Welcome

to you both. There are more bookies on the Regent `` region's High

Street. That is 1000 of them in the North East alone. Some people have

described them as the crack cocaine of gambling addiction. Labour wants

councils to begin in more powers to limit these machines. How big a

problem are these? Labour called a debate on this issue because we are

very concerned about the increasing numbers. Also the areas they are

targeted on. They are targeted on deprived areas and we know people

are getting addicted to these machines. We would like to see

better regulation and better safety aspects. Councils have the power to

make decisions whether they want more betting shops under High

Street. They tend to be springing up at every opportunity. They are part

of the same class use as financial institutions like banks and building

societies. If a company want to put a new shop in one of those premises,

they do not need authorisation from the authority to do that. ?1 billion

in the North East went into these machines. The government has been

dithering about whether to take action. It is clearly a problem.

There is a problem and the Liberal Democrats are clear about that. We

are forced the government to take action. It was the Labour Party that

permitted these onto the High Street in the first place, even though the

Liberal Democrats warned at the time and voted against it at the time. It

was predictable that putting these machines onto the High Street would

have these effects. We need to see change. The industry is being told

to tighten controls by March or face action. Evidence is being gathered

at the moment. The liberal Democrats supported the government this week.

They say they need to train control this. We have always said it needs

to be kept under review. Unfortunately, as often with

opposition, you have to look at the wording of the motion. It... I am

afraid the motion by Labour would have made no difference to the

existing situation in the High Street. We have to leave it there.

Now to the council tax. The cost could be about to go even higher.

The government says local councils should be thinking of householders

and putting a freeze on bills. A number of councils have said they

cannot afford to do that. It is all smiles at this children's centre

today, but that is a threat. The council is thinking of having their

budget for children's centres. We have used the centre in the past and

many of us have second babies on the way and we are panicking if it will

not be there. I have always worked and my taxes. At a time when I

needed now, the service I rely on is at risk. The council says it could

contribute to a target cut. It also asks if people might be prepared to

pay council tax with an increase to protect services. We want to protect

services like this. The only way to do that is to say to people, will

you pay more? People in Gateshead seemed divided about whether they

would pay more. I would rather pay less, not more. Yes, just to keep

care in the community going. Yes, I would. I think we pay enough

already. I am struggling as it is. Some councils the bills will have to

go up. Darlington is planning a 2% rise. It will not stop all the cuts.

This railway museum will lose its funding in two years. The council

says it will make a difference with the increase. 2% is not a lot. It is

a lot if you are on benefits and on top of the other charges. The

alternative is that something like 60% of social care might be cut. We

cannot achieve this without the increase. We need that revenue. Eric

Pickles says he has provided enough help for councils to freeze bills.

He might be more angry when he sees with other councils have planned.

Durham, North Yorkshire, Cumbria, Carlisle, Copeland, Allerdale,

Northumberland and middle but at all considering an increase of 2%. ``

). Even Darlington conservatives accept there might have to be arise.

We do have major concerns because they are also talking about reading

the balances over the next two years to try and balance the books. We had

another very serious situation. We have to look at more in marriage and

at ways of providing services. Unless local authorities can be

persuaded of their local track, the plans for a freeze could be

derailed. Given the financial position of councils, you can

understand it goes back clearly times are tough. Councils rely

heavily on government grants. We have seen big cuts going on. Redcar

have recently done a fundamental review of their services which will

save a large amount of money for local taxpayers. It will mean some

people will lose their jobs which we regret. Is that acceptable? They

have refused to do any freezing, apart from the very first year so we

have seen the council tax go up every year and I am pleased they are

finally getting to grips with sharing services and making things

more efficient. That is what the public want. Wages are not going

up. Yet it is Labour councils which are putting this up? We have to be

clear about why councils are in this position. The government is

implementing these cuts in an extremely unfair way. Councils and

the more deprived areas in the country are being hit really hard

when more affluent parts are actually getting an increase in

funding from the government. It is about choices... People who are

struggling to make ends meet are being charged more? Newcastle have

taken a decision to freeze council tax. They have seen an increase in

requests for debt advice in the last two years. We know people are

struggling with the cost of living, housing, rent, electricity bills.

What is the game of Eric Pickles? Would be more anxious `` on its to

save services? This decision is being left to local authorities

because it is a decision they have to decide about what their residents

can put up with. They have to provide value for money in the

current circumstances. Newcastle has taken the decision that imposing an

additional burden on households would just come back on debt. Eric

Pickles's offer is a bogus one, it is a headline grabber. It will

disappear within a couple of years? The problem for councils is they can

take the government money but it does not shake `` change the base.

It is 1% of the budget. That enables councils to freeze council tax.

Newcastle is one of these. That is the choice, it is a local choice.

Actually, Eric Pickles will not raise council tax above 2% without a

referendum. That is not local democracy. Let people choose.

Referendums are democracy. Do you want a referendum every time you

change tax rates in the budget? Now, but the choice you have referred to

is what he's giving people. There is also money available for two more

years of threes but it remains to be seen whether people will take it or

not. We will have two leave it there. Traditionally, Scotland has

been seen as a threat to the North East, competing for jobs and

investment. It is no surprise that many are worried about the prospect

of Scotland getting more power after the independence referendum insert

member. It could also bring benefits to our region. `` in September. The

Waverley line ran through the Scottish Borders from Edinburgh to

Carlisle and closed in 1969. In 2006, the Scottish Parliament made

way for a partial restoration of the service. Work is already underway in

Scotland. Extending the line to Cumbria is only an ambition at

present. This is the biggest restoration project ever in the UK.

It is over 30 miles. It has 60 miles to go. It will take a long time, but

it is achievable. The current restoration will only go from

Edinburgh to Tweedbank. Those who voted for it say independence will

help extend the line back to Cumbria once more. Cross`border

communications go beyond transport. I think transport is a major factor,

but there are other issues we're working on. We want to work in

collaboration with Scotland's own tourism, rural issues, retail.

Carlisle is the capital of this particular region. Our catchment

area for retail is a huge area. We attract a lot of people. It is

really important. The strategic `` position of Carlisle is being taken

into consideration as the referendum approaches. The referendum has drawn

attention to things which have been ongoing like the way in which

services are delivered and economic development is organised by either

side of the border. We want to coordinator effort across`the`board.

It is a range of areas that work through the local authorities.

Improvements could be made. The prospect of independent Scotland is

viewed as more of a challenge than an opportunity to those supporting a

no vote. Carlisle is at the centre of the United Kingdom at present. If

Scotland were independent, we would be a border city. I do not think

that is a benefit to Scotland or Carlisle or England. We are better

as a united country. How England could benefit from Scottish

independence is far from clear, but the fact the referendum is happening

is focusing minds in Cumbria. The SNP of history hopes for a yes

vote. We spoke to an SNP member of the Scottish Parliament and asked

him how realistic it was to talk about future independence. Clearly,

I would like to see the real we reopen over a period of time. We

have suggestions that might go all the way from Edinburgh to London. As

a long`term objectives, I believe it is essential. We will insure that is

meaningful communication between Carlisle and others. If that were

likely to happen under an independent Scotland? I would say

it's more likely, wouldn't I. The emphasis we have put on capital

expenditure and infrastructure benefits that would be brought is of

importance. What other kind of cross`border cooperation could

people look forward to? There are similarities. If you look at

Carlisle and Cumbria, the energy focus, this is an parallel with what

we're trying to do in Scotland. There is no reason why we should not

be able to work in partnership in the region successfully together.

There is a great desire to dual the A1 in the North East. Would an

independent Scotland help out with that? I do not know that I can

comment on that. We have so many other priorities, but these are the

kind of things we would want to discuss with the rest of the UK

government and decide what is of major priority. That they to be one

of them. There is anxiety south of the border, where people don't have

a vote about what an independent Scotland might mean. What if

Scotland set and lower corporation tax, businesses might head north of

the border, so what can you say to reassure people? It is incumbent on

the UK government to ensure that the people of the North East understand

what the implications are for them when Scotland becomes independent. I

believe will see more generation and enthusiasm, especially on the

business front and tourism and agriculture. That will encourage

less of London sucking all the economy down south.

We hear a lot from unionists about the danger of Scottish

independence, but is there an opportunity here to work with the

government for a common cause? I think that opportunity currently

exists and is being utilised. Most of what the SNP has to say to argue

for independence unravels quickly as we see already on the clip you

showed. You have seen, we work closely with Scotland's already. We

have a lot of common interests. A government that can do more than it

can do no? We are to have a government, a devolved

administration which is working closely with local authorities. We

have a common interest in the North Sea, the North Sea gas and oil, we

see five daily flights to Aberdeen at the moment from Newcastle

Airport. This is because of the skills we have freaky news for the

benefit of Scotland. Also the benefit we have of having those jobs

available to us. There are huge areas of independent `` of mutual

interest we already work together on. If Scotland does go

independent, cooperation can continue? If Scotland goes

independent, they will be outside the UK and the European Union. They

will not get in because Spain and others will veto it. We will have

border points and immigration rules. That is not the intention of

Scotland, is that? No, it is not but if they are not in the European

Union, all our immigration laws will apply. I have spoken to people who

live on one side of the border and work on the other and they say this

is a nightmare. I think the more the SNP talk about this, the more

logically give to the union. Our current system for the North East

means we have to go cap in hand to London, Edinburgh is closest

potential capital city. We already work closely with Scotland. We work

on a number of issues across`the`board. `` cross border. I

think ultimately we have two remember how deeply destabilising

this talk of up potentially independent Scotland is at a time

when the economy is still very fragile. We are talking about

getting jobs into the economy and that has to be our focus,

destabilising like this is very damaging. For Eric Pickles, his New

Year resolution was not to make friends with local councils. He has

already had an argument with them about rubbish. Here are the

highlights. The government new bill has been

approved but many asbestos victims. Be denied compensation according to

a local MP. The Middlesbrough MP has asked the government to expand the

use of the Darlington airport. The Berwick MP has asked the government

to help deal with a fire which has been burning since September last

year. The residents have been suffering from the fumes and small

of potentially hazardous waste. The fire brigade can't protect the fire

for a polluting the water supply. Councils which collect rubbish

fortnightly are crazy, according to Eric Pickles. He wasn't returned

weekly collections. This was the height of municipal splendour when

it was built and now with the new town hall in Gateshead is to get a

new lease of life as a music venue. Has Eric Pickles been mischievous

about rubbish collections? When Redcar went to a weekly collection

there was a row but there has been nothing since. It would cost more to

go back to weekly collections so I think it is pie in the sky. I do not

know why he has he and his border about this. Perhaps it is because

people do care about this. `` RB in his bonnet. People are recycling

more. The landfill charges are rising every year so it would be

cost prohibitive to do what he is suggesting. It is very strange of

him to talk about localism and then dictate from Whitehall how often

people should get their bins collected. He has issued a crazy

bible about bins for local authorities. It is patronising and

he's just mischiefmaking. Or is he saying something that a lot of

people do actually care about? Clearly, people who are still on

weekly bends do not want to go to fortnightly bends. You do get used

to it. I do not understand why he is going on about this. `` bins.

Perhaps he is just trying to win friends and influence people. Keep

up on Twitter with me. Make a comment on the BBC blog if you like.

Back next 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.