09/02/2014 Sunday Politics North East and Cumbria

morning, folks, welcome to the Sunday Politics. Rising flood water,

a battered coastline, the winter Sunday Politics. Rising flood water,

storms forced the Government to take control. Is it hanging the

Environment Agency out to dry? Embarrassment for the Government is

the Immigration Minister resigns after he discovered he was

a cleaner with no right to work here a cleaner with no right to work here

for seven years. Ed Miliband a cleaner with no right to work here

promised an end to what he called the machine politics of union fixes

in the Labour Party, just doesn't feel right.

In London after two days of disruption in the capital the Mayor

Boris Johnson will be talking to ask about strife on the Underground All

of that and after a week of very public coalition spats can David

Cameron and Nick Clegg keep the coalition show on the road? Two

senior party figures will go head to head. And with me, Helen Lewis, Nick

Watt and Iain Martin who would not know they Somerset Levels from their

Norfolk Broads, but that will not stop them tweeting their thoughts.

We start with the strange Case of the Immigration Minister, his

cleaner and some lost documents Yesterday Mark Harper tendered his

resignation, telling the media he had discovered the cleaner who

worked for him for seven years did not have the right to work in the

UK. The Communities Secretary Eric Pickles said he had done the

honourable thing. I was sad to see him go, he was a strong minister.

Had he been a member of the public he would not have done anything

wrong, but he set himself a very high standard and he felt that

standard and honourably stood down. This would seem like a good

resignation, maybe unlike the Baroness Scotland one years ago on a

similar issue, but have we been told the full story? We wait to see that.

Labour have picked up saying he is an honourable man, that the reason

why he resigned is these very owners checks that landlords and employers

will have to perform on employees over their documentation. The most

interesting line is that, we do not require them to be experts or spot

anything other than an obvious forgery. The suggestion that there

is the document he was presented with originality, which he lost was

on home office paper and was perhaps not entirely accurate. That is the

embarrassment. He is the minister putting through a bill that will

demand tougher checks on people and he himself did not do enough checks

to discover she was illegal. There is an odd bit where he involves the

home office later to check her out as well. He writes a resignation

letter and he has to hold himself to pay higher standard. He has done the

David Laws approach to this, resign quickly and he can come back. David

Cameron wants him to return swiftly to the frontbenchers. He is a state

school educated lad. He is the kind of Tory that the Tories are in short

supply of. He is a rising star. I would caution on this idea that it

is customary that whenever anyone resigns, it is always thought they

will come straight back into office. If only the outside world worked

like that. It is not, in a company if the HR person resigns, he is such

a great chap he will be back next week. There is a silver lining for

David Cameron is he has been able to move Harriet Bond up as he moves

everyone up. But nobody will see her in the whips office because she is

not allowed to appear on television. And if you three want to resign Do

not hate you are coming back next week. But we will do it with honour.

It has been a hellish week for residents of coastal areas with more

storms bringing more flooding and after Prince Charles visited the

Somerset Levels on Tuesday the Government has been keen to show it

has got a grip on the situation at last.

For last weekend's Sunday Politics I made the watery journey to the

village of Muchelney, cut off for a whole month. Now everyone has been

dropping in. First it was Prince Charles on a park bench pulled by a

tractor. He waded into the row about how the floods have been handled.

Next it was the chair of the Environment Agency, Lord Smith, who

faced angry residents. Sought the river is out. That is precisely what

we are going to do. Where he faced, a resident, he did not need that

many. David Cameron went for a look as well and gave the region what it

wanted, more pumps, more money and in the long-term the return of

dredging. There are lessons to learn. The pause in bridging that

took place from the late 1990s was wrong and we need to get dredging

again. When the water levels come down and it is safe to dredge, we

will dredging to make sure these rivers and stitches can carry a

better capacity. The Environment Secretary Owen Paterson has not been

seen again because he is recovering from emergency eye surgery. In the

meantime the floodwaters rose ever higher. Some residents were told to

evacuate. In Devon the railway was washed away by the waves leaving a

big gap in the network. Look at the weather this weekend. If you can

believe it, the storms keep rolling in. What is the long-term solution

for flood prone areas of the country? I am joined from Oxford by

the editor of The Ecologist magazine, Oliver Tickell, and by

local MP Tessa Munt. Tessa, let me come to you first. What do you now

want the Government to do? I want it to make sure it does exactly as it

promises and delivers what every farmer and landowner around here

knows should have been done for years. First, to solve the problems

we have right now, but to make sure there is money in the bank for us to

carry on doing the maintenance that is necessary. Was it a mistake not

to do the dredging? When the waters start to subside does dredging

become a key part of this? Yes, of course. It is something the farmers

have been asking for four years When you wander along a footpath by

a river and you see trees growing and there is 60% of the capacity

only because there is silt, it needs to have a pretty dramatic action

right now and then we need to make sure the maintenance is ongoing

Oliver Tickell, was it a mistake to stop the dredging? If the dredging

had happened, the land would not be covered in water for so long?

Clearly it is necessary to do at least some dredging on these rivers

and in particular because these rivers are well above ground level.

They are carrying water that comes down off the hills well above the

level of the flood plain on the Somerset Levels. They naturally tend

to silt up. But the key thing is that is only a small part of the

overall solution. What we need is a catchment wide approach to improve

infiltration upstream and you also need to manage the flood plain on

the levels and upstream so as to have active flood plain that can

store water. This idea it is just about dredging is erroneous.

Dredging is a part of it, but it is a catchment wide solution. Dredging

is only a small part of the solution he says. Yes, of course it is. But

look here. With the farmer is locally, the landowners, they know

this land will carry water for a few weeks of the year, that is not a

problem. But this water has to be taken away and there is a very good

system of drainage and it works perfectly well. In my area there are

serious problems because the dredging has not taken place. There

are lunatic regulations around were when they do do some of dredging,

the Environment Agency is asked to take it away because it is

considered toxic waste. This is barmy. We need to take the stuff out

of the rivers and build the banks up so we create protection in the

future. We have to make sure the dredging is done but make sure the

drainage works well and we have pumps in places and we have

floodgates put onto the rivers. We need to make sure repairs are done

more quickly. All right, let me go back to Oliver Tickell. Is it not

the case a lot of people on your side of the argument would like to

see lands like the Somerset Levels return to natural habitat? Looe I

would like a degree of that, but that does not mean the whole place

needs to turn into wilderness so it will remain agricultural landscape.

Everybody, all the interested parties who signed up to a document

called vision 2034 the Somerset Levels envisages most of the area of

the Somerset Levels being turned over to extensive grassland and that

is what it is best suited for. Let me put that to Tessa Munt. Have you

signed up to this where you will end up with extensive grassland? I have

seen it, but grass does not grow if water is sitting on this land for

weeks and weeks. What you have to remember is a lot of the levels are

managed very carefully and they are conservation land and that means

cattle are allowed to go out at certain times of the year and in

certain numbers. It is well managed. Do you accept it should return to

grassland? Grassland, fine, but you cannot call land grassland in the

flipping water is on it so long that nothing grows. It is no good at

doing that. You have got to make sure it is managed properly.

Drainage has been taking place on this land for centuries. It is the

case the system is there, but it needs to be maintained properly and

we have to have fewer ridiculous regulations that stop action. Last

year the flooding minister agreed dredging should take place and

everything stopped. Now we have got the promise from the Prime Minister

and I thank Prince Charles for that. Is it not time to let the local

people run their land rather than being told what to do by the

Environment Agency, central Government and the European Union?

The internal drainage boards have considerable power in all of this.

They wanted to dredge and they were not allowed to. The farmers want to

dredge that is what is going to happen, but they have signed up to a

comprehensive vision of catchment management and of environmental

improvement turning the Somerset Levels into a world-class haven for

wildlife. It is not much good if your house is underwater. The

farmers themselves, the RSPB, the drainage boards, they have all

signed up to this. The real question now is how do we implement that

vision? You give the money to the drainage boards. At the moment they

pay 27% of their money and have been doing so for years and years and

this is farmers' money and it has been going to the drainage boards

and they pay the Environment Agency who are meant to be dredging and

that has not happened. We have to leave it there. We have run out of

time. Last week saw the Labour Party

adopts an historic change with its relationship with the unions.

Changes to the rules that propelled Ed Miliband to the top. Ed Miliband

was elected Labour leader in 20 0 by the electoral college system which

gives unions, party members and MPs one third of votes each. This would

be changed into a simpler one member, one vote system. A union

member would have to become an affiliated member of the party. They

would have to opt in and pay ?3 a year. But the unions would have 50%

of the vote at the conference and around one third of the seats on the

National executive committee. The proposals are a financial gamble as

well. It is estimated the party could face a drop in funding of up

to ?5 million a year when the changes are fully implemented in

five years. The leader of the Unite trade union has welcomed the report

saying it is music to his ears. The package will be voted on at a

special one of conference in March. And the Shadow Business Secretary

Chuka Umunna joins me now for the Sunday Interview. Welcome back. In

what way will the unions have less power and influence in the Labour

Party? This is about ensuring individual trade union members have

a direct relationship with the Labour Party. At the moment the

monies that come to us are decided at a top level, the general

secretaries determine this, whether the individual members want us to be

in receipt of those monies or not so we are going to change that so that

affiliation fees follow the consent of individual members. Secondly we

want to make sure the individual trade union members, people who

teach our children, power via - fantastic British businesses, we

want them to make an active choice, and we are also recognising that in

this day and age not everybody wants to become a member of a political

party. We haven't got much time The unions still have 50% of the vote at

Labour conferences, there will be the single most important vote, more

member -- union members will vote than nonunion members, their power

has not diminished at all, has it? In relation to the other parts of

the group of people who will be voting in a future leadership

contest, we are seeking to move towards more of a one member, one

vote process. At the moment we have the absurd situation where I, as a

member of Parliament, my vote will count for 1000. MPs are losing. .

They still have a lot of power. I am a member of the GMB union and the

Unite union, also a member of the Fabians as well so I get free votes

on top of my vote as a member of Parliament. We are moving to a

system where I will have one vote and that is an important part of

this. You asked how many people would be casting their votes. The

old system, up to 2.8 million ballot papers were sent out with prepaid

envelopes for people to return their papers were sent out with prepaid

turnout. The idea that you are going to see a big change... Even if

your individual party members. In one vital way, your purse strings,

your individual party members. In the unions will be more powerful

than ever because at the moment they have to hand over 8 million to

than ever because at the moment they fraction of that now. They will get

to keep that money, but then come the election you go to them and give

them a lot of money -- and they will have you then. They won't have us,

as you put it! The idea that individual trade union members don't

have their own view, their own voice, and just do what their

general secretaries do is absurd. They will make their own decision,

and we want them to make that and not have their leadership decide

that for them. Let me go to the money. The Labour Party manifesto

will be reflecting the interests of Britain, and the idea that somehow

people can say we are not going to give you this money unless you do

this or that, we will give you a policy agenda which is appropriate

for the British people, regardless of what implications that may have

financially. They will have more seats than anybody else in the NEC

and they will hold the purse strings. They will be the

determining factor. They won't be. Unite is advocating a 70% rate of

income tax, there is no way we will have that in our manifesto. Unite is

advocating taking back contracts and no compensation basis, we would not

-- there is no way we would do that. How many chief executives of the

FTSE 100 are backing Labour? We have lots of chief executives backing

Labour. I don't know the exact number. Ed Miliband has just placed

an important business person in the House of Lords, the former chief

executive of the ITV, Bill Grimsey. How many? You can only name one

Bill Grimsey, there is also John Mills. Anyone who is currently

chairman of the chief executive With the greatest respect, you are

talking about less than half the percent of business leaders in our

country, we have almost 5 million businesses, not all FTSE 100

businesses, not all listed, and we are trying to get people from across

the country of all different shapes and sizes. Let's widen it to the

FTSE 250. That is 250 out of 5 million companies. The largest ones,

they make the profits and provide the jobs. Two thirds of private

sector jobs in this country come from small and medium-sized

businesses, and small and medium-sized businesses are an

important part of a large companies supply chains. So you cannot name a

single chairman from the FTSE 2 0, correct? I don't know all the

chairman. Are you going to fight the next election without a single boss

of a FTSE 250 company? I have named some important business people, but

the most important thing is that we are not coming out with a manifesto

for particular interests, but for broader interest. Let me show you,

Digby Jones says Labour's policy is, "if it creates wealth, let's kick

it" . Another quote, that it borders on predatory taxation. They think

you are anti-business. I don't agree with them. One of the interesting

things about Sir Stuart's comments on the predatory taxation and I

think he was referring to the 5 p rate of tax is that he made some

comments arguing against the reduction of the top rate of tax

from 50p. He is saying something different now. Digby of course has

his own opinions, he has never been a member of the Labour Party. Let me

come onto this business of the top rate of tax, do you accept or don't

you that there is a point when higher rates of income tax become

counter-productive? Ultimately you want to have the lowest tax rates

possible. Do you accept there is a certain level you actually get less

money? I think ultimately there is a level beyond you could go which

would be counter-productive, for example the 75% rate of tax I

mentioned earlier, being advocated by Unite in France. Most French

higher earners will pay less tax than under your plans. I beg your

pardon, with the 50p? Under your proposals, people here will pay more

tax than French higher earners. If you are asking if in terms of the

level, you asked the question and I answered it, do I think if you reach

a level beyond which the tax burden becomes counter-productive, can I

give you a number what that would be, I cannot but let me explain -

the reason we have sought to increase its two 50p is that we can

get in revenue to reduce the deficit. In an ideal world you

wouldn't need a 50p rate of tax which is why during our time in

office we didn't have one, because we didn't have those issues. Sure,

though you cannot tell me how much the 50p will raise. In the three

years of operation we think it raised ?10 billion. You think. That

was based on extrapolation from the British library. It is at least

possible I would suggest, for the sake of argument, that when you

promise to take over half people's income, which is what you will do if

you get your way, the richest 1 currently account for 70 5% of all

tax revenues. -- 75%. Is it not a danger that if you take more out of

them, they will just go? I don't think so, we are talking about the

top 1% here. If you look at the directors of sub 5 million turnover

companies, the average managing director of that gets around

?87,000. Let me narrow it down to something else. Let's take the .1%

of top taxpayers, down to fewer than 30,000 people. They account for over

14% of all of the income tax revenues. Only 29,000 people. If

they go because you are going to take over half their income, you

have lost a huge chunk of your tax base. They could easily go, at

tipping point they could go. What we are advocating here is not

controversial. Those with the broadest shoulders, it is not

unreasonable to ask them to share the heavier burden. Can you name one

other major economy that subscribes to this? Across Europe, for example

in Sweden they have higher tax rates than us. Can you name one major

economy? I couldn't pluck one out of the air, I can see where you are

coming from, I don't agree with it. I think most people subscribe to the

fact that those with wider shoulders should carry the heavy a burden We

have run out of time but thank you for being here.

Over the past week it seems that Nick Clegg has activated a new Lib

Dem strategy - 'Get Gove'. After a very public spat over who should

head up the schools inspection service Ofsted, Lib Dem sources have

continued to needle away at the Education Secretary. And other

senior Lib Dems have also taken aim at their coalition partners. Here's

Giles Dilnot. It's unlikely the polite welcome of these school

children to Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg and his party colleague

schools minister David Laws would be so forthcoming right now from the

man in charge of schools Conservative Michael Gove. Mr Laws

is said to have been furious with The Education secretary over the

decision to remove Sally Morgan as chair of Ofsted. But those who know

the inner working of the Lib Dems say that's just understandable. When

you have the department not being consulted, it would be possible for

him to not publicly comment. The remarkable thing would be if he

hadn't said anything at all. We should be careful to understand this

is not always part of a preplanned decision. There is a growing sense

that inside Number Ten this is a concerted Lib Dem strategy, we also

understand there is no love lost between Nick Clegg and Michael Gove

to say the least, and a growing frustration that if the Lib Dems

think such so-called yellow and blue attacks can help them with the

election, they can also damage the long-term prospects of the Coalition

post 2015. One spat does not a divorce make but perhaps even more

significant has been Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander s

recent newspaper interview firmly spiking any room for George Osborne

to manoeuvre on lowering the highest income tax rate to 40p. All this

builds on the inclusion in Government at the reshuffle of

people like Norman Baker at the Home Office and Simon Hughes at Justice

people who are happier to publically express doubt on Conservative

policy, unlike say Jeremy Browne who was removed and who has made plain

his views on Coalition. It is difficult for us to demonstrate that

we are more socialist than an Ed Miliband Labour led party. Even if

we did wish to demonstrate it, doing it in coalition with the

Conservatives would be harder still. Nonetheless a differentiation

strategy was always likely as 2 15 approached, so is there evidence it

works? Or of the work we publish shows the Lib Dems have a huge

problem in terms of their distinctiveness, so attacking their

coalition partners or the Labour Party is helpful in showing what

they are against, but there are bigger problem is showing what they

are for. And one Conservative MP with access to Number Ten as part of

the PM's policy board says yellow on blue attacks are misplaced and

irresponsible. At this stage when all the hard work is being done and

the country is back on its feet the Lib Dems are choosing the time to

step away from the coalition. That is your position, but do you suspect

coming up to the next election we will see more of this? I think the

Lib Dems are about as hard to pin down as a weasel in Vaseline. And

with the public's view of politicians right now, and wants to

be seen as slicker than a well oiled weasel? And we have Lib Dem peer

Matthew Oakeshott and senior Conservative backbencher Bernard

Jenkin. Matthew, the Lib Dems are now picking fights with the Tories

on a range of issues, some of them trivial. Is this a Pirelli used to

Lib Dem withdrawal from the coalition? I do not know, I am not

privy to Nick Clegg's in strategy. Some of us have been independent for

some time. I resigned over treatment of the banks. That is now being

sorted out. But what is significant is we have seen a string of attacks,

almost an enemy within strategy When you have Nick Clegg, David Laws

and Danny Alexander, the three key people closest to the Conservatives,

when you see all of them attacking, and this morning Nick Clegg has had

a go at the Conservatives over drug policy. There is a string of

policies where something is going on. It is difficult to do an enemy

within strategy. I believe as many Lib Dems do that we should withdraw

from the coalition six months to one year before the election so we can

put our positive policies across rather than having this tricky

strategy of trying to do it from within. Why does David Cameron need

the Lib Dems? He probably does not. The country generally favoured the

coalition to start with. Voters like to see politicians are working

together and far more of that goes on in Westminster then we see. Most

of my committee reports are unanimous reports from all parties.

Why does he need them? I do not think he does. You would be happy to

see the Lib Dems go? I would always be happy to see a single minority

Government because it would be easier for legislation. The

legislation you could not get through would not get through

whether we were in coalition or not. The 40p tax rate, there

probably is not a majority in the House of Commons at the moment,

despite what Nick Clegg originally said. It does not make much

difference. What makes a difference from the perspective of the

committee I chair is historically we have had single party Government

that have collective responsibility and clarity. The reason that is

important is because nothing gets done if everybody is at sixes and

sevens in the Government. Everything stops, there is paralysis as the row

goes on. Civil servants do not know who they are working for. If it

carries on getting fractures, there is a bigger argument to get out If

it continues at this level of intensity of the enemy within

strategy as you have described it, can the coalition survived another

16 months of this? It is also a question should they. I never

thought I would say this, I agree with Bernard. Interestingly earlier

Chuka Umunna missed the point talking about business support.

Business is worried about this anti-European rhetoric and that is a

deep split between the Liberal Democrats and the UKIP wing of the

Tory party. That is really damaging and that is something we need to

make our own case separately on Do you get fed up when you hear

constant Lib Dem attacks on you What makes me fed up is my own party

cannot respond in kind because we are in coalition. I would love to

have this much more open debate I would like to see my own party

leader, for example as he did in the House of Commons, it was the Liberal

Democrats who blocked the referendum on the house of lords and if we want

to get this bill through it should be a Government bill. We know we can

get it through the Commons, but we need to get the Liberals out of the

Government so they stop blocking the Government putting forward a

referendum bill. And put millions of jobs at risk? I am not going down

the European road today. It strikes me that given that the attacks from

the Lib Dems are now coming from the left attacking the Tories, is this a

representative of the failure of Nick Clegg's strategy to rebuild a

centrist Liberal party and he now accepts the only way he can save as

many seats as he can do is to get the disillusioned left Lib Dem

voters to come back to the fold The site is we have lost over half our

vote at the last election and at the moment there is no sign in the polls

of it coming back and we are getting very close to the next election I

welcome it if Nick Clegg is starting very close to the next election I

to address that problem, but talking about the centre is not the answer.

Most Liberal Democrat voters at the last election are radical,

progressive people who want to see a much fairer Britain and a much less

divided society and we must make sure we maximise our vote from

there. We know what both of you want, but what do you think will

happen? Do you think this coalition will survive all the way to the

election or will it break up beforehand? I think it will break up

beforehand. Our long-term economic plan is working. The further changes

in policies we want to implement to sustain that plan are being held

back by the Liberal Democrats. When sustain that plan are being held

will they break up? It has lasted longer than I thought it would, but

it must break up at least six months before the election. Do you think it

will survive or not? The coalition before the election. Do you think it

has delivered a great deal in many ways, but it is running out of

steam. It depends what happens in the May elections. If the Liberal

steam. It depends what happens in Democrats do not do better than we

have done in the last three, there will be very strong pressure from

the inside. You both agree. Television history has been made.

Politics. Coming up: I will be Politics. Coming up: I will be

Hello and a warm welcome to you on our local part of the show. This

week a look at the attempts to improve standards in the north on

our schools. Will it satisfy Michael Gove. We have with us John

Stevenson. And coming ing coming ing , 40,000 people have had benefits

cut as they have a spare room, but where are the smaller properties for

them to move into? Let's talk about a weighty issue, the north`east is

officially the fattest region in England. We are nearly seven out of

10 people overweight. Cumbria, is apparently the fattest counties.

John, do you think that the county is the fattest in the country? I am

surprised by the statistics. I have no idea if they are accurate, but

there is an obesity issue in the country, it must be looked at and we

have to change people's lifestyles. That is the key issue, to improve

people's health. Snrp can the Government do? It is complex. It is

lifestyle, what we eat, parents, children, schools, Government has a

role to play but there is personal responsibility coming into play.

Nick Brown, this has not appeared this is down to choice. There is a

limited amount that the Government can do? Public information and under

standing is important. It is about things that are well understood like

diet, drink, alcohol and exercise. We all have our responsibility, a

personal responsibility and just to have that explained to us and then

to focus on it, that is the right thing to do.

Thank you very much. My body, of course, as you can tell

is a temple! Now a new plan to raise standards in the region's

underperforming schools at the end of 2013, 232 schools judged

inadequate or acquiring improvement. Northumberland has been critised by

off sed, Cumbria is awaiting a verdict on an inspection there.

There is a former head who wants to set up his own chain offed academies

in Cumbria. This community college in Penrith.

Like the dance students, increasingly sure`footed. A rise in

results has seen a surge at the tables and attracted the attention

of Chris Wood head. 20 years on, I find myself in this Community

College, Ullswater and on a Sunday night, a phone call from Sir

Christopher woodhead, asking if we would be interested in developing a

plan to support schools in difficulties.

While this school is improving, Cumbria has a number of struggling

schools. Three put into special measures since Christmas and more

criticism is likely when a Ofsted inspection is published school. So

Chris Woodhead sold us `` told us why he wants to help.

I love Cumbria. Coming here for 50 years, climbing the rocks and

walking the months. I know the people here. It is a place that I

have a personal affection for. It is a place that it seems from the

Ofsted reports, that there are some problems. If I can find ways to help

improve education in Cumbria, that is what I want to do.

This week, Ullswater governors agreed to work with Sir Chris.

Spreading good work like this into struggling schools.

We will work with the school, with the support and the expertise of Sir

Chris, who can bring all kinds of ideas and contacts to the table in

looking for improvements to the school. We have been approached by a

number of schools in the Eden Valley, interested in being

voluntary partners, but there will be other schools, to come, where our

role is to support them in their improvement.

Perhaps not everyone will be as enthusiastic as Ullswater as Sir

Chris, he has had detractors but with the picture being painted of

the bleak situation of schools in Cumbria, improvements are needed.

There is a model that helped to raise standards in London schools,

this is a model that could be used. There has been a bid discussed for

?30 million to get this under way. We have a high level of

unemployment. We have the lowest level of skill, I believe that the

people, given the opportunity, can attain the skills. If we want to

change the position of the north`east economically, this is

critical. We have got to start now. It is a long`term thing. We will not

see the benefit immediately but if we don't start somewhere, we will

never achieve. It is a huge opportunity for the next generation.

What is the best way to improve the standards? Are the academies the

solution. With me is Vince k Allen. How do you feel about Sir Chris

Woodhead running a chain of academies in Cumbria? I regard its

as something of an irrelevence. We have looked at the Ofsted data from

2012. We have seen that the picture of achievement from the north`east,

to North Yorkshire to Cumbria is of improvement on the previous yearment

the picture of there being a wide`scale failure on the part of

schools is not something borne out of what Ofsted is saying. It causes

concerns. What we see is what appears to be a Government practise.

Targeting North Yorkshire, targeting Durham, targeting Northumberland,

and now Cumbria. What they have in common is a lack of academies it is

hard to see that the criticism that ises about made is borne by the

information that the Ofsted produces.

The inspectors were to say to Michael Gove that they are following

an agenda than looking at the standards in schools? Looking at the

data that Ofsted produced itself, based on the inspections on the

schools, that is not the picture presented here, no.

So there is no problem? There is always room to improve. One of the

reasons that teachers come to the professionals is for the zeal to

want to improve. Give the teachers an opportunity to develop their

practise, improve what goes on in their schools and those around them,

they will jump on that opportunity. What will not help is strike action.

That is planned for next month? That is right. There is strike action set

for the end of March. People will say that is one of the problems

here. Teachers are obsessed with their problems, rather than thinking

of the young? Teachers are interested in their problem, of

course. They are far more interested in the problems of young people.

They are not coming to ing it gives a huge income, but the issue with

the strike action is that we wanted to negotiate with the Secretary of

State for Some time, we did set a date for a strike in November. We

pulled back from that when the Secretary of State said that there

would be talks. The talks did not occur. We set a date in February. We

held back. We are waiting for the discussions still to occur.

Thank you very much. John Stevenson, two academies in

Carlisle, in special measures, are they the solution? We have to be

careful. There are successful and good performing schools in Cumbria.

We have to acknowledge that a lot of students are receiving a good

education. I support the academies programme, continuing from the last

Labour Government policies. I think that they do work. We unfortunately

have two failing academies but they are taken under the wing of a larger

organisation. That is where you can improve the standards. You replicate

the standards and ideas from other schools and bring them in to improve

the school. What about Vince Allen's thought,

that Cumbria is being picked on as there are not enough academies here,

that is the reason for the drive, not the standards? I disagree. We

want to improve education levels. We want to see secondary sools improve,

I think that the academies there is greater freedom to schools and to

the heads, that helps driving up the standards.

Is this a Labour legacies `` legacy? And a lot of these authorities are

run by Labour councillors? What we do not disagree on is the need to

drive up standards. The debate is how best to do it. There are

well`performing schools. I can think of those in my constituency, that

are wholly in the public sector but standards are being driven up. So,

obviously, Labour introduced a lot of academies, do you see a hidden

agenda here? Or is is it just about the standards? I am not sure from

the film what is proposed for Cumbria. I don't know enough about

the education system in Cumbria to comment.

The local education authorities have had their chance in places like

Cumbria, Ofsted are suggesting that standards are not high enough, why

not let someone like Sir Chris Wood Head run a chain of academies to

chair the prak sis? But what evidence does that make things

better? I am suspicious of that. I think it could be better to identify

the problems in the schools and apply the resources to dealing with

the problems, rather than hand it willing over to somebody else that

says he has a solution `` handing it over to somebody else.

And the ?30 million is not for Cumbria.

For the north`east. Yes, for the north`east.

I would welcome anything that got more money into the education system

in the north`east. John Stevenson, it is the Government

putting its money where its mouth is, if it is serious about the

standards it should be putting in the money? We do put in money. The

school's money is ring`fenced. If there is concern about standards,

more can be done. A lot of money was put into the London schools, what

about Cumbria and the north`east? It is not all about money it is about

best practise. That why change of academies can be good, it can take

the schools performing well and transport the skills to those

failing it is not always about the money but about raising the

standards. It is about supporting the teachers and the professional

leadership in the schools. I am not convinced that the current

Government are doing that. Money goes to favoured projects. It is

taking away from everybody else. We have to leave it there.

Now since Housing Benefit changes were introduced in April, some

40,000 families have had money cut as they are judged to have a spare

room, but some have been able to move families into a larger

properties that has become Saudi Arabiaing bt, but the policy has run

into a problem, there is a shortage of one`bedroom properties. For Jean,

this two bedroom flat has been her home for more than 20 years, but now

it is seen as too big for her needs. Despite being out of work, she has

faced an ?11 a week cut in her benefit.

I think that the bedroom tax is unnecessarily cruel in some cases.

I have found myself not being in a position to put food on my table as

easy `` easily as I could. By accessing a local food bank,

occasionally, I have been given a bag with teabags in, bread, sugar,

coffee, etc, and the blafks `` bafshgs. That enables me to be able

to breathe a little more easily. You are living in a two bedroom flat.

You are encouraged to move to a one bedroom. Have you looked into it? I

did make an attempt to try to get a one bedroom property, but I was

refused. A sanction on the vulnerable, or a

chance for a fresh start? For Stacey it has been the latter. Part of a

home swap scheme, in which tennants with spare rooms downsized and

others upsized. In her case to a house with a garden.

I understand the frustration for people having to move. They are

leaving a house that they are lived in for a number of years but I do

appreciate it for myself and growing families that need the space and

would have had to wait a longer period of time before they

benefitted. Ministers say that the taxpayer

cannot subsidise spare bedrooms, but in areas of the north`east, there is

a problem. Not enough one bedroom how home but a surplus of two and

three bedroom properties. A situation, some claim, is being made

worse by the Government. This is one of the number of council

flats vacated by the tennants. In this area, 11 tower blocks, a

year ago we had eight voids, at the moment that is 77 voids. That is not

down to those who cannot pay the bedroom tax but it is a part of the

picture. We may have to demolish housing, redesignate some flats.

So turn a two bedroom flat to a one bedroom? Yes. Change it around. That

reduces the rent. Social housing providers in

Gateshead, Northumberland and Teesside report a rise in larger

homes falling empty, but they complain of a shortage of smaller

properties. Teesside based Coast and Country say it is has 2,000 tennants

needing homes. Some face a wait of more than 30 years.

As a result of the benefit changes, Housing Associations are seeing

increase in arrears. Up to 50 %, so they cannot build new one bedrooms.

Supporters say that action was necessary.

I do think it is right that we recognise that 250,000 people

Nashally are living in overcrowded accommodation and 400,000 people are

living in accommodation that is greater than the needs. We have to

find some solution to that problem. Bedroom tax or spare room subsidy?

Even the name is contention. Ten months on from its introduction,

opinions on the outcome are just as divided.

John Stevenson, whatever the rights and the wrongs of the change, it

will be effective in terms of the waiting list if there are not enough

one bedroom homes. 30 years of waiting is ludicrous? This is an

interesting point about housing Nashally. We are centralised, we

make a policy beneficial for one part of the country. This is

something that the government could look at where there is an

overarching policy. So you are saying that the benefit

change was wrong for a region like ours? No. I think that there are

different circumstances for different parts of the country.

But this has been applied across the country? Yes it has. And you can

look at changing the tax rate as to London having separate issues to

other parts of the country. In Carlisle, I have spoken with the

Housing Association there, they don't have an issue with the number

of one bedroom properties available. There are beneficiaries here, what

the Government talked about is happening. People moving into larger

homes that have been waiting for them. You found one, how many

others? There were others that did not wish to appear on cameras. As

few as that. I cannot give the numbers. There are

some 7,000 people disadvantaged by the policy. Half of them living in

the east of Newcastle. The overwhelming majority are those

people in what is currently classed as two bedroom accommodation. They

are only eligible for a single room now. How do they get into that? The

truth of the matter is that when the mrgs were constructed, a generation

ago, the average household size was 1. 9. Therefore it was logical for

the local authorities, when they could build houses, to build the

overwhelming of them as two bedrooms. That is what the local

authority had to let to people. The assumption at the time was that

people were renting. That is history. But it is

interesting. It sets the terms for the tennants now.

But tennants of the private sector do not have the spare room subsidy.

So it was tackling a degree of unfairness? But social housing is

social housing. It is there to make... Those in the private housing

do not have more money... It costs more to rent a one bedroom flat in

gentlemens Monday than it does to rent a two bedroom flat in more

come. The Housing Benefit covers the one bedroom, if you are eligible in

full but there is a claw back on the two bedroom... It is economic

nonsense. This is madness when councils are

reclassifying two bedroom flats as one bedroom? It shows it is a policy

that should have been allowed to bed in when the houses wag provided? It

has been brought in for two reasons. One we have to have saving.

Given what happened under the last administration in terms of the

economics. And there are a quarter of a million people in overcrowded

accommodation. We have to look after their needs as much as those where

they are in a `` accommodation with a spare room.

Now, I guess you like me did not win millions on the lottery.

But more than half of all north`east households do play the lottery each

week. MPs think that the region does not get a fair share of the money

raised. Here is that and the rest of the week's news in 60 seconds.

The north`east deserves a larger share of funding for arts and

culture, according to MPs. The capital gets ?69 per head, compared

to just ?4. 50 in the rest of England. Almost half of all lottery

grants go to London. The Prime Minister has been urged to ensure

that the counties employers has the resources to investigate victims of

potential abuse. Will the Prime Minister commit that

if it proves necessary, his secretary will meet with the PCC,

the Chief Constable and myself, to ensure that the team has the

resources it needs to see the investigation to its conclusion. The

victims deserve no less. Yoshg City Council facing budget

cuts. It 40 posts to be `` 2 who `` 240 posts to be lost too.

And Barbie toys could be not helping education for young children.

So, arts funding. It is netable, that there is this

imbalance in funding? That is true up to a point.

The 40`1 ratio, that the report has put in front of the world seems too

much. The ?69 for London per head. The funding comes from four separate

sources. The private sector, the department's main budget, the Arts

Council's budget and the National Lottery money stered the arts ``

administered through the Arts Council. On the last budget, I

agreed with the recommendation on the report there should be a

ring`fenced amount for the regional arts. That is a modest

recommendation, I think it is a good one.

John, Carlisle has not got a theatre. What events have been cut

this year? Is it time for change? We have Tulley House. That the Labour

council decided to cut their budget. That is a problem for Tulley House,

but I have sympathy. We accept that London is going to get the main

resources. It attracts tourists and all of that, but still, I think that

we in the region do get our fair contribution.

Thank you very much. That is all we have time for. We are back at the

same time, the same place next Sunday. In the meantime keep

up`to`date with all of the Sunday. In the meantime keep

Londoners who otherwise may not have a voice. Both of you, thank you so

much. Andrew, it is back to you Can David Cameron get a grip on the

floods? Can UKIP push the Conservatives into third place in

the Wythenshawe by-election on Thursday? Is the speaker in the

House of Commons in danger of overheating? All questions over the

weekend. Let's look at the politics of the flooding. Let me show you a

clip from Eric Pickles, the Communities Secretary, earlier on

the BBC this morning. We perhaps relied too much on the Environment

Agency's advice. I apologise. I apologise unreservedly and I am

really sorry we took the advice of what we thought we were doing was

the best. The Environment Agency is being hung out to dry by the

Government and the Government has taken over the running of the

environmental mess in the Somerset Levels. It is turning into a serious

crisis by the Government and even more so for the people who are

dealing with the flooding. There is no doubt that what has been revealed

is it is not just about what the Government did or did not do six

months ago. What is being exposed is an entire culture within the

Environment Agency, fuelled often by European directives about dredging

and all manner of other things, a culture grew up in which plants were

put ahead of people if you like All of that is collapsing in very

difficult circumstances by the Government and it is difficult for

them to manage. Chris Smith would save the Environment Agency is

acting under a law set by this Government and previous governments

and the first priority is the protection of life, second property

and third agricultural land and he is saying we are working within that

framework. It is an edifying spectacle, they are setting up Lord

Smith to be the fall guy. His term of office comes at the end of the

summer and they will find something new. But the point Lord Smith is

making is that dredging is important and it was a mistake not to dredge,

but it is a bigger picture than that. I am no expert, but you need a

whole skill solution that is looking not just bad dredging, but at the

whole catchment area looking at the production of maize. It is harvested

in autumn and then the water runs off the topsoil. You see the

pictures of the flooding, it is all topsoil flooding through those

towns. What you have got to have in the uplands is some land that can

absorb that water and there are really big questions about the way

we carry out farming. Chris Smith was meant to appear on the Andrew

Marr show this morning, but pulled back at the last minute. There must

be doubts as to whether he can survive to the summer. Where is the

chief executive of the Environment Agency? I agree with Nick that Chris

Smith has been setup in this situation. David Cameron went to the

Somerset Levels on Friday for about half an hour, in and out, with no

angry people shouting at him. You to a farm. It is agreed he has had good

crisis. But we are seen as being a London media class who does not

understand the countryside. You can imagine David Cameron in a pair of

wellies. If this was happening in Guildford, it would not have dragged

on for so long. Looe it is interesting how they are saying the

Environment Agency has put words in front of everything else. The

great-great-grandson of Queen Victoria thinks people should be

sacked at the whim. He is talking about how the Environment Agency

spent ?31 million on a bird sanctuary. It turns out the bird

sanctuary was an attempt to put up a flood defence system for a village

which has worked. That village has been saved. They compensated some

farmers for the farmland they were not going to be able to farm and put

a flood defence system further back to protect this village and then

they built a bird sanctuary. It was not ?31 million to create a bird

sanctuary, it was to save a village and it worked. But in 2008 the

Environment Agency was talking about dynamiting every pumping agency

There was a metropolitan mindset on the part of that agency. If it does

what Owen Paterson, who is now off in an eye operation, suggested a

plan to fix this, they will find a lot of what they want or need to do

will be in contravention of European directives. The Wythenshawe

by-election. There is no question Labour is going to win, probably

incredibly convincingly, one poll showing 60% plus of the vote. It

would be surprising if Labour was in any threat up there. The issue is,

does UKIP beat the Tories and if so, by how much? The latest poll was

showing it in second place as nip and tuck, but the feeling I have is

UKIP will do better. And they have got a great local candidate. The

Tories have not parachuted somebody in and they have got a local man in

and that will help them. We have all been waiting to see if the Tories

lose their head, but they might go chicken earlier than that. Will UKIP

come second? It looks like that A poll this week showed that Labour is

way ahead and UKIP possibly second. But it is an important by-election

for UKIP. If they do well in the European elections, they should

still be on a roll. They did really well in by-elections last year. If

they do not do well, is it because they are not on payroll? Or in

Manchester they have a fantastic leader of the council? Will UKIP

come a good second? I think they will and if they do not, it might

suggest Nigel Farage is losing its slightly. One thing to look out for

is how little Labour are attacking UKIP. Their election strategy relies

a lot on UKIP taking Tory votes But it could also take Labour votes

Particularly in the north and we shall see. The results will be out

on Thursday night. The Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bird ,

his interventions have become more frequent and something was strange.

Have a look. I am grateful to the honourable gentleman. Order, the

Government Chief Whip has absolutely no business whatsoever shouting from

a sedentary position. Order, the honourable gentleman will remain in

the chamber. If we could tackle this problem. I say to the honourable

member for Bridgwater, be quiet if you cannot be quiet, get out, it is

rude, stupid and pompous and it needs to stop. Michael Gove. Order.

You really... Order. You are a very over excitable individual. You need

to write out 1000 times, I will behave myself at Prime Minister 's

questions. He was talking to the Education Secretary and it is not

1000 lines, it is 100 lines, at least it was in my day. Is he

beginning to make a fool of himself? There was only one over excitable

person there and that was the speaker and he is losing the

confidence of the Conservative MPs, but he never had that in the first

place. But he is an incredibly reforming speaker. He has this

strange idea that Parliament should hold the Government to account. It

will never catch on. It means very frequently there are urgent

questions. The other day he called a backbench amendment on the

deportation of foreign criminals. He could have found a way not to call

that. He is a real reformer and the executive do not like that. That is

true and he has allowed Parliament to flourish which has given us room

to breathe at a time of a coalition Government when Parliament has more

power. That is all that enough to overcome these increasingly mannered

and some of them may be preplanned interventions? The last one was last

week, and last week the speaker had a rather stressful week with the

tabloids. Something is clearly up. I think it is a real shame. I think

many of us when he was elected did not think he would make a great

speaker and there are people like Douglas Carswell and Tory rebels who

have said he is a fantastic speaker. He has given the Commons room to

breathe and he has called on ministers to be held to account when

they do not want to be. What do you think? He is seen as anti-government

and he is pro-backbencher and that is what people do not like. People

like Douglas Carswell are actually very strongly in support of him We

carry the interventions every week on Prime Minister 's questions and

we see them every week and they are getting a bit more eccentric. If I

was having to keep that under control, I would be driven slowly

mad. But his job is easier than mine. But if you look at his

deputy, Eleanor Laing, she is very robust, but she is calm. Chap who

does the budget is excellent. We are on throughout the week at midday on

BBC Two. We will be back next Sunday at 11. If it is Sunday, it is the

Sunday Politics.