12/01/2014 Sunday Politics South East

Good morning, welcome. 2014 is barely under way, and the

coalition is fighting over cuts. coalition is fighting over cuts

Nick Legg says Tory plans to balance the books would hit the poorest

hardest. He will not say what he will cut. That is the top story.

Chris Grayling called for a completely new deal with Europe as

he battles will rings from the European Court of Human Rights. He

joins me. Labour promises to shift

Here in the South East. Where they will they get a

Here in the South East. Where they abandoned at Christmas?

be serious. Have cuts left to the service being overstretched?

With me for the duration, a top trio of political pundits, Helen Lewis,

Jan and Ganesh and Nick Watt. They will be tweeting faster than France

or long scoots through Paris. Nick Clegg sticks to his New Year

resolution to sock it to the Tories, the is how he described Tory plans

for another 12 billion of cuts on welfare after the next election.

welfare after the next election You cannot say, as the Conservatives

are, that we are all in it together and then say that the welfare will

not make any additional contributions from their taxes if

there is a Conservative government after 2015 in the ongoing effort to

balance the books. We are not even going to ask that very wealthy

people who have retired who have benefits, paid for by the

hard-pressed taxpayers, will make a sacrifice. The Conservatives appear

to be saying only the working age pork will be asked to make

additional sacrifices to fill the remaining buckle in the public

finances. Nick Legg eating up on the Tories

a, happens almost every day. I understand it is called aggressive

differentiation. Will it work for them? It has not for the past two

years. This began around the time of the AV referendum campaign, that is

what poisoned the relations between the parties. They have been trying

to differentiation since then, they are still at barely 10% in the

polls, Nick Clegg's personal ratings are horrendous, so I doubt they will

do much before the next election. It is interesting it has been combined

with aggressive flirtation with Ed Balls and the Labour Party. There

was always going to be some sort of rapprochement between them and the

Labour Party, it is in the Labour Party's interests, and it is intent

macro's interests, not to be defined as somebody who can only do deals

with the centre-right. A colleague of yours, Helen, told me there was

more talk behind closed doors in the Labour Party high command, they have

to think about winning the election in terms of being the largest party,

but not necessarily an overall majority. There is a feeling it was

foolish before the last election not to have any thought about what a

coalition might be, but the language has changed. Ed Miliband had said, I

cannot deal with this man, but now, I have to be prismatic, it is about

principles. Even Ed Balls. Nick Clegg had specifically said that Ed

Balls was the man in politics that he hated. He said that was just a

joke. Of course, it is about principles, not people! When Ed

Balls said those nice things about Nick Clegg, he said, I understood

the need to get a credible deficit reduction programme, although he

said Nick Clegg went too far. The thing about Nick Clegg, he feels

liberated, he bears the wounds from the early days of the coalition, and

the early days of the coalition and maybe those winds will haunt him all

the way to the general election. But he feels liberated, he says, we will

be the restraining influence on both the Conservatives, who cannot insure

that the recovery is fair, and the Labour Party, that do not have

economic red ability. He feels relaxed, and that is why he is

attacking the Tories and appearing pretty relaxed. He could also be

falling into a trap. The Tories think what they suggesting on

welfare cuts is possible. The more he attacks it, the more Tories will

say, if you gave us an overall majority, he is the one it. He keeps

taking these ostensibly on popular positions and it only makes sense

when you talk to them behind the scenes, they are going after a tiny

slice of the electorate, 20%, who are open to the idea of voting Lib

Dem, and their views are a bit more left liberal than the bulk of the

public. There is a perverse logic in them aggressively targeting that

section of voters. In the end, ten macro's problem, if you do not like

what this coalition has been doing, you will not vote for somebody who

was part of it, you will vote for the Labour Party. The Tories are too

nasty, Labour are to spendthrift, Lib Dem, a quarter of their vote has

gone to Labour, and that is what could hand the largest party to

Labour. That small number of voters, soft Tory voters, the problem for

the Liberal Democrats is, if you fight, as they did, three general

elections to the left of the Labour Party, and at the end of the third,

you find yourself in Colour Vision with the Conservatives, you have a

problem. Chris Grayling is a busy man, he has

had to deal with aid riot at HM Prison Oakwood, barristers on strike

and unhappy probation officers taking industrial action.

Prison works. It ensures that we are protected from murderers, muggers

and rapists. It makes many who are tempted to commit crime think twice.

Traditional Tory policy on criminal justice and prisons has been tough

talking and tough dealing. Not only have they tended to think what they

are offering is right, but have had the feeling, you thinking what they

thinking. But nearly two decades after Michael Howard's message, his

party, in Colour Vision government, is finding prison has to work like

everything else within today's financial realities. The Justice

Secretary for two years after the election had previous in this field.

Ken Clarke. Early on, he signalled a change of direction. Just binding up

more and more people for longer without actively seeking to change

them is, in my opinion, what you would expect of Victorian England.

The key to keeping people out of prison now, it seems, is giving them

in a job, on release. Ironically, Ken Clarke was released from his job

15 months ago and replaced by Chris Grayling. But here, within HM Prison

Liverpool, Timpson has been working since 2009 with chosen offenders to

offer training and the chance of a job. Before you ask, they do not

teach them keep cutting in a category B prison. The Academy is

deliberately meant to look like a company store, not a prison. It

helps. You forget where you are at times, it feels weird, going back to

a wing at the end of the day. It is different. A different atmosphere.

That is why people like it. Timpson have six academies in prisons,

training prisoners inside, and outside they offer jobs to

ex-offenders, who make up 8% of their staff. It has been hard work

persuading some governors that such cooperation can work. I have seen a

dramatic change positively, working with prisoners, particularly in the

last five years. They understand now what business's expectation is.

Timpson do not just employ offenders, but as one ex-prisoner

released in February and now managing his own store says, the

point is many others will not employ offenders at all. From what I have

experienced, on one hand, you have somebody with a criminal conviction,

on the other, somebody who does not have one, so it is a case of

favouring those who have a clean record. Anybody with a criminal

conviction is passed to one side and overlooked. That, amongst myriad

other changes to prison and how we deal with prisoners, is on the desk

of the man at the top. Ever since Chris Grayling became Secretary of

State for Justice, he has wanted to signal a change of direction of

policy, and he is in a hurry to make radical reforms across the board,

from size and types of prisons to probation services, reoffending

rates, legal aid services, and there has been opposition to that from

groups who do not agree with him. But what might actually shackle him

is none of that. It is the fact that he is in government with a party

that does not always agree with him, he has to abide by the rulings of

the European Court of Human Rights, and in those famous words, there is

no money left. We would like to go further and faster. I would like him

too, but we are where we are. If the Liberal Democrats want to be wiped

out at the next election based on what they believe, that is fair

enough. We accept there has to be savings, but there are areas where

we feel that there is ideological driven policy-making going on, and

privatising may not save any money at all, and so does not make any

sense. The question is, we'll all of that means some of Chris Grayling's

reforms need closer inspection? Chris Grayling joins me now.

Welcome. We have a lot to cover If you get your way, your own personal

way, will be next Tory manifesto promise to withdraw from the

European Convention of human rights? It will contain a promise

for radical changes. We have to curtail the role of the European

court here, replace our human rights act from the late 1990s, make our

Supreme Court our Supreme Court, they can be no question of decisions

over riding it elsewhere, and we have to have a situation where our

laws contain a balance of rights and responsibilities. People talk about

knowing their rights, but they do not accept they have responsible it

is. This is what you said last September, I want to see our Supreme

Court being supreme again... That is clear, but let's be honest, the

Supreme Court cannot be supreme as long as its decisions can be

referred to the European Court in Strasbourg. There is clearly an

issue, that was raised recency - recently. We have been working on a

detailed reform plan, we will publish that in the not too distant

future. What we will set out is a direction of travel for a new

Conservative government that will mean wholesale change in this area.

You already tried to reform the European Court, who had this

declaration in 2012, do you accept that the reform is off the table?

There is still a process of reform, but it is not going fast enough and

not delivering the kind of change we need. That is why we will bring

forward a package that for the different from that and will set a

different direction of travel. We are clear across the coalition, we

have a different view from our colleagues. You cannot be half

pregnant on this, either our decisions from our Supreme Court are

subject to the European Cup or not, in which case, we are not part of

the European court. I hope you will see from our proposals we have come

up with a sensible strategy that deals with this issue once and for

all. Can we be part of the Strasbourg court and yet our Supreme

Court be supreme? That is by point, we have to curtail the role of the

court in the UK. I am clear that is what we will seek to do. It is what

we will do for this country. But how? I am not going to announce the

package of policies today, but we will go into the next election with

a clear strategy that will curtail the role of the European Court of

Human Rights in the UK. The decisions have to be taken in

Parliament in this country. Are you sure that you have got your own side

on this? Look at what the Attorney General says.

I would be asking Strasberg a different question to that. If the

best in class, he is saying is enough is enough, actually somebody

in Strasberg should be asking if this has gone the way it should have

done. I would love to see wholesale reform in the court tomorrow, I'm

reform in the court tomorrow, I m not sure it is going to happen which

is why we are going to the election with a clear plan for this country.

Would you want that to be a red line in any coalition agreement? My

mission is to win the next election with a majority. But you have to say

where your red lines would be. We have been very clear it is an area

where we don't agree as parties, but in my view the public in this

country are overwhelmingly behind the Conservative party. 95

Conservative MPs have written to the Prime Minister, demanding he gives

the House of Commons the authority to veto any aspect of European Union

law. Are you one of the people who wanted to sign that letter but you

couldn't because you are minister? I haven't been asked to sign the

letter. We need a red card system for European law. I'm not convinced

my colleagues... I don't think it is realistic to have a situation where

one parliament can veto laws across the European Union. I understand the

concerns of my colleagues, but when we set out to renegotiate our

membership, we have got to deliver renegotiation and deliver a system

which is viable, and I'm not convinced we can have a situation

where one Parliament can prevent laws across the whole European

Union. So you wouldn't have signed this letter? I'm not sure it is the

right approach. I support the system I just talked about. Iain Duncan

Smith has suggested EU migrants coming to work in this country

should have to wait for two years before they qualify for welfare

benefits, do you agree? Yes, I think there should be an assumption that

before you can move from one country to another, before you can start to

take back from that country's social welfare system, you should have made

a contribution to it. I spent two and a half years working in Brussels

trying to get the European Commission to accept the need for

change. There is a groundswell of opinion out there which is behind

Iain Duncan Smith in what he is saying. I think we should push for a

clear system that says people should be able to move from one country to

get a job, but to move to another country to live off the state is not

acceptable. You are planning a new 2000 capacity mega prison and other

smaller presence which will be run by private firms. After what has

happened with G4S, why would you do that? No decision has been made

about whether it will be public or private. What do you think it will

be? I'm not sure yet. There is no clear correlation over public and

private prisons and whether there are problems or otherwise. Oakwood

is in its early stages, it has had teething problems at the start, but

the rate of disturbance there is only typical for an average prison

of its category. If you take an example of Parc prison in Wales, a

big private run prison, run by G4S, when it was first launched under the

last government it had teething problems of the same kind as Oakwood

and is now regarded as one of the best performing prisons. Why would

you give it to a private company then? We have only just got planning

permission for the so we will not be thinking about this for another few

years. Some of the companies who run prisons are under investigation with

dreadful track records. In the case of G4S, what we have experienced is

acceptable and they have not been able to go ahead with a number of

contracts they might have otherwise got. They are having to prove to the

Government they are fit to win contracts from the Government again.

They are having to pay compensation to the Government and the taxpayer.

What has happened is unacceptable. So why would you give them a 2000

capacity mega prison? Or anyone like them? It cannot be said that every

private company is bad. In addition to problems at Oakwood, you are

quite unique now in your position that you have managed to get the

barristers out on strike the first time since history began. What

happens if the bar refuses to do work at your new rates of legal aid

and the courts grind to a halt? I don't believe that will happen. When

the barristers came out on strike, three quarters of Crown Courts were

operating normally, 95% of magistrates courts were operating

normally. We are having to take difficult decisions across

government, I have no desire to cut back lately but we are spending over

?2 billion on legal aid at the moment at a time when budgets are

becoming tougher. You issued misleading figures about criminal

barristers, you said that 25% of them earn over ?100,000 per year but

that is their turnover, including VAT. 33% of that money goes on their

expenses, they have to pay for their own pensions and insurance. People

are not getting wealthy out of doing this work. I don't publish figures,

our statisticians do, with caveats in place explaining the situation.

Where you have high-cost cases, where we have taken the most

difficult decisions, we have tried hard in taking difficult decisions

to focus the impact higher up the income scale. But do you accept

their take-home pay is not 100, 00? I accept they have to take out other

costs, although some things like travelling to the court, you and I

and everyone else has to pay for travelling to work. That is net of

VAT. We have had a variety of figures published, some are and some

are not. Let's be clear, the gross figures for fees from legal payments

include 20% VAT. On a week when even a cabinet minister can be fitted up

by the police, don't we all need well-financed legal aid? There is no

chance that as a result well-financed legal aid? There is no

changes people will end up in court unable to defend themselves. We have

said in exceptional circumstances, if you haven't got any money to pay,

we will support you, but there is no question of anyone ended up in

court, facing a criminal charge, where they haven't got a lawyer to

defend them. Let's look at how so many dangerous criminals have

managed to avoid jail. Here are the figures for 2012. Half the people

for sexual assault found guilty not jailed. I thought you were meant to

be tough on crime? Those figures predate my time, but since 2010 the

number of those people going to jail has been increasing steadily. If you

put the figures for 2010 on there, you would see a significant change.

We will never be in a position where everybody who commits violence will

end up in jail. The courts will often decided to his more

appropriate to give a community sentence, but the trend is towards

longer sentences and more people going to jail. That maybe but it is

even quite hard to get sent to jail if you do these things a lot, again

and again. In 2012 one criminal avoided being sent to jail despite

having more than 300 offences to his name. 36,000 avoided going to jail

despite 15 previous offences. That is why we are taking steps to

toughen up the system. Last autumn we scrapped repeat cautions. You

could find people getting dozens. As of last autumn, we have scrapped

repeat cautions. If you commit the same offence twice within a two-year

same offence twice within a two year period you will go to court. You

still might end up not going to jail. More and more people are going

to jail. I cannot just magic another 34,000 prison places. You haven't

34,000 prison places. You haven t got room to put bad people in jail?

The courts will take the decisions, and it is for them to take the

decisions and not me, that two men in a bar fight do not merit a jail

sentence. These figures contain a huge amount of offences from the

most minor of offences to the most despicable. Something is wrong if

you can commit 300 offences and still not end up in jail. That's

right, and we are taking steps so this cannot happen any more. Nick

Clegg said this morning you are going to make 12 billion of welfare

cuts on the back of this, he is right, isn't he? People on the

lowest incomes are often not paying tax at all, the rich... But these

cuts will fall disproportionately on average earners, correct? Let's look

at the proposal to limit housing benefit for under 25s. Until today,

after people have left school or college, the live for a time with

their parents. For some, that is not possible and we will have to take

that into account, but we have said there is a strong case for saying

you will not get housing benefit until you are some years down the

road and have properly established yourselves in work. And by

definition these people are on lower than average salaries. Give me a

case in which those on the higher tax band will contribute to the

cuts. We have already put in place tax changes so that the highest tax

rate is already higher than it was in every year of the last

government. The amount of tax... government. The amount of tax..

There is no more expected of the rich. We will clearly look at future

policy and work out how best to distribute the tax burden in this

country and it is not for me to second-guess George Osborne's future

plans, but we need to look at for example housing benefit for the

under 25s. Is it right for those who are not working for the state to

provide accommodation for them? Thank you for being with us.

All three major parties at Westminster agree there's an urgent

need to build more homes for Britain's growing population. But

how they get built, and where, looks set to become a major battle ground

in the run-up to the next general election.

Although 16% more house-builds were started in 2012/13 than the previous

year, the number actually completed fell by 8% - the lowest level in

peacetime since 1920. The Office for National Statistics estimates that

between now and 2021 we should expect 220,000 new households to be

created every year. At his party's conference last autumn, Ed Miliband

promised a Labour government would massively increase house-building. I

will have a clear aim but by the end of the parliament, Britain will be

building 200,000 homes per year, more than at any time for a

generation. That is how we make Britain better than this. The Labour

leader also says he'd give urban councils a "right to grow" so rural

neighbours can't block expansion and force developers with unused land to

use it or lose it. The Government has been pursuing its own ideas,

including loan guarantees for developers and a new homes bonus to

boost new house-building. But David Cameron could have trouble keeping

his supporters on side - this week the senior backbencher Nadhim Zahawi

criticised planning reforms for causing "physical harm" to the

countryside. Nick Clegg meanwhile prefers a radical solution - brand

new garden cities in the south east of England. In a speech tomorrow,

Labour's shadow housing minister Emma Reynolds will give more details

of how Labour would boost house-building, and she joins me

now. It is not the politicians to blame, it is the lack of

house-builders? We want a vibrant building industry, and at the moment

that industry is dominated by big house-builders. I want to see a more

diverse and competitive industry, where self build plays a greater

role. In France over 60% of new homes are built by self builders,

but small builders build more homes as well. 25 years ago they were

building two thirds of new homes, now they are not building even a

third of new homes. That's because land policies have been so

restrictive that it is only the big companies who can afford to buy the

land, so little land is being released for house building. I

agree, there are some fundamental structural problems with the land

market and that is why we have said there doesn't just need to be

tinkering around the edges, there needs to be real reforms to make

sure that small builders and self build and custom-built have access

to land. They are saying they have problems with access to land and

finance. At the end of the day it will not be self, small builders who

reach your target, it will be big builders. I think it is pretty

shameful that in Western Europe the new houses built in the UK are

smaller than our neighbours. But isn't not the land problem? France

is 2.8 times bigger in land mass and we are and that is not a problem for

them. There is a perception we are going to build on the countryside,

but not even 10% is on the countryside. There is enough for us

to have our golf courses. There is enough other land for us to build on

that is not golf courses. The planning minister has said he wants

to build our National Parks, I am not suggesting that. The single

biggest land border is the public sector. It is not. There are great

opportunities for releasing public land, that is why I have been asking

the government, they say they are going to release and of public land

for tens of thousands of new homes to be built, but they say they are

not monitoring how many houses are being built on the site. When your

leader says to landowners, housing development owners, either use the

land or lose it, in what way will they lose it? Will you confiscated?

This is about strengthening the hand of local authorities, and they say

to us that in some cases, house-builders are sitting on land.

In those cases, we would give the power to local authorities to

escalate fees. This would be the compulsory purchase orders, a matter

of last resort, and you would hope that by strengthening the hand of

local authorities, you could get the house-builders to start building the

homes that people want. Would you compulsory purchase it? We would

give the local authority as a last resort, after escalating the fees,

the possibility and flexible it is to use the compulsory purchase

orders to sell the land on to a house builder who wants to build

houses that we need. Can you name one report that has come back in

recent years that shows that hoarding of land by house-builders

is a major problem? The IMF, the Conservative mayor of London and the

Local Government Association are telling us that there is a problem

with land hoarding. Therefore, we have said, where there is land with

planning permission, and if plots are being sat on... Boris Johnson

says there are 180,000 plots in London being sat on. We need to make

sure the house-builders are building the homes that young families need.

They get planning permission and sell it on to the developer. There

is a whole degree of complicity, sell it on to the developer. There

is a whole degree of complicity but is a whole degree of complicity, but

there is another problem before that. That is around transparency

about land options. There is agricultural land that

house-builders have land options on, and we do not know where that is.

Where there is a need for housing, and the biggest demand is in the

south-east of England, that is where many local authorities are most

reluctant to do it, will you in central government take powers to

force these authorities to give it? We have talked about the right to

grow, we were in Stevenage recently. What we have said is we

want to strengthen the hand of local authorities like Stevenage so they

are not blocked every step of the way. They need 16,000 new homes, but

they do not have the land supply. What about the authorities that do

not want to do it? They should be forced to sit down and agree with

the neighbouring authority. In Stevenage, it is estimated at

?500,000 has been spent on legal fees because North Hertfordshire is

blocking Stevenage every step of the way. Michael Lyons says the national

interest will have to take President over local interest. Voice cannot

mean a veto. The local community in Stevenage is crying out for new

homes. Do you agree? There has to be land available for new homes to be

built, and in areas like Oxford, built, and in areas like Oxford

Luton and Stevenage... Do you agree with Michael Lyons? The national

interest does have to be served, with Michael Lyons? The national

will put the five new towns? We have asked him to look at how we can

incentivise local authorities to come forward with sites for new

towns. You cannot tell us where they are going to be? I cannot. We will

have to wait for him. When you look at the historic figures overall, not

at the historic figures overall not at the moment, Private Housing

building is only just beginning to recover, but it has been pretty

steady for a while. The big difference between house-building

now and in the past, since Mrs Thatcher came to power a and

including the Tony Blair government, we did not build council houses.

Almost none. Will the next Labour government embark on a major council

has programme? We inherited housing stock back in 1997... This is

important. Will the next Labour government embark on a major council

has programme? We have called on this government to bring forward

investment in social housing. We want to see an investment programme

in social housing, I cannot give you the figures now. We are 18 months

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

major council house Northern programme? I want to see a council

house building programme, because there is a big shortage of council

homes. That is a guess? Yes. We got there in the end. -- that is a yes?

We will be talking to Patrick homes in the West Midlands in a moment.

You are watching the Sunday Politics. Coming up in just over 20

this is the Sunday Politics in the ahead with our political panel

this is the Sunday Politics in the South`East. Coming up, do pdople on

housing benefit make had tenants? The biggest landlord in Kent says

too many tenants on housing benefit default on their rents. Is ht just

default on their rents. Is it just business or is he totally hdartless?

Welcome to you both. Thank you. Before we looking at people losing

their homes through flooding and eviction, I want to know wh`t these

eviction, I want to know what these to think over the past couple of

months. Keeping it relevant to the South East, emigration, airport

expansion, or something enthrely expansion, or something entirely

different? Before Christmas it was heartless of East Sussex Cotnty

Council conservatives to get rid of two centres of excellence c`re

two centres of excellence care centres for dementia patients. This

matters because these are high matters because these are hhgh

quality care centres and we're losing not just experienced staff

but it is affecting vulnerable adults. What has been the bhggest

issue for you in the past month? We were told we would have millions of

the many and beginnings here by now, the many and beginnings herd by now,

this was supposed to be heading us, tens of thousands in France, ready

to pounce when a New Year struck, and that did not happen. Pldnty of

time yet. The parties of the far time yet. The parties of the far

right raise the spheres of foreigners without any basis for it

at all. It has been a disgrace. `` at all. It has been a disgr`ce. ``

raise these fears of. Christmas was cancelled for many people in Kent

because of flooding with some because of flooding with sole

hundred homes inundated and people trapped in flats because of lifts

breaking and the water just get rising. It reached well over one

metre in part of Yalding. The South East bore the brunt of the worst

storms for 50 years. For many people, Christmas was cancelled

When the River Medway and abilities burst their banks on Christlas Eve,

burst their banks on Christmas Eve, the Kent village of Yalding was

devastated. David Cameron arrived three days later to survey the

extent of the damage and tempers extent of the damage and tempers

flared. Nothing is being done. Being on the confluence of three rivers,

Yalding is no stranger to flooding. The last flood on this scale

Yalding is no stranger to flooding. The last flood on this scald was in

the year 2000. This time, locals say that official communication was poor

and that rescue teams came too late. In 2000 we had the police, the fire

brigade and the army to help, we had buses in fact you to people,

sandbags being delivered Abbey rep, and this time, there was nothing.

People lost homes, cars and everything and there was no help.

For some, the loss was too luch to For some, the loss was too much to

bear. I have lost, my whole life has gone, I have worked all my life and

everything I have got that was in my home, has gone. When we got up on

Christmas morning, the water level was up to here. Everything was

soaking. This man rescued 30 people using a canoe. He waded through

freezing flood waters and evacuated stranded locals to safety. And

freezing flood waters and evacuated stranded locals to safety. @nd what

stranded locals to safety. And what help that you have from the

authorities? None. I ask thd parish authorities? None. I ask thd parish

council about sandbags at about one o'clock and I was told that don t

o'clock and I was told that don't you understand, it is Christmas

They are on leave. There was not a lot of understanding. We was all

suffering. We have all suffered. suffering. We have all suffdred

This side of the water more than the other, but we have all suffdred and

it is time that we pull together and it is time that we pull togdther and

learned that communication is it is time that we pull together and

learned that communication hs key it is time that we pull togdther and

learned that communication is key to learned that communication is key to

this. Responding to this situation is complicated. It relies on the

Environment Agency and organisations like councils and the voluntary

sector. Local authorities have like councils and the voluntary

sector. Local authorities have been given more responsibility for

identifying flood risks and raising money to defend against flooding.

This week, the Prime Ministdr said This week, the Prime Minister said

the Government was keen to leave in more council cash for flood the

fences alongside contributions from private bodies. Now officials are

asking questions about what happened at Christmas. Maidstone MP Helen

Grant once a multi`agency round table and next week, Kent County

Council will hold a crisis meeting. There were mistakes, you had Marine

police turning up without boats, people from the Environment Agency

not checking houses because there were no lights on, and that was

because there was no power. Maidstone Borough Council is

notorious for being incompetent anyway, but it had its telephone

lines on an answering machine. The irony is that there were lots of

hard`working staff working late but nobody had thought at senior level

`` senior management level to change the answering machine messages, so

lots of people just hung up. People feel insecure, in a crisis, and in

some places it can be a matter of life and death, and it is a miracle

that nobody died, here. This comes against a backdrop of cuts to local

council budgets and to the Environment Agency which pl`ns to

Environment Agency which plans to axe 1500 jobs. The government

insists the cuts will not h`ve an insists the cuts will not h`ve an

impact on provision for front line flood defences in future, but

impact on provision for front line flood defences in future, btt Mike

flood defences in future, but Mike Clancy, for the trade union who

represents the staff, sees things differently. People can see the

pictures on television and if we pictures on television and hf we

continue to cut staff and assets, then there will be only one

consequence, more damage to the community and more economic damage

of trying to recover in the aftermath. Communities pulled

aftermath. Communities pulldd together 60 years ago when the South

East was under water and amhd together 60 years ago when the South

East was under water and amid all East was under water and amid all

the questions, one thing is for sure, this has happened before, and

it will happen again. Whilst residents felt lonely this

Christmas, will lessons be learned for the next time? We are joined by

Paul Carter, the Conservative leader of Kent County Council. Some

Paul Carter, the Conservative leader of Kent County Council. Somd of the

of Kent County Council. Some of the residents in Yalding talked about

the emergency response been too late, not enough warnings, council

phones not being manned, behng on answerphone. But one question, did

the flood have to be that b`d? Did the flood have to be that bad? Did

something go wrong at the flood barrier in bondage? First of all I

have enormous sympathy for those who had their homes flooded,

particularly those who could not get flood insurance. We have enormous

problems there. The emergency operation and recovery oper`tion

operation and recovery operation went very well. We have had so many

people say that we were sacrificed. Do we know if it worked not? We need

to look at evidence from the to look at evidence from thd

Environment Agency. I am told that the reservoir on Christmas Eve was

virtually empty and it had filled up by about five o'clock that dvening.

by about five o'clock that evening. And if the flow of water into the

reservoir was greater than the water you can get out of it, and the

floodgates open, they have got a good defence. But there are

questions. I don't know the answer, but I have talked to the Environment

Agency, and I would like to see the evidence of how they managed the

barrier on Christmas Eve. I will support them to the hilt, if they

have got the evidence to produce that shows that they managed it as

sensibly and intelligently as sensibly and intelligently `s

possible. Generally, I think the emergency recovery plans went

exceptionally well. Residents had sandbags turn up on Christm`s

exceptionally well. Residents had sandbags turn up on Christmas Day

sandbags turn up on Christm`s Day morning. That was too late. Flood

warnings went out on Christmas Eve, and most houses were flooded by

then. There were some sandb`gs in then. There were some sandbags in

Yalding but with the best whll in Yalding but with the best whll in

the world, more sandbags would Yalding but with the best will in

the world, more sandbags would not make have a lot of difference to the

houses I had visited since Christmas Day. We have got to look at how we

can build affordable flood defences that protect Yalding. We need to get

together a funding package with a bit of help from national

government. Despite this era of government. Despite this er` of

austerity, we are very lucky to get significant money from the coalition

to build the sandwich flood defences. You want a specifhc flood

defences. You want a specific flood defence for Yalding. The government

is giving more money to loc`l is giving more money to loc`l

authorities. Can you afford it? The sandwich defences helped whdn we had

sandwich defences helped when we had sea flooding before Christm`s. We

have put in a substantial part, sea flooding before Christmas. We

have put in a substantial p`rt, and have put in a substantial part, and

50% came from national government. We are going to have to look at our

programmes. We are spending ?250 million on capital programmds. If

million on capital programmes. If the Government is prepared to get

their cheque`books out, and we have a scheme that we noble work and

protect `` that we know will work and protect Yalding village, it is

estimated at ?24 million. Serotonin, you have worked in emergencx

you have worked in emergency planning. Did that look likd a good

planning. Did that look like a good example of a coordinated response?

The short answer is no, it did not. What most people needed, and I echo

those simple feast of peopld who those simple feast of people who

have lost their homes, they do not need David Cameron turning tp

have lost their homes, they do not need David Cameron turning up on

have lost their homes, they do not need David Cameron turning tp on a

need David Cameron turning up on a publicity stunt three days later.

What they need is proper defence systems in place. They need David

Cameron, the coalition and the Conservatives to take

responsibility. When you cut ?5 0 responsibility. When you cut ?500

million from uncivil `` frol the million from uncivil `` frol the

department responsible for flooding, when things go wrong, the key plans

will not be in place. What do you say, Damien? We need a proper

will not be in place. What do you say, Damien? We need a propdr study

of what happened and what lessons of what happened and what lessons

are to be learned, but the hmportant are to be learned, but the important

thing is, people want to know, is this going to happen again? We asked

ending more on flood defences than ending more on flood defencds than

the Labour Party spent, and in the autumn statement the Governlent gave

an extra ?120 million to go into flood defences. The Government

expects local authorities to come up with this when their funding is

being capped by central government, being capped by central govdrnment,

they are being urged not to raise council tax, so where are they

supposed to find the money to do that? The government needs to double

its spending on for defences to ?1 billion per year, and meanwhile, the

billion per year, and meanwhile the Environment Agency budget is being

cut. The Environment Agency is the primary agency to deliver flood

defence work. They have been given more money by this government than

the last government, so the investment is going through. There

was another key point about local coordination. My constituency,

coastal flooding is the big concern. They work throughout the year,

anticipating problems, getthng local anticipating problems, getting local

agencies to work throughout the year and it problems and we need to look

at that sort of grassroots planning in partnership with councils and the

Environment Agency. We are looking at the response times. People were

critical that they did not see the police and the fire services, two

emergency services that are vital when there was flooding. The County

Council is illegal authoritx responding to the floods. You have

heard criticisms. Is it too complicated? One Christmas Eve and

complicated? One Christmas Dve and Christmas Day, the emergency

Christmas Day, the emergencx services, Kent Fire and rescue and

the police were working, ev`cuating the police were working, evacuating

people from the caravan park as well as other homes. They saved lives

alongside volunteers who were there and numbers. Last week I met the St

John's anglers and the Red Cross, who had an enormous number of

volunteers, and the Salvation Army, helping and supporting the

evacuation process. And I think they did a marvellous job. There will be

lots of questions in future about where we build houses, which takes

us on to the next subject. Fergus Wilson is one Briton's private

landlords with over 1000 properties in Maidstone and Ashford. Hd

landlords with over 1000 properties in Maidstone and Ashford. He has

landlords with over 1000 properties in Maidstone and Ashford. Hd has a

big 200 individuals and families in the last 12 months for one reason,

they are on housing benefit. Here is his explanation. With the tdnants,

there has not been one who has defaulted, but those on bendfits,

there was 50% default. They perhaps cannot help it, but I am not the

DSS. Fergus Wilson says he's not the only landlord avoiding tenants who

are on welfare. Are there other private landlords turning away from

tenants who are on benefits? I'm afraid so. The welfare reform agenda

has shown that benefit levels of not kept up with rent levels, so from

our quarterly survey to landlords, we found that in 2010 the ntmbers

we found that in 2010 the numbers saying they would let to tenants on

benefits was about 46%, and in the last survey in the third qu`rter of

last survey in the third quarter of last year, that was down, so it has

more than halved. Clearly, there are other options, other people that

these people can rent to. Landlords these people can rent to. Landlords

will be thinking about risk. They will be worried about the tdnant not

being able to pay the rent. If there is an adequate supply of tenants who

are working and able to manage their are working and able to man`ge their

responsibilities, those are the ones that landlords will look to first,

because they simply want less hassle. You talk about the rent

distancing itself from housing distancing itself from housing

benefit, it is people like Fergus Wilson who are to blame. Whx do they

Wilson who are to blame. Why do they keep putting the rent up? The

housing market drives rent. That is a misnomer. I said that the gap

between these two is caused by rates going up, so why do landlords keep

putting rent up? Rent goes up putting rent up? Rent goes tp

because there was a shortage of supply of housing, lots of people

looking for housing. Not because landlords are greedy? No, bdcause

they're are shortage of supply and people are beating the price up.

they're are shortage of supply and people are beating the pricd up If

people are beating the price up. If you look across the housing market,

all forms of housing are increasing in price and because benefits are

being held back, they are not keeping up with market demand, so

people are being put in a more difficult position, who are on

benefit. Let's find out what our guests sting. Fergus Wilson, a

businessman who has ended up, as he told me on BBC Radio London, down

?800,000 because of rent arrears. It is just business, isn't it? I do

think anyone is going to be crying over Fergus Wilson's bank accounts.

I totally disagree. There is this rhetoric and the Conservatives are

to blame for this, that people on housing benefit are not in work,

when seven out of eight people in receipt of housing benefit `re

receipt of housing benefit are working people who cannot m`ke ends

working people who cannot make ends meet. This is a cost of livhng

crisis. Particularly in the South`East, where we have seen wages

South`East, where we have sden wages falling by 2000 and pounds `` ?2000

falling by 2000 and pounds `` ? 000 in the past three years. This is a

man with multiple millions who are in work, whether they are rent

in work, whether they are rdnt arrears or not, who is expelling is

`` who evict tenants. Do yot agree `` who evict tenants. Do you agree

with that? I think that landlords should care about the quality of

tenants, there are people, good tenants and bad tenants, of all

income scales. I think we have to look seriously at the way that

certain private landlords bdhave. look seriously at the way that

certain private landlords bdhave. My concern is less with Fergus Wilson

than with rogue, absentee private landlords we keep properties in a

shocking state and abuse thdir shocking state and abuse their

tenants knowing that people will not doing much about it. But people on

benefits are going to end up renting from those people. Fergus Wilson is

from those people. Fergus Whlson is right that we need more supply. We

need more houses built by housing associations. In East Kent, we have

East Kent building new council houses. Just not on flood plains,

right? There is land where ht houses. Just not on flood plains,

right? There is land where it can houses. Just not on flood plains,

right? There is land where it can be built. We need to give tenants more

choice. Let's rattle through some of the options to try and solvd this

the options to try and solve this problem. One of them is to hncrease

housing benefit. You have got rent at a certain level. This guy thinks

that housing benefit is not enough to cover rent. Is there an argument

to cover rent. Is there an `rgument that housing benefit should be

higher? All parties agree that there is a housing benefit cap. Wd have

is a housing benefit cap. We have got to look a lot bigger, at the

issue. I have touched on it with the cost of living crisis. 23,000 people

in Hastings, currently in debt. Quick answers on this. We are not

going to increase housing bdnefit, going to increase housing benefit,

what about paying rent directly to the landlord? That was a ch`nge that

came in under this government, and we said if there are issues of

concern that landlords and tenants that it needs to be constantly

reviewed. We can look at direct payments to landlords, I think it

should be used as an incenthve where should be used as an incentive where

the landlord keeps the propdrty at a the landlord keeps the property at a

decent level. Also through credit unions people can set up accounts

whereby rent is ring fenced to go to the landlord. Good social tenants

the landlord. Good social tdnants are good tennis because effectively,

are good tennis because effdctively, the state is providing a large part

of their rent guarantee through housing benefit and many landlords

are happy to work with houshng are happy to work with housing

benefit through that. The other thing was rent being controlled.

Just because House prices go up you Just because House prices go up you

do not have to put rent up. I think we're getting back to the 70s with

rent controls, that is not going to work. If rent is going up too much

it is because there are too many people chasing properties and there

are not enough properties for them. It is not the case to say that it

does not work, it works in New York City, where property prices are

incredibly high. The South East City, where property prices are

incredibly high. The South Dast has incredibly high. The South Dast has

a particularly acute problem. In a particularly acute problem. In

places like Hastings and Ryd, you places like Hastings and Ryd, you

have got low wages and property have got low wages and property

prices creeping up and people being priced out of the property larket

priced out of the property market completely. Let's come back to what

this means for a community. It is a form of social cleansing to say that

poorer people are not welcole form of social cleansing to say that

poorer people are not welcome in these homes. There are things that

we're doing now matter stem this problem. Hastings Borough Council

has run a successful local `uthority has run a successful local authority

mortgage scheme to get people that can afford to buy out of thd rental

can afford to buy out of the rental market... It is important to think

that some people will probably have to rent, all of their lives. One

private landlord might have lots of properties scattered over an area.

We want mixed communities. But more and more of them say that they feel

like that. We need more supply in the market, giving tenants lore

the market, giving tenants more choice and more power. We nded to do

more through the Help To Buy scheme more through the Help To Bux scheme

to help people who are long`term tenants to buy their home, rather

than rent it. Time for a rotnd`up of than rent it. Time for a round`up of

the other political events that you might have missed this week.

It is an unhappy New Year for the Chatham historic dockyard. Hts bid

to be the next UK candidate for UNESCO world Heritage status failed

this week. The government instead put forward the Lake District

National Park. The annual rail fare National Park. The annual rail fare

increase might have been less hard`hitting than usual but rail

bosses have been accused of daylight robbery for above inflation rises to

car parking charges. In Haywards Heath, an annual ticket costs over

?1100, a 5% increase. It is a double whammy for hard`pressed comluters.

The new chief constable of Kent, The new chief constable of Kent

Alun Pusey, has his work cut out. One of his first jobs is to reduce

the budget of his force by ?20 million, which he thinks cotld

relate to 100 jobs of officers. million, which he thinks could

relate to 100 jobs of officdrs. I relate to 100 jobs of officers. I

will take as much of that money out of non`people savings as I possibly

can. Lots of people will feel aggrieved

by that double whammy of the by that double whammy of thd

increase in parking charges at railway stations. In Kent wd have

some of the first ?5,000 commutes some of the first ?5,000 colmutes

from towns like Ramsgate and Dover. I don't know what the journdy from

I don't know what the journey from Hastings is. It is around ?4,00

mark. Can it be justified to charge people that much for parking on top

of their rail fares? Now, we are seeing people being priced out of

their homes, and public transport, which completely negates thd

their homes, and public transport, which completely negates the point.

You should look at it in thd round, You should look at it in the round,

we have some of the lowest priced railway station car parks covered by

this, southeastern trains franchise. Historically prices have been quite

Historically prices have bedn quite low, and the price increase this

year was the lowest for a number of year was the lowest for a number of

years. With government support, we can keep prices lower. That is all

we have got time for. Thank you to my guests. Natalie will be here next

week with more politics frol my guests. Natalie will be here next

week with more politics from the week with more politics frol the

South`East. will not be revoked. And I wouldn't

want it to go. Thank you, back to Andrew.

Can David Cameron get his way on EU migration? Will he ever be able to

satisfy his backbenchers on Europe? Is Ed Miliband trying to change the

tone of PMQ 's? More questions for the week ahead.

We are joined by Jacob Rees Mogg from his constituency in Somerset.

Welcome to the programme. You one of the 95 Tory backbenchers who signed

this letter? Suddenly. Laws should be made by our democratically

elected representatives, not from Brussels. How could Europe work with

a pick and mix in which each national parliament can decide what

Brussels can be in charge of? The European Union is a supernatural

body that is there for the cooperation amongst member states to

do things that they jointly want to do. It ought not be there to force

-- to enforce uniform rules on countries that do not want to

participate. It is the vision of Europe that people joined when we

signed up to it and came in in 973. signed up to it and came in in 1973.

It has accreted powers to itself without having the support of the

public of the member states. This is just a way of preparing the ground

for you to get out of Europe altogether, isn't it? I do not big

so. There is a role for an organisation that does some

coordination and that has trade agreements within it, I do not think

there is a role for a federal state. Europe seems to be dominating the. I

remember your leader telling you not to bang on about Europe, your

backbench colleagues seem to have ignored that. Would you like to

restrict the flow of EU migrants to come to work in this country? Yes. I

think we should have control of our own borders, so we can decide who we

want to admit for the whole world. What we have at the moment is a

restrictive control of people coming from anywhere other than the EU.

from anywhere other than the EU There is a big decrease in the

number of New Zealanders who came in the last quarter for which figures

are available, but a huge increase in people coming from the continent.

Does it really make sense to stop our second cousins coming so that we

can allow people freely to come from the continent? I do not think so, we

need to have domestic control of our borders in the interests of the

United Kingdom. There are still lots more people coming from the rest of

the world than from the European Union. That has been changing. But

there are still more. A lot more. The permanent residence coming from

the European Union are extremely high. In the period when the Labour

Party was in charge, we had to put 5 million people coming here, of whom

about 1 billion were from Poland. -- we had 2.5 million people coming

here. We have no control over them. Like the clock behind you, you are

behind the times on these figures. I have stopped the clock for your

benefit, because it was going to chime otherwise! I thought that

might be distracting! Only a Tory backbencher could stop a clock!

Helen, when you at this up, it is preparing to get out, is it not?

Helen, when you at this up, it is preparing to get out, is it not We

have had this one bill about a referendum that seems to have tied

us up in knots for months on end. If Parliament could scrutinise every

piece of EU legislation, we would never get anything else done. It

would be incredible. Even Chris Grayling said earlier that you can

not have a national veto on anything that the EU proposes. I am surprised

that Jacob Rees Mogg is talking about dismantling one of Margaret

Thatcher's most important legacies, the creation of the single market,

and the person sent there to dream it up under Margaret Thatcher said

the only way you can run this sensibly is by not having national

vetoes, because if you have that, guess what will happen? The French

will impose lots of protectionist measures. It was Margaret

Thatcher's idea that national parliaments should never veto. How

could you fly in the face of the lady? Even the great lady makes

mistakes. Excuse me, Jacob Rees Mogg says even Margaret Thatcher makes

mistakes! No wonder the clock has stopped! Even be near divine

Margaret made a mistake! But on the single market, it has been used as

an excuse for massive origination of domestic affairs. We should be

interested in free trade in Europe and allowing people to export and

import freely, not to have uniform regulations, as per the single

market, because what that allows is thought unelected bureaucrats to

determine the regular vision. We want the British people to decide

the rules for themselves. If this makes the single market not work,

that is not the problem, because we can still have free trade, which is

more important. If David Cameron is watching this, I am sure he is, it

will be nice for you to come on and give us an interview, he must be

worried. He is beginning to think, I am losing control. It is a clever

letter, the tone is ingratiating and pleasant, every time, you have stood

up to Brussels, you have achieved something, but the content is

dramatic. If you want Parliament to have a veto, you want to leave the

EU, because the definition is accepting the primacy of European

law. The MPs should be clear about that. It is almost a year since the

Europe speech in which David Cameron committed to the referendum. The

political objective was to put that issue to bed until the next

election. It has failed. David Cameron is going to have to pull off

a major miracle in any renegotiations to satisfy all of

this. Yes, it makes me think how much luckier he has been in

coalition with the Liberal Democrats, because there is a bit of

the Tory party that is irreconcilable to what he wants to

do. The Conservative MPs are making these demands just as David Cameron

is seeing the debate goes his way in Europe. Angela Merkel has looked

over the cliff and said, do I want the UK out? No, they are a

counterbalance to France. France one the UK to leave, but they do not,

because they do not want to lose the only realistic military power Tom

other than themselves. Just when the debate is going David Cameron's way,

Jacob Rees Mogg would take us out. Let me move on to another subject.

That is nonsense. The debate is not beginning to go David Cameron's way.

We are having before us on Monday a bill about European citizenship and

spending British taxpayers money so that Europe can go and say we are

all EU citizens, but we signed up to being a part of a multinational

organisation. The spin that it is going the way of the leader of a

political party is one that has been used before, it was said of John

Major, it was untrue then and it is now. It is, for the continuing

deeper integration of the European Union. I want to ask a quick

question. Chris Grayling said to us that the Tories would devise a way

in which the British Supreme Court would be supreme in the proper

meaning of that, but we could still be within the European Court of

Human Rights. Can that circle be squared? I have no idea, the Lord

Chancellor is an able man, and I am sure he is good at squaring circles.

I am not worried about whether we remain in the convention or not. PMQ

's, we saw a bit about this week, Paul Gorgons had died, so the house

was more subdued, but he wants a more subdued and serious prime

ministers questions. Let's remind ourselves what it was like until

now. What is clear is that he is

floundering around and he has no answer to the Labour Party's energy

price freeze. The difference is, John Major is a good man, the Right

Honourable gentleman is acting like a conman. Across the medical

profession, they say there is a crisis in accident and emergency,

and we have a Prime Minister saying, crisis, what crisis? How out of

touch can hate the? You do not need it to be Christmas to know when you

are sitting next to a turkey. It is not a bad line. Is Ed Miliband

trying to change the tone of prime ministers questions? Is he right to

do so? The important point is this was a special prime ministers

questions, because everybody was really sad and by the death of Paul

Goggins and in the country, the legacy of the floods. That was the

first question that Ed Miliband asked about, so that cast a pall

over proceedings. When it suits him, Ed Miliband would like to take a

more statesman-like stance, but will it last? That is how David Cameron

started. His first prime ministers questions, he said to Tony Blair, I

would like to support you on education, and he did in a vote

which meant Tony Blair could see off a naughty operation from Gordon

Brown. But it did not last, they are parties with different visions.

Jacob Rees Mogg, would you like to see it more subdued? I like a bit of

Punch and Judy. You need to have fierce debate and people putting

their views passionately, it is excellent. I am not good at it, I

sit there quite quietly, but it is great fun, very exciting, and it is

the most watched bit of the House of Commons each week. If it got as dull

as ditchwater, nobody would pay attention. Three cheers for Punch

and Judy. Ed Miliband is going to make a major speech on the economy

this week. You can now define the general approach. We had it from

Emma Reynolds, we have seen it over energy prices, this market is bust,

the market is not working properly, and that will therefore justify

substantial government intervention. Intervention which does not

necessarily cost money. It is the deletion and reorganising

industries. It constitutes an answer to the question which has been

hounding him, what is the point of the Labour Party when there is no

money left? He says, you do not spend a huge amount fiscally, but

you arrange markets to achieve socially just outcomes without

expenditure. It is quite serious stance. I am not sure it will

survive the rigours of an election campaign, but it is an answer. Is

that an approach, to use broken markets, to justify substantial

state intervention? Yes, and the other big plank is infrastructure

spending. The Lib Dems would not be against capital investment for info

structure will stop Emma Reynolds talking about house-building, the

idea of pumping money into the economy through infrastructure is

something that the Labour Party will look at. Jacob Rees Mogg, you once

thought Somerset should have its own time zone, and today, you have

delivered on that promise! Live on the Sunday Politics! I try to

deliver on my promises! That is all for today, the Daily

Politics is on BBC Two every day this week, just before lunch. I

aren't back next Sunday here on BBC One at 11am. -- I am back. If it is

Sunday, it is the Sunday Politics.