02/06/2013 Sunday Politics North East and Cumbria

Here, what impact will changes to legal aid have? And the plan to

make pubs and clubs pay towards the cost of policing late-night

Apology for the loss of subtitles for 2438 seconds

A seasonal welcome to your local part of the show for the North-East

and Cumbria. We are talking about changes to legal aid. Will it make

it harder to get access to justice? And a new plan to make pubs and

clubs in Newcastle paid towards the cost of policing late-night

drinking. It could drive them out of business? Our MPs have either

been on holiday or back in their constituencies. The Commons has

only SAT for around 150 days in the last 12 months. Is that too much

time spent away from the Westminster world? I can't remember

any government, including a Labour one, wanting to keep MPs that

Parliament. The longer they can keep us of Parliament, the better

for them. It's hard for the public to understand. You are there, then

you are back in the constituency. Should you be spending more time in

Parliament? Yes, I think we should be there more that we are. It's

nice to be back in your constituency, but we can now, it's

more relaxed than it was when I first work in politics, we were

there until Friday, but now we usually get away on the Thursday.

In your constituency on a Friday doing your best work in your

constituency. As I said before, I think it is a case of trying to

keep members of parliament away from Parliament, so they can get on

with business. Were MPs less trouble to you in Westminster or

kicking about the constituency? public might give an interesting

view on whether the MPs of the strivers or the skivers and this

debate. I would probably want them away from Parliament. There's a

parallel for councillors, where Newcastle City Council, the civic

centre, it's a bit of a ghost town these days compared to the days

when I first started. There seems to be less opportunity for people

to come together and debate policy, and that is what politicians are

there for. Our top story this week, Newcastle may be among the first

cities in the country to start charging pubs and clubs that supply

alcohol after midnight. The money raised from the late night levy

would be spent on the cost of city centre policing and keeping the

streets clean. Other councils, including York and Durham, are also

considering the idea. But the owners of licensed premises say

they already pay their taxes and the new charge could put them out

of business. It's almost opening time at Newcastle's head of steam

pub. But being open almost all hours could soon mean it paying the

late night Levy, a charge was serving alcohol after midnight.

late night levy, as we and other operators see it, is an extra cost

on our rates, or business rates, which we already pay. Under plans

by Newcastle City Council, many licensed premises opening after

midnight could be charged between �300 to �4,400 a year depending on

their size. This money, an estimated �400,000 a year, would be

split, with 70 % going to the police and 30 % to the council. The

money would be used to meet the cost of policing, cleaning up and

taking measures to cut down on problem drinking. So far no

councils in England and Wales have adopted a late-night levy, but

Newcastle could be among the first to do so. Something that could mean

some bars, pubs and clubs closing their doors forever. A at the head

of steam, we have a 3am licence and are basically a nightclub. What

would happen as a result, if we were to say, well, we can't afford

to pay that, we will take it back to 12 o'clock. This pub is not

profitable at all. It's not a case of being able to look for the levy,

it becomes unprofitable because the majority of our trade is in the

late night economy. Late night being after 11pm. We couldn't

sustain the business. Newcastle has a reputation as a party city, with

tens of thousands of revellers flocking to it on many nights.

While that means the police have to be out on the streets and the

cancer has to spend money to clean them, it also brings in millions of

pounds to the economy. So is the council just after a slice of that

cash, and is in danger of bringing the party to an end in party city?

The business rates are not necessarily returned to the council.

We have massive budget reductions come and we need to maintain the

environment. It's important that many people still want to invest in

the city because of its reputation of being safe. We want this money

to be used for maintaining that. There's no suggestion that this

money will be used for anything else. If the levy is introduced, it

is the police who will get the largest slice of it. Now many club

and bar owners are asking how one where that money would be spent and

who would benefit from it? Stopping crime and disorder, trying to limit

alcohol-related crime. There is a bit of a peak in the hours after

midnight of some alcohol-related offending. We would probably want

to tackle that, as they were themselves. That, I guess, is how

the levy would be used if it is executed. I can absolutely

guarantee that it's going to come back to Newcastle if it comes out.

A good night out doesn't come cheap. Newcastle city council argues a

late-night levy, but could be introduced in November if given the

go-ahead, would help to pay for it. But some bar owners say it would

simply squeeze them dry. The manner represents many of the pubs and

clubs in Newcastle who will have to pay this charges Damian Conway, and

he's here now. Anyone who's been in city centres at night know there's

a huge policing operation needed, a Mr Kinnock afterwards. Why not

contribute a small amount towards those costs? Firstly, there are

very high rates being paid by pretty much every business in the

city centre. The business rates are very high. But you are creating a

particular problem with the policing that is needed and the

clean-up, which isn't caused, for instance, by a department store.

That's true, but one of our managers said recently, we pay

�130,000 a year in rates and we don't even get our Vincenti to. I

can see where that pub manager is, object into paying more money in

towards the council. Some of this money will go to the police to

anti-crime initiatives, to ameliorate the impact of crimes

related to alcohol, that is a good thing to contribute to. Yes, but

there are already good relationships that most responsible

licensees have with the police in the city centre. Our head dormant

meet with the police every week to try and work with them to work out

how we can reduce crime and disorder, who should be barred from

the premises and general initiatives to do with many things

are. Secondly, every two months... I accept you are making efforts to

be good citizens, but you are trying to say it will drive you out

of business. This is �13 a night. If a pub is operating on that sort

of margin, it's going to go out of business anyway. We are trying hard

to keep our operations are open. We employed a lot of people...

really be closed by this? They may not be closed but staff will have

their hours reduced or we will have less staff. We employ a lot of

people at other industries won't employee, because young people and

youth unemployment is a problem. David Faulkner, you are a Newcastle

councillor, is this a good idea or not? It's a finely balanced

argument. The night-time economy supplies about 7000 jobs in the

city. We are getting a promotion of Newcastle as a party city that we

were trying to put behind us. It is putting the emphasis on what

happens after midnight and what happens as a result of alcohol and

clubs and pubs. My board of Newcastle is a more balanced city,

a more diverse offer than that. It bothers me a bit that we might be

on the one hand putting too much emphasis on party city. On the

other hand, I think there's an argument that if you are a member

of the public and in your neighbourhood your bins are being

emptied less frequently, you pass - - grass is being cut Les Bikubi

because it's hard times for the council, and the public purse

generally is having to pay extra for the consequences of late-night

drinking, that people might reasonably say, yes, I'm in favour

of it. That might be my view, on balance. Is this a tax or a

sensible idea? I'm on the side of the pubs. We've seen many closing

at a rate of knots. Although Newcastle has a good reputation for

a city, I hear London people talking about going up for a

weekend in Newcastle, so we've got to keep that reputation, it's good

for the area to keep people coming in. Whether this levy will do what

it says it will do is another matter. Newcastle United Football

Club have to pay for policing or towards policing, I don't think

they paid all, but they do have to pay towards policing. That could be

a point. I do realise they do pay a lot of rates. Labour introduced 24

hour drinking, it is supposed to be a cafe culture. Do you see much

evidence of that in Blyth or beyond? I think the pubs have had a

rough ride in recent years. We should have had the minimum price.

I think it's the wrong target. The problem is with pre-loading. I take

the point that the bars have had a rough time, but I think the pre-

loading issue and minimum pricing is something that's got come back

onto the agenda quickly, because that's one of the real reasons why

our towns... In the meantime, this is a charge that is being put in.

Is the coalition to blame for this? My view is the 2003 Licensing Act

has proved, in retrospect, to be wrong. Everything that councils

have done since is to try and claw back back somehow, to deal with and

mitigate the consequences of not quite 24 hour but almost 24 hour

drinking, and what is happening in our streets. For people to want a

drink outside the hours of 11pm, is that unreasonable? No, it's not,

but it can sometimes be quite unpleasant and intimidating after

11pm in city centres. I understand the cost of the police, just like

Newcastle United, they have to pay as well. It's the same argument

with the pubs. Are they going to put the levy back into the drink,

is that where it is going? Where does this stop? You could accuse

pizza places and Tiger Webb places of littering the city centre.

should be using this kind of thing to encourage best practice. The

legislation allows exemptions and reductions. Reductions could take

place if we have a new Best Practice Scheme that we get

everybody, not just a few pubs and clubs, to sign up double stop them

they can be reductions and it is something where everybody benefits.

His access to justice been put under threat by government changes

to legal aid? That is the claim from the Law Society and some

Labour MPs in the region. Under the plans, defendants will lose the

chance to have the solicitor of their choice represent them at a

police station or in court. But ministers say representation will

be available, but there is definitely a need to reduce the

legal aid bill, which costs more than �1 billion a year. This is a

relieved young woman. Last year she was wrongly accused of assault, an

accusation which threatened to enter hopes of becoming a nurse.

She came to this local firm in Middlesbrough for Health, secured

legal aid and last week was cleared. It was horrendous. I wouldn't wish

it on my worst enemy. The anxiety and stress, and it's not just for

myself, it was for my family. The firm really put everything into the

court case to make sure that the truth did come out, so that I could

go and be a nurse and finish my degree. But under the new plans,

people like this will not be able to choose who represents them.

Instead, they will be allocated a solicitor who has had to compete a

new legal-aid contract. Those contracts will cut lawyers legal-

aid fees by at least 17.5 %, and in some cases by 30 %. This firm

believes that will kill off the traditional local solicitor. If it

goes, I'll be going, as will most of my colleagues, I'm certain.

These proposals are not survivable for the vast majority of the legal

profession in this country. If these proposals come in, our

position at the forefront of regal reputation will disappear overnight.

Who might fill that gap? Amongst possible bidders are supposed --

G4S and Eddie Stobart. That is worrying existing lawyers, has a

place in private at the centre of legal-aid could undermine the

justice system. You have entities which will be coming into this from

the direction of wanting to make money out of it, and purely for

that reason. We know that the costs and the levels of remuneration will

be driven so low, that people would be able to spend the time that they

are currently spending. Even now, often without renumeration, to go

that extra length to make sure people are properly represented.

The government has said it is consulting on proposals and will

listen to concerns. But it says the legal aid bill of �1 billion a year

is far too high and needs to be cut. I have to find the right balance

between delivering Justice, delivering a system where everyone

has lawyers to defend them, but at the same time making sure we bring

down costs to spend money elsewhere. If it's a choice of spending more

on the health service or more on the legal system, most people would

say they want the health service. Middlesbrough MP Andy Macdonald

sits on that just a select committee, which is about to

examine the government plans. proposals will transform the

provision of criminal legal aid. There are concerns about freedom of

choice, access issues. It seems peculiar that we seem to be so

insistent about choice in health and education but here we are doing

away with toys. There are grave concerns about the future of

justice in this country. government insists the legal-aid

bill must come down. But while cutting the cost of justice will

certainly had lawyers, is every chance that innocent people could

pay the heaviest price? Ronnie Campbell, of the government is

right, this legal-aid bill is far too high and its right to make

changes to save money. If this government did put as much in as to

what we are putting in the legal aid thing and get companies and

multinationals to pay their tax, you wouldn't need the �1 billion.

What do you make of the changes to legal aid? Should they cut the

budget? Of course not. You'll have a big company, it's got a tender,

and they are going to give you a solicitor. I've got one, two in

Berrett, four in Blyth, none in Cramlington. I can see them, when

these big companies come in and get the tender in, I can see the local

solicitors, who are not fat cats, disappearing, because they won't

get the business, the business will go to the fat cats, who will make a

killing. Presumably, if its cuts to the bill, you would rather see

money spent on the health service and on legal aid. It one of my

constituents and - not once a solicitor and has to go to Durham,

Sunderland or even Middlesbrough, how is he going to get to see his

solicitor, the one he's been allocated to under this system? It

is stupidity. Should Liberal Democrats in government oppose

this? We should aim to change it. The way it is is unsatisfactory in

my view. To remove choice is disadvantageous. People will build

up a relationship between lawyers, solicitors and clients, and that

would be lost because it would just be whoever you get allocated. That

is a disadvantage. But I do understand, of course, this point

about legal-aid in this country, it costs far more than other countries

with comparative systems. What is the alternative? I support some of

the proposals. For example, the whole idea that anybody who has

disposable income of over �37,500 should not get legal aid is quite

right. They shouldn't. That's one of the reasons why the money is

being sucked out of the system so much in past times. There's also an

issue around while legal cases go on for so long, and therefore the

cost of legal-aid gets clocked up and clocked up. Something must be

done about that. I don't know if the answer is to deal with the

client. It needs to be changed. What is so bad about someone being

allocated a lawyer? It's the access to their lawyer. If the little

lawyers in Blyth or anywhere else in Northumberland go bust, then

that client has to go to wherever that law years. He may be miles

away. He might not be able to afford... The government have said,

this is the way it has to be structured, perhaps they need to be

fewer firms to make the money saved. There has been a lot of people

getting legal-aid who could afford to pay for themselves. They could

look at that one again, certainly. But what about the people who can't

afford to pay? You are stopping them from getting their justice.

They will be working with a solicitor, they don't know who he

is, they may have to travel miles to see him. It's just not on.

would like to see this piloted in a region, because it is a big change

and we need to see the consequences. Isn't this far too typical of

coalition policy? You think of something that will save money but

you don't listen to the people telling you it is a mistake and you

don't put it on trial. You would expect the legal profession to say

it is a mistake. You understand their position. But the response to

the consultation hasn't finished. The Desta Select Committee are

looking at it. They will have a view, which I hope will be taken

account of. All parties agree, Jack Straw as Lord Chancellor in 2009

agreed that they had to be some change to the system. It doesn't

guarantee quality now. It just doesn't mean because you've got

1600 firms of solicitors involved instead of 400 that your quality is

going to be better. What about Eddie Stobart making money out of

it? When you've got a town of Bardon Mill, you have a few

solicitors competing for what they need to do. They keep competing on

their prices are competitive. These solicitors are not fat cats. They

are just trying to make a living. No parliament this week, but

there's still plenty going on. A plan to turn a private school into

an Academy has hit trouble. King's School in Tynemouth says staff

support the idea, but North Tyneside council says the impact

upon other schools in the area must be more fully considered. North-

East suffragette Emily Davison was knocked down by the King's horse at

the Epsom Derby, 100 years ago. She later died of her injuries and is

buried in Morpeth. Penny Pryce- Jones is helping to organise events

and says her influence is still strongly felt. She highlighted that

women were highly intelligent. It was society and not them that were

limiting what was possible. Councillors in Carlisle have been

paying tribute to Joe Hendry, who died on Thursday following a heart

attack. He was also leader of Carlisle's Labour group will start

a campaign group which aims to put cycling at the heart of the

Government's transport agenda is meeting in Newcastle this weekend.

The Cycling Embassy of Great Britain wants new investment to

improve road safety. Finally, our tweet of the week comes from

Carlisle MP John Stephenson. He had this message for his Twitter

followers on Wednesday. Legs strapped, pills pop, only 300 miles

to go. He actually spent the week Cycling 1000 miles from Land's End

to John o'Groats for charity. I'll be treating this week, but strictly