03/03/2013 Sunday Politics North East and Cumbria

After the Tory's disaster showing at the sleeve by-election, David

Cameron says there will be no lurch In the North East and Cumbria: New

laws to tackle dangerous dogs. And why the Government says this

family's house in Northumberland is too big for them and will cut their

Apology for the loss of subtitles for 2197 seconds

Hello and a warm welcome to your local part of the show. With me to

chew over the fat of this week's stories, Hexham MP Guy Opperman and

Grahame Morris from Easington. Coming up: Why the Government

believes this family's house in Northumberland is too big for them

and says it will cut their benefits if they don't agree to move.

Coming up: But let's kick off with

controversial comments by Education Secretary Michael Gove. He's

reported as saying that people can smell the sense of defeatism in

some of the region's schools. And he named East Durham as a prime

example of an area where there was too little ambition from the local

authority. Grahame, has the Secretary of State got the perfect

right to raise concerns if he has than? These are deeply offensive

comments to parents, children, staff. He is absolutely wrong in

terms of the levels of achievement and of improvements that have been

achieved in its East Durham schools like the Science College and others

were the results are far above the national average. Michael Gove has

to take some culpability taking away its Educational Maintenance

Allowance, tripling tuition fees, ending the Building Schools for the

Future programme. I do not think the tuition fees affects the

schools. In terms of ambition, it could. It was not how far language.

He has been to the north-east many times and certainly I echo. We

should be supporting our teachers and families and children who were

doing a great job. In Northumberland, we have got a

council who are not necessarily going forward and are penalising

people trying to apply for academies. The point is legitimate

the made that vocal authorities need to step up to the plate -- the

point is a legitimate Lee made but for local authorities need to step

Our top story this week is about new laws to tackle dangerous dogs.

A quarter of a million people are attacked and injured by them every

year. And the Government has agreed to tighten up the law including

compulsory microchipping. That's in response to a campaign promoted by

Wansbeck MP Ian Lavery. 14 people have been killed then dog attacks

since 2005. Fate children and six adults. Hundreds of children have

been attacked and received life- changing injuries and disfigurement

in the same period -- eight children and six adults.

Prosecutions remain low as do court penalties.

Postal workers are among those who are most often victims of dog

attacks. Paul Clay is from the Communication Workers Union which

represents them. How big is this problem for your members? A massive

problem. People laugh when you say you have been attacked by a dog.

They do not realise the reality of being savaged by something that has

got teeth that barmaid for ripping skin and flesh to bits. Very

unpleasant. What are the government's plans to tackle this?

It will help. The reality of what we are working with is that it

might help after the attacks what it is not going to help -- but it

is not going to help before. The biggest problem when we watched the

debate in Parliament was when the minister got up, not when the MPs

got up and said generous support, we should be making sure

responsible dog ownership is at the front. When the minister got up and

said he was going to work with the animal welfare groups fit did not

make much sense to postal workers that have been bitten and chased

down every street in the country. In terms of prevention,

microchipping. I suppose the problem is irresponsible owners

might not bother with it. Does it help at all? Of course it helps.

The legislation would move things forward. Compulsory insurance and

making sure we can have behavioural orders and the police can end force

them would make even better sense. It is obviously welcome the

government is legislating on this but why is it taking so long to get

it on the books? We are a nation of dog-lovers. I am not sure we all

are! I was bitten in the last election by a dog, I assume. By a

dog. I am sure it was a liberal dog. I had blood and everything and

experienced what he has been through. It is wonderful news that

the laws are coming in. It helps with traceability and also with a

dog welfare. 6000 dogs are put down every year because they cannot be

traced. That is a fantastic thing if we could stop that. It is

fantastic but why not just get on and do it? You have got to consult

and get the traceability in. By 2016, every dog will be chipped

Andy will be in a position it will be sorted out by then. You cannot

say to everybody tomorrow. Do you accept that explanation? My good

friend and colleague in the video made some excellent points. The

issue about private land and addressing that which the

consultation has identified, timing is critical and 5000 postal workers

a year are reporting incidents of dog attacks. Nurses, doctors,

Communication Workers... The government needs to work with

greater speed. Some people might soap, is it a priority to push this

legislation through rather than any other? There is a cost to it,

treatment from the NHS. People losing time to prove such injuries.

I think the government can find time if they wish. They have found

time for more controversial issues in recent months. I am sure they

could if the will was there. There is the issue of the enforcement as

well which is critical. Briefly, isn't microchipping a sledgehammer

to crack a nut? What you've just going to end up prosecuting people

rather than the ones who would not bother? The bottom line is this.

Something must be done. We have consulted on this and it has cross-

party agreement. I think it is a good thing that the government is

finally sorting this matter up. Thank you very much for now.

Almost half of all people in the North East living in social or

rented accommodation are judged by the Government to be in houses that

are too big for them. That's the highest number in England. The

Government wants to encourage them to move to smaller properties. So,

from April, working-age families will be assessed for the number of

bedrooms they actually need and will have their benefits reduced by

up to a quarter if they have too many extra rooms. Mark Denten

reports. This family at home in their three-

bedroom semi-. Two sons and mum and dad. You could not get two people

in either bedroom unless there were on beds. The double bedroom is

ideal for a married couple. We have not got a sitting room either.

Officially they have an under occupied house. Because the boys

are under 16, they should be sharing a room. From April, they

face a housing benefit cut of �48 a month. It is no good starting to

take everything off the lower incomes. I have found at least 20

families the same as us who have got two children who are in three

or four-bedroom houses and they are getting hit as well. From April,

they will be among 50,000 people in the north-east affected by the

government's new under occupancy charge. The critics call it the

bedroom tax. The idea is to shave �23 billion off the housing benefit

bill. How will it work? If people have won a spare room their housing

benefit will be cut by 14%. If they have to spare rooms, 25% cut. The

government is giving councils an extra �30 million to help people

cope with the extra cost. That does not convince these people. These

campaigners of pensioners and veterans of the poll tax protests.

They will not be affected by the latest changes but so they have a

duty to make young people aware of them. When they get the money in

April, the children will be flawed. You cannot blame people if riots

occur because sometimes that is the only way to get across how you feel.

How can people cope with the loss of income? You have the right to

live way you want to live. government supporters say changing

the policy his fur. Too much emphasis has been placed on certain

people claiming Hammett which it will cost and to stay in the house

they are in -- claiming how much it will cost them. They are families

in crowded accommodation. latest part of this debate is an

MP's breakfast. Normally I'd cooked porridge with milk but this has

been cooked with water. She has to spend a week living on �18. That is

how much front of her constituents will be left with. It is completely

impossible to eat a balanced diet. I ran out of money on Sunday. There

was nothing left to eat. I would say to her that I wait for her to

do something to assist families in overcrowded accommodation. Whose

responsibility is that? It is the responsibility of the last Labour

government. The ministers insist many

overcrowded families will benefit but hard choices must be made when

housing is limited. There is a hard choice for people like this family

too. Pay extra or move out. It is easy to talk about people

losing money. But you are less keen to talk about the people who this

will help, the thousands of people in overcrowded accommodation.

is an easy solution to that. Cap the rents and build more social

housing. There is not enough. We are spending �24 billion on housing

benefit and only �1 billion on building new social and affordable

houses. There is a huge disparity there. Is it Labour's failure to

build enough homes in the first place? I except it was a failure

and we need to address it. This government have done nothing to cap

dramatically increasing rents in the private sector. I have cases,

1300 people affected in my constituency alone, they have been

driven from effectively council housing from the social housing

sector into the private sector, in two smaller accommodation which is

more expensive. It is perverse that the government are forcing them to

do this. Isn't the overcrowding argument a red herring? This is a

cynical method of cutting the Housing Bill. Most people will not

want to move. As you rightly highlighted, we inherited a housing

crisis. There is not enough social housing and that is why we are

trying to build more and we have reformed the planning laws and

there is over a billion pounds going into social housing. We are

addressing the lack of houses. I have 12,000 people in

Northumberland, thousands in my own constituency, they are seeking

social accommodation. If there are people with a 2, 3, four-bedroom

houses and they are not using all of the bedrooms, those people have

got a choice. Fever they pay the difference themselves -- either

they pay the difference themselves or move. This is a circular

argument. They are not enough homes but where will the people move to?

All of the housing associations say, we have not got the stock to put

people in. I spoke to the housing association that that family are

concerned with and they are working with all of their local people and

they say they have consulted with them and they are working with them.

We have got �50 million of the local authorities... That is a tiny

amount when you consider the thousands of houses. It is with the

�390 million that came with the scheme. That is a discretionary

thing. The money is there. accusation might be that your

labour... Are you worrying people when there is help on hand if

councils choose to lose it? There is not enough help and there are

groups significantly disadvantaged. The disabled, elderly couples.

know they are exempt. They are not exempt. That is not correct. There

are groups serving in the armed forces... I think this is a huge

issue. There are 34 protests and demonstrations across the country

plan for 16th March including a couple in our region that I will be

joining. Is this not just actually getting people on benefits to join

the real world? If anybody not on benefits has to pay for a bigger

house, they have to play a bigger price. Many of the people

advocating this policy on the Conservative front bench don't know

anyone who is unemployed or disabled. Someone on jobseeker's

allowance on �71 a week faced with paying an additional �22 a week.

How can they find that money? This is a social justice issue. Is this

a poll tax moment? No. This is addressing a housing benefit that

cost 20 Billy -- �23 billion which the Labour government accepted we

have to deal with. Subsidies paid to people. We would like the money

to be spent on more social housing, schools and hospitals. We will have

to leave it there. I apologise. I am sure it is a subject we will

come back to. Now, who should look after people

who are on probation? In the past it's been the Probation Service.

But now the Government wants to allow private firms and charities

to supervise low and medium-risk offenders. If they manage to keep

them out of trouble, they'll be paid for their success. It's the

same model used in the Government's controversial work programme. But

does it put public safety at risk? You do not want to take a backward

step. You want to help yourself and maybe help your family, you have

got to have somebody to talk to and somebody 2.2 in the right direction.

This month spent time in prison after being charged with affray. On

release, he came back to Carlisle to try and start again.

probation service helped me secure somewhere to live. If you come out

cold, you may fall back into the place you were before you went in.

The government proposals would see the rehabilitation of people like

this man passed to private firms or charities. That is 70% of cases.

People who have repeatedly shot lifted to those who have been

involved in domestic violence. The plans have been met with strong

opposition from Cumbria's police and crime commissioner. He stood as

the Conservative candidate in elections. He is also the former

chairman of the county's probation trust. When I stood for election, I

was led to believe I would be in charge of the commissioning of all

services related to criminal justice in Cumbria. This appears

not to be the case because the government has said it is going to

commission services centrally. I ask the question, hype can I be

held to account for criminal levels in Cumbria of a service which I

have no part in the commissioning process? -- How can I be held to

account? The plans have been described as dreadful over off.

Another man says they are risky and flawed. The commissioner elsewhere

says the reforms pose a major risk to public safety. In North

Yorkshire, the commissioner has worries about the payment by

results element. It comes after Chris grayling describe PCCs as the

blue in his rehabilitation revolution. Is the revolution about

to come unstuck -- the blue in the revolution. I do not think the

scheme will put local delivery at risk. It should bring best practice

in. People who are interested in getting reoffending down have

nothing to fear. Probation trusts in the north-east and Cumbria so

they do not fear competition and want to see fewer people committing

crimes of course but they question the proposed methods of reducing

reoffending. Our decisions are made on a basis of public interest and

if the payment by results model is introduced, I am concerned the

decisions may be made on a different basis. To make decisions

in the public interest, you need to no you public. If it is run by a

company that is down in London or event in Manchester, it is quite

faceless. Cumbria it is a wide rural community. They do not know

the ins and outs of it. This is a hare-brained idea.

Trusting private companies with little or no experience to

supervise sex offenders, perpetrators of domestic violence.

I have written a book on this issue and I have spent 20 years working

with probation offenders. I have prosecuted nine murder trials and

seen the way probation work and they do a good job. But to so they

cannot have some competition... of their cases. Seven out of 10

people who leave prison reoffend. If you think that is a good

statistic, I do not. I just want to pick up on the statistic because

that includes people who have been sentenced to less than a year which

probation have nothing to do with. Yes, they do. People who leave

prison need mentoring. What they have not got at the moment is that.

It should be provided, not just by probation, but by charities who are

already working in the sector. Some do a great job providing literacy

and the bridge between custody and real life outside. There is great

scope for this to work and we talk about the two years to work through

the proposals, there has been a consultation. As the probation

service said, they do not fear competition. What is so great about

the current system if the reoffending rates... I do not think

there is no justification for privatising this. The probation

service has won a national award. The Minister presented the award to

them and spoke in glowing terms about their performance and their

satisfaction of victims and the reduction of the reoffending rates.

Why can't somebody do well or if not better? This is usually risky

because they are talking about low and medium risk prisoners and that

is people who are burglars, drug users, people involved in domestic

violence. There something goes wrong as it has with the

government's work programme that was piloted over the last year also

and in fact be success rate has been about 3.6% getting people into

work, severely criticised, very expensive, payment by results. It

is unfortunate if someone cannot find a job, but if it is in the

justice system, it is rather more dangerous. Answer that criticism.

Payment by results introduced by the Labour government. Doncaster

prison is the most successful payment by results prison in the

country. They should be supporting it. This is a Frankenstein version

of payment by results and it is extremely risky in terms of public

safety. They run prisons. That is what they do. Thank you very much.

Those of you old enough to remember Mrs Thatcher will certainly recall

one of her most controversial policies - selling off council

houses. David Cameron has revived the idea. With that and the rest of

the week's political news, here's Mark Denten.

A council is to reduce funding and asks volunteers to run five of its

libraries. Civil suffer failures over the West Coast Rail contract

will cost tax payers millions of pounds.

The number of people buying their own council house under the right-

to-buy scheme is at its highest since 2007. The government wants to

encourage more sales. I am keen to ensure that whoever you are,

whichever part of the country, if you want to do this, you should be

able to and we will support you very strongly. Another council has

scrapped plans to introduce parking charges. More than 2000 objections.

The former Bishop of Durham has taken his seat in the Lords. The

name of the new bishop is expected to be renounced in the summer -- be

announced in the summer. That is about all from us. Next

week, I will be reporting from Norway. Finding out if the