04/11/2012

Download Subtitles

Transcript

:01:23. > :01:27.In the South West. Sarah Wollaston explains why she voted against the

:01:27. > :01:37.government on Europe. And calls for a new tax to control

:01:37. > :01:37.

:01:37. > :36:05.Apology for the loss of subtitles for 2067 seconds

:36:05. > :36:09.Coming upon the Sunday Politics in the south-west. Should there be a

:36:09. > :36:13.tax on second homes? We will hear from an MP who says yes because the

:36:13. > :36:17.sight of houses with the lights off is breaking his heart.

:36:17. > :36:20.For the next 20 minutes I am joined with the Conservative MP Sarah

:36:20. > :36:25.Wollaston and Labour councillor Darren Campbell. Welcome to the

:36:25. > :36:29.programme. Sarah was one of the MPs who rebelled against the government

:36:29. > :36:34.on the boat on the EU budget, which angered some of her Tory colleagues,

:36:34. > :36:37.and provoked heated exchanges in the House. Here is a flavour of

:36:38. > :36:43.what happened. The Conservative Party is united on

:36:43. > :36:51.Europe. We are all opposed to the increase in the Budget, and we

:36:51. > :37:00.would like to strengthen things. Can I just say, if the honourable

:37:00. > :37:03.lady goes into the division lobby said that it to that of the Prime

:37:03. > :37:07.Minister she is not helping him or the party. If this party hopes to

:37:07. > :37:10.be in government after the next general election it has to get a

:37:10. > :37:14.grip and starts supporting the Prime Minister.

:37:14. > :37:17.David Cameron is under a lot of pressure to make the coalition work,

:37:17. > :37:23.and you have undermined him on this issue. Don't you feel this might be

:37:23. > :37:32.slightly damaging? I have not undermined him, I am representing

:37:32. > :37:37.my constituents, and the clear message I get is we're taking...

:37:38. > :37:43.Torbay have taken 11% cuts in the form of a grant, 6% this year, do

:37:43. > :37:48.we have one -- want to hand all the savings to Europe? Brixham had a

:37:48. > :37:57.handout from Europe. Yes, but this is money we could be the

:37:57. > :38:00.distributing, we're talking a big difference. This debate is about

:38:01. > :38:05.asking you up to take note about how people feel in Britain, and

:38:05. > :38:10.people in Britain really do want them to make the same choices that

:38:10. > :38:14.people in my constituency are making. You said that the Tories

:38:14. > :38:17.are united on Europe, but how can you say you are delighted when you

:38:17. > :38:27.have got people like Sir Tony baldy who was part of the Major

:38:27. > :38:27.

:38:27. > :38:32.government, and says he knows too well the consequences of rebelling

:38:32. > :38:42.on fact like this. But this is an issue about the Budget. And what we

:38:42. > :38:44.

:38:44. > :38:48.are seeing is that, and I do not know any Tory MP who wants to get

:38:48. > :38:53.real with this. This motion was calling on the Government to take

:38:53. > :38:56.note of how we feel, but it is also more important that we were asking

:38:56. > :39:03.the European Union to take note, because they would have been

:39:03. > :39:07.watching, and it showed that a clear majority in parliament are

:39:07. > :39:17.saying to Europe, people in this country want you to do the same as

:39:17. > :39:20.

:39:20. > :39:24.we are asking of our constituents. Thank you. His David Cameron right?

:39:24. > :39:29.Back in July we were advocating cuts in the EU budget. It is not

:39:29. > :39:36.opportunism. It is recognition that Europe has got to play its part in

:39:36. > :39:40.cutting its budget at a time when budgets are going to be cut in huge

:39:40. > :39:45.amounts, affecting frontline services and end users. Europe has

:39:45. > :39:50.to play its role. Ed Miliband supported an increase in the EU

:39:50. > :39:54.budget under the last Labour government, and this change of mind

:39:54. > :39:59.was only on Monday. It is not a change of mind, it is a change of

:39:59. > :40:05.circumstance. The economy in 2005 was different. We have had a global

:40:05. > :40:12.crisis since then, and a double-dip recession. The reality is we have a

:40:12. > :40:14.European economy that is an very briefly, a bad start for the Chief

:40:14. > :40:18.Whip. If Andrew Mitchell was there, which

:40:18. > :40:23.are still have rebelled? I am very clear that I would have been

:40:23. > :40:27.representing my constituents on this, which would have made no

:40:27. > :40:33.difference to me who was the chief whip. It is unfortunate that so

:40:33. > :40:39.much rebate was handed back, 54% of a rebate was handed back in 2011,

:40:39. > :40:42.which voters are not happy about. We have to move on. Last week it

:40:42. > :40:45.was revealed -- revealed that Cornwall has the largest number of

:40:45. > :40:51.second homes in the country. We reported calls from Andrew George

:40:51. > :40:57.for a new planning rules to allow councils to control numbers.

:40:57. > :41:06.Another of the Liberal Democrat MPs is proposing a new tax on second

:41:06. > :41:16.A winter's night in cost and mackerel, and many homes remain in

:41:16. > :41:19.darkness. -- in Cawsand. A legacy of second-home ownership. You can

:41:19. > :41:23.see huge areas of places with no lights on, which hits the local

:41:23. > :41:33.economy. People might spend a bit of money when they are there, but

:41:33. > :41:40.when the RMT, they are not helping. A recent report found that 85% of

:41:40. > :41:43.people surveyed thought it was good for their area. 49% felt measure

:41:43. > :41:47.should be taken to reduce the negative impact of second home

:41:47. > :41:51.buying. What it does this say that we need to look into this a bit

:41:51. > :41:56.more. The issue of a second home is a very long spectrum, you can have

:41:56. > :42:01.a second home that is rented out for 40 or 50 weeks of the year,

:42:01. > :42:04.providing revenues for the local shot, the local pub, the local

:42:04. > :42:09.builder, but on the other end of this spectrum, you can have one

:42:09. > :42:13.that might only be used for two begins in you and the odd week.

:42:13. > :42:16.It is those relatively unused properties that he is targeting,

:42:16. > :42:19.and has proposed changing to planning laws so that local

:42:19. > :42:23.authorities could cap the number of second homes in the area. He is

:42:23. > :42:26.also suggesting changes to the tax system where second homes could be

:42:27. > :42:30.charged a higher rate of council tax, there is also a suggestion of

:42:30. > :42:39.a mansion tax on second homes which would raise money to provide

:42:39. > :42:43.affordable housing for local people. You could have a two layer pricing

:42:43. > :42:46.system in the county, you would have to oversee it and he feared it

:42:46. > :42:54.would be. If you succeeded in switching holiday properties into

:42:54. > :42:59.local housing, which I have my doubts about, you are undermining a

:42:59. > :43:07.critical part of the local economy so you trading houses for jobs.

:43:07. > :43:10.Classic Cottages in Helston employs 35 people and markets cottages. The

:43:10. > :43:18.company chairman Simon Tregoning is sceptical about political

:43:18. > :43:21.interference, concerned it may do more harm than good. A what are

:43:21. > :43:27.they trying to achieve? The youngsters that I employ are also

:43:27. > :43:31.looking for houses, so we see all shades of the argument.

:43:31. > :43:36.Tourism boss of so welcomed the debate. -- bosses welcomed the

:43:36. > :43:40.debate. You could not stop someone buying a second home, so we have to

:43:40. > :43:44.think this through a bit more. It is an area that is worth debate,

:43:44. > :43:48.but no one has a silver bullet to solve this where you gain the

:43:48. > :43:52.economic benefits but there are no negatives.

:43:52. > :43:59.Spending by second homeowners injects �150 million into

:43:59. > :44:03.Cornwall's economy each year. It provides a living for some, but

:44:03. > :44:08.others crave for communities they once had.

:44:08. > :44:13.To discuss this we are joined by a Lib Dem MP, Stephen Gilbert.

:44:13. > :44:18.Welcome to the programme. Do you support the idea of more taxation

:44:18. > :44:21.for second homeowners are? Absolutely. It is welcome that the

:44:21. > :44:25.coalition government has removed the discount that second-home

:44:25. > :44:29.owners were able to benefit from, something we did not see from

:44:29. > :44:33.Labour and 13 years. We need to see that -- Major that local

:44:33. > :44:37.authorities have the powers to set a limit to the number of second

:44:37. > :44:41.homes in a particular area. If you go to some communities in Cornwall,

:44:42. > :44:45.you will find it up to half of the residences and empty for up to nine

:44:46. > :44:51.months of the year, only used during the summer. That really does

:44:51. > :44:55.have an impact in terms of local businesses, schools, and an impact

:44:55. > :44:58.that has a price to pay in the local economy. How much more should

:44:58. > :45:07.taken -- second homeowners pay? That is an issue that can be

:45:07. > :45:11.debated. Or we are now unable to charge 100% of council tax, but I

:45:11. > :45:15.would be keen to go to 200%, with the proviso that the local

:45:16. > :45:21.authority has powers to limit the numbers. Limit the number of second

:45:21. > :45:28.homes? How would they do that? Those communities have less money

:45:28. > :45:32.going around them. Stephen, sorry to interrupt you. How would local

:45:32. > :45:35.authorities limit the number of second homes? If you were selling a

:45:36. > :45:41.house that was your prime residents, do you think you should not be

:45:41. > :45:43.allowed to sell it to a second home or no? The proposal we have put

:45:43. > :45:47.forward is that local authorities should be given powers through the

:45:47. > :45:51.planning system to enable people wanting to purchase a second home

:45:51. > :45:54.to apply through the planning process for that. That way, local

:45:54. > :45:58.communities who want to increase the number of second homes will be

:45:58. > :46:04.able to do so, and those at saturation will have the power to

:46:04. > :46:10.prevent it. I am going to be that now to say. What do you make about

:46:10. > :46:16.what he is saying, that he could limit the number of second homes?

:46:16. > :46:20.There are areas where it is out of bounds. Some areas have 40% of

:46:20. > :46:24.second home-ownership, which is out of balance. Particularly when

:46:24. > :46:31.people do not use them for the majority of the here and they do

:46:31. > :46:36.not let them out. The problem is, any mechanism in place, there could

:46:36. > :46:43.be consequences to that. If we ask people to pay 150% of council tax,

:46:43. > :46:48.what would stop them saying it is the main residence? We also have to

:46:48. > :46:51.remember that many of these people might be second homeowners

:46:51. > :47:01.initially, and they contribute a huge amount of their community.

:47:01. > :47:01.

:47:01. > :47:07.Many people who contribute the most to their community first introduced

:47:07. > :47:12.-- were first introduced by being a second homeowner, so they might

:47:12. > :47:17.spend more time there permanently. What do you say to that? She is

:47:17. > :47:19.quite right to suggest we would need to think carefully about the

:47:19. > :47:29.mechanism to introduce a restriction on the number of second

:47:29. > :47:33.

:47:33. > :47:38.homes, but it is a power that local communities and at saturation point,

:47:38. > :47:43.they want powers to limit the number of. Darren Powell, do you

:47:43. > :47:46.support this issue? I am in favour of doing what we can to reduce the

:47:46. > :47:49.number of second homes because there is such an impact on the

:47:49. > :47:55.local housing stock, and the ability for young people to stay

:47:55. > :47:59.within the communities. What about the example of some are not allowed

:47:59. > :48:01.to sell their house to a second homeowner, will that not lead to

:48:01. > :48:06.localise downturn in the housing market and individual homeowners

:48:06. > :48:13.losing a lot of money? I do not think you would be able to regulate

:48:13. > :48:16.it. You could listed as a primary residence, and your actual London

:48:16. > :48:20.or Manchester home could be your secondary residence because it is

:48:20. > :48:24.this -- if it is a discretionary power, not all authorities will

:48:24. > :48:31.adopt it because it is only in regions like ours with it is a big

:48:31. > :48:38.problem. A lot more to discuss before legislation.

:48:38. > :48:42.Thank you. The region's pubs are still closing at an alarming rate,

:48:42. > :48:45.and this week, several south-west MPs backed calls for government

:48:45. > :48:51.intervention. They want ministers to scrap the beer duty escalator

:48:51. > :48:55.which they say has an unfair impact on the local. They say that since

:48:55. > :49:00.the tax was introduced four years ago it has put 60p on to the

:49:00. > :49:04.average pint of beer. Earlier this year, we filmed Wendy,

:49:04. > :49:09.who was at the start of an ambitious project to turn a

:49:09. > :49:14.derelict pub into a vibrant business. We have come back, and it

:49:14. > :49:19.seems that despite all the hard work, trade are struggling. She has

:49:19. > :49:26.recently had to lay off her chef to save money, and she has had to step

:49:26. > :49:32.in to fill the gap. In the summer it was just worse than a normal

:49:32. > :49:36.winter. In terms of the weather? Yes, people were not coming out. We

:49:36. > :49:41.have just had to lay off the chef, because we could not afford them

:49:41. > :49:46.and keep the roof over our heads. She is not alone. According to the

:49:46. > :49:51.industry, beer sales are down 5% and pub closures are up 50%.

:49:51. > :49:56.Traders say the beer duty escalator was partly to blame. The tax was

:49:56. > :50:01.introduced in 2008, under Labour. It goes up by inflation plus 2%

:50:01. > :50:09.every year. That means a pint costs 60 ends more than it did four years

:50:09. > :50:12.ago. -- 60p. This week MPs called for the government to review the

:50:12. > :50:17.tax. But there are those who think that

:50:17. > :50:21.keeping the price of alcohol high is not necessarily a bad thing.

:50:21. > :50:26.would call for the government giving benefits to pubs to sell

:50:26. > :50:30.soft drinks more cheaply, serve hot food throughout the day and give

:50:30. > :50:40.information about the harm caused by alcohol. But we do not know that

:50:40. > :50:42.

:50:42. > :50:47.it should be by taking away the duty tax escalator. They are

:50:47. > :50:52.hitting an industry which is finding it very hard, and I think

:50:52. > :50:57.they play on the fact that there is a lot of harm done by alcohol. But

:50:57. > :51:02.there are lots of good things done. A pint of beer in a pub is

:51:02. > :51:07.relaxation. Why keep aiming at thing that -- things that people

:51:07. > :51:13.enjoy? MPs voted in favour of the review of the tax before the Budget,

:51:13. > :51:17.but the out -- outcome of the vote has no cold on the Government. The

:51:17. > :51:20.Health Minister did say that he was listening, and they will introduce

:51:20. > :51:24.a range of measures to help the pubs.

:51:24. > :51:28.You have campaign such -- tirelessly about alcohol

:51:28. > :51:33.consumption, and beer consumption is now going down, maybe as a

:51:33. > :51:39.result of the duty. Are you pleased? To be honest, I was at the

:51:39. > :51:42.debate because I do support pubs, and I met with several publican's

:51:42. > :51:46.before the vote. And I am very concerned about the closures of a

:51:46. > :51:49.rural pubs, which are at the heart of the community, and for me the

:51:49. > :51:54.issue is the difference between the price of the very cheap alcohol

:51:54. > :51:58.causing harm in supermarkets, which is the area we should be tackling,

:51:58. > :52:02.I do not think there is an issue with the price of beer and a pub.

:52:02. > :52:08.It is already relatively very high. So the beer escalator duty should

:52:08. > :52:12.be scrapped? I would agree that we need a review. We need to get rid

:52:13. > :52:18.of the ultra cheap alcohol which is causing the problems. It is the

:52:18. > :52:22.shift to home drinking that is the problem.

:52:22. > :52:27.Labour introduced this policy in 2008. We have heard that beer has

:52:27. > :52:33.gone up 60p a pint since then. This will continue to rise. Is now a

:52:33. > :52:37.good time to say enough is enough? I think we need to look at the

:52:37. > :52:40.consequences of having the escalator. We heard in the film

:52:40. > :52:45.about the number of pubs closing, which is 60 a week across the

:52:45. > :52:53.nation. My local pub closed a few months ago, and I know the impact

:52:53. > :53:02.it has had on the community. It is absolutely right, as someone who

:53:02. > :53:07.represents a town centre, I see the consequences of the high strings

:53:07. > :53:11.ladder that you can buy so cheaply, on antisocial behaviour. Was the

:53:11. > :53:17.duty escalator one of Gordon Brown's money spinner has? You have

:53:17. > :53:24.got to consider economic budgets that were laid down in 2008 which

:53:24. > :53:27.was totally different than they are now.

:53:27. > :53:30.Stephen, you took part in the debate, and called for it to be

:53:30. > :53:36.scrapped. Where do you see the shortfall in revenue coming from a

:53:36. > :53:42.fit his scrubs? The important thing is when you get to the top of the

:53:42. > :53:45.escalator it is time to step off, and we see that the beer duty

:53:45. > :53:49.escalator is having an impact in terms of local businesses, and

:53:49. > :53:52.actually if we enable them to thrive, we will be able to collect

:53:52. > :53:57.more revenue than if we continue to penalise them by keeping the

:53:57. > :54:07.escalated in place. OK, it is now time for the regular

:54:07. > :54:08.

:54:08. > :54:12.round-up of the political be. Wind turbine policy was blowing in

:54:12. > :54:17.all directions. The conservative Energy Minister said enough was

:54:17. > :54:24.enough, but the Lib Dems say he was just generating confusion. He is

:54:24. > :54:30.talking from a personal perspective. No, he is the Energy Minister!

:54:30. > :54:34.it is not go a month policy. Councillors might get control of

:54:34. > :54:39.budgets currently set in Whitehall. There has been a big rise in fly-

:54:39. > :54:44.tipping. Offences in Exeter doubled in two years. More people are happy

:54:44. > :54:49.to reporter at the ease days. Disappointment in Dorset, the

:54:49. > :54:52.Department for Transport says it would not pay �2 million to repair

:54:52. > :54:58.the Beaminster tunnel. And some grassroots politics in

:54:59. > :55:03.North Devon, where residents rolled up their sleeves to round up a herd

:55:03. > :55:07.of feral goats. They have come back over and gone back where they

:55:07. > :55:17.started, so I think we're going to have to reorganise and have another

:55:17. > :55:22.That was the round-up of the week. Let us look at the wind turbine row.

:55:22. > :55:26.It seems to show that the coalition is in disarray. Do you believe it

:55:26. > :55:31.was a responsible for John Hayes to make these remarks signalling an

:55:31. > :55:35.end to offshore wind turbines without consulting the government?

:55:35. > :55:39.It is not a responsible because I have seen people in my constituency

:55:39. > :55:43.surgeries who are in favour of environmental policies, but this

:55:43. > :55:50.morning I saw 10 people in the surgery who have just had a wind

:55:50. > :55:54.turbine built within 250 metres of their homes, and the person getting

:55:54. > :56:01.all the subsidies does not live anywhere near it. If you are having

:56:01. > :56:03.a loss of amenity because of it, you should have some degree of

:56:03. > :56:07.compensation order your community should benefit from it. I welcome

:56:07. > :56:12.the review that has been launched, the consultation on how we get the

:56:12. > :56:20.right benefits to communities. Stephen, you work closely with the

:56:20. > :56:24.energy secretary, was he fuming about this? No, not at all. What

:56:24. > :56:31.John was setting out was his view about where the debate should go

:56:32. > :56:37.back after the government has set out its target. We're at 6% at the

:56:37. > :56:40.moment and we have a fair distance to go, if we're going to make

:56:40. > :56:50.obligations under climate change and reduce the amount of carbon

:56:50. > :56:51.

:56:51. > :56:56.vomiting. -- the knitting. When we are looking at the onshore power

:56:56. > :56:59.were, it is important we have people getting benefit from wind

:56:59. > :57:09.turbines, which is why the Government are consulting. But the

:57:09. > :57:10.

:57:10. > :57:16.industry says it is confuse about policy. The policy is clear. It is

:57:16. > :57:22.that one third of energy generation will come from renewables by 2020.

:57:22. > :57:27.John's comments will be seen after the debate of 2020. Thank you for

:57:27. > :57:34.joining us. Before we go, we have to ask you about your role in Costa

:57:34. > :57:40.Coffee. It has pulled out his bed to open in Totnes. You were very

:57:40. > :57:45.against them opening. How does that work, with the Tory policy being

:57:45. > :57:51.very free-market? I was never against them, the other great

:57:51. > :57:56.British company paying all their tax, it was about saying we as

:57:56. > :58:00.appropriate to? In Totnes, we have a strong tradition of independence

:58:00. > :58:04.and it is about keeping money in the local economy, the local

:58:04. > :58:08.sustainable supplies, and we wanted Costa Coffee to visit the town and

:58:08. > :58:13.say, look at the impact this would have, and a really strong feeling

:58:13. > :58:16.was that we did not want a cloned high street. One of the reasons

:58:16. > :58:23.people were coming to Totnes is because there is a different offer

:58:23. > :58:26.there, and something you can end up destroying that. Were you surprised

:58:26. > :58:32.that a Tory was supporting something which was not free

:58:32. > :58:36.market? Of course not. Because Sarah is doing what an MP is doing

:58:36. > :58:40.to represent her business and interests. It is to Costa Coffee's

:58:40. > :58:43.credit that they took notice of the community and that the number of