02/12/2012 Sunday Politics South West

Hello. Coming up on the Sunday Politics, in the South West. The

man who says he can't afford flood insurance, and has little hope the

Government will help him. And for the next 20 mince I am joined by

the Conservative MP George Eustice and Anne Mallalieu. Welcome both of

you. Let us start with the plan for regional pay in the NHS. Three

weeks' ago the Government seemed to be standing firmly behind the South

West Health Trusts proposing this. Health Minister soub describe them

as mature. Her fellow Health Minister Dan Poulter appeared to

perform a dramatic U-turn. There is a general agreement we need to

maintain national pay frameworks, provided they are fut for purpose.

I think he will find that the South West pay consortium, who have been

heavy handed in the way they have conducted their affair, will also

see the benefit of maintaining national pay frameworks. So, George,

people ra going to be confused by this -- are going to be confused.

Does the Government support the South West looking into regional

pay or not? I think there is a pretty clear indication there from

Dan Poulter they feel the South West consortium hasn't handled this

very well. There would be agreement about that. What about as far as

Anna Soubry goes, saying it was responsible. There is a difference

of emphasis. The important thing to bear in mind it has been possible

for PCTs to negotiate their own terms and conditions with staff.

Since 2004 most have used the agenda for change mechanism, and

the majority will probably continue to do that. But I think it is

important to remember with 70% of all the costs that PCTs have, being

in staff costs, I think it is wrong to completely rule out any changes

at all to pay and conditions. appears to be a communications

break down, is it embarrassing for you? Where the consortium would

agree, the way this came out caused some alarm. They are not talking

about cutting pay, they are talking about changing shift patterns for

instance, which most people would think more sensible. People have to

ask the question if it is a choice between cutting frontline services

or having more flexibility in pay and conditions which should you do

it would be wrong to rule out flexibility in pay and conditions.

What is Labour's position? In is a good shambles. It is not just one

minister knowing what the other one is saying, the Government is saying

we want localism, people taking decision at local level and local

people making the major decisions as oppose to Westminster, and when

they do they say we don't like this at all, we think this should be a

central decision. The option to set pay at a local level did exist

under Labour, didn't it? This did. What is happening now the

trusts are being encouraged to do a great many things they were never

encouraged to do before, such as buy supplies and so on. I think

this trust has made a big decision which is a mistaken one, because I

think that if you do, if you offer lower wages here than elsewhere, in

the short-term you won't fill posts, and I don't think they are queuing

dough the road at the hospitals at the moment to come and work in the

South West trust, and secondly, in the long-term, I am afraid you are

not going to attract the highest quality of people and Health

Services will suffer here. Briefly George? It is important they carry

the unions and industry and employees with them on this. This

is where things have gone wrong. Anne says people won't be queuing

up for job, they may go elsewhere. What is more likely we are not

talking about paying people less, no-one will have a pay cut but

there might be more flex bill in shift patterns. If you can protect

the front line by having flexibility, it is not something

they should rule out completely. The coalition's flagship Welfare to

Work programme was heralded as a break from the past. The Government

says the not-for-profit organisations who help the long-

term unemployed find jobs are saving taxpayers thousands, but

Labour say the scheme is a flop and figures released this week make

uncomfortable reading bg here in the south-west the figures are

especially alarming. Roxanne is 22, and one of the lucky one, she has

started a full-time job with a housing association. Beforehand,

Roxanne was unemployed for over a year. What has helped her and 1300

others in the region get a job is the Government's new work programme.

You know, I have never had full- time work before, it has always

been part-time. To be honest, I never thought I would have a job

that I would enjoy so much as I do here. Roxanne has been taking part

in an experiment, where firms and charities are paid to help find

jobs for the long-term unemployed, while she has benefited not even is

so impressed as details of the work programme's first year emerged.

figures show the work programme isn't working, in fact it's a

miserable failure and the reason it is a failure is because the

Government is not showing its responsibilities to make the work

available for people. The scheme marked its first birthday with

figures showing that of the 8 -- 878,000 who were referred, 31,000

were employed for at least six months. The Government's minimum

target was 5.5% of the total to have been helped. The figures show

it is 3.5. It is worse in the south-west, where one of the main

providers Prospect has only found long-term employment for 2%.

Government ministers though are still up beat. This scheme isn't a

failure. It is getting people into work, off benefit, that is what the

scheme was designed to do. We need to get the providers to work harder,

to share data, to improve their performance. But in the past,

ministers have had their doubts about whether the programme can

deliver. This charity was one of several providers in the region

that has gone into administration. And earlier this year North Devon

MP Nick Harvey questioned the scheme. He wrote to Chris Grayling

saying the funding model is in trouble. All of this alarmed some

of those desperately looking for work. This Plymouth man expects to

join the scheme after being out of work for 11 months. I do feel that

the large amount of money they are spending would better creating new

jobs instead of trying to get people into jobs that don't exist.

The work programme has been described as a giant dating agency

for jobs. Trying to match the long term unemployed with a long-term

job. True love rarely runs smooth and some argue the programme is on

the rocks. But in Redruth things are going strong for Roxanne. Good

news for people like Roxanne, we saw ta, but in the south-west only

2% of those people who signed up for this scheme have got a job for

longer than six months. George, is it working? Well, I think if you

focus on the figures over six months you are going to get the

figures you have reflected. That is the idea, back in to long-term.

There are 200,000 people, one in four have done some work and come

off benefits for a period. Which is the first step. These are people

who have been long-term unemployed. It is... But they are back

unemployed now. One of the things I have raised with ministers myself,

is that because we are in a challenging labour market, where

there is high unemployment, we may need to tweak and refine the way

the programme works and particularly the payments that go

to the providers, but the scheme's ultimately a good scheme. Better

than the new deal scheme the previous Government had. Why? Only

2% of people are getting a long- term job. Actually, Government

modelling suggests that 5% of people would get a job any way, so

at 2%, you are better off not to sign up to this scheme. You are

keep going on about the 2%. One in four people have done some work,

and that is the first step to them getting back into a long-term job.

It works, because it is payment by result, what happened in the past

you had providers going through the motions, ticking box, not helping

people. Because is payment by result it challenges providers to

think carefully about who they engage and the support they offer

people. Anne, George is saying your scheme didn't work, under Labour

the scheme isn't working, is that fair? I don't think it is fair. A

great many people benefited, particularly from the new deal. But,

this scheme, we all want to work, we all desperately agree people

shouldn't be long-term unemployed and we shouldn't have generations

of people and in families who have never worked. We shouldn't have

people better off not working than working. All that that Iain Duncan

Smith has tried to do is right. isn't it working? Why are only 2%

of people getting a job? The first thing I would want to know what are

the explanation for the difference, up in Thames Valley it is 5%.

is possibility the jobs aren't here. That is a possibility. What is

important is growth F there is growth in an area and jobs are

being created there is much more opportunity to find people to fill

those jobs. George?. The frame with the two contractors have taken

different approaches. Prospects have tended to sub contract the

entire package to smaller charities, group, whereas Working Links have

take an different approach. They take each of the clients through

the programme and buy in specialist support from small charity, who

focus on individual areas. This is to do with the training. Now we are

saying there aren't the job for people in the south-west, so may

you are barking up the wrong tree. Maybe you need investment for the

jobs in the first place. I don't accept that, the work programme is

designed to help the long-term unemployed. We have to recognise

the fact that in the last ten years, where we had rising employment, the

jobs were being filled by people coming in from abroad and from

immigrants because we weren't managing to get the long-term

unemployed back to work. So let us put that to Anne. In the last ten

years we weren't able to get people back in to work. Maybe the level of

investment in the south-west needed wasn't happening during the boom

times. I think you are right on that. I think there has been a lack

of investment in infrastructure, that is apparent now, but I think

what is crucial is that we look to how we avoid the problem we have

got into, with the welfare state generally. This was part of the

scheme, your Government has produced. These figures are

disappointing for everybody. What a minister should be doing now is

saying we have got to make sure we understand why this is not

happening, as we hoped it would. If it is not going to work, we have to

pull the plug on it and not let it run for five years and we have to

be looking at what the alternatives are we should be doing at the same

time. That means investment. Moving on then to the floodwater, the

floodwaters may be going down but the issues they raised are still

high on the political agenda. On Friday, the Government announced an

extra �120 million for the flood defence budget but council leaders

in the South West say the region needs more money for roads and rail

network. Flood victims are still waiting to find out whether the

Government will help them get insurance. This package was put

together before the announcement on flood defences. The storms that hit

the south-west haven't just left hundreds of properties in deep

water. The Government's come under inceeing pressure over its funding

of flood defences. -- increasing. The Prime Minister visited Devon,

he had this to say. We have to make sure that the Environment Agency

put in place good flood defence, there are lessons to learn and I

wanted to come here and hear it for myself. Some say that was a bit

rich. The Government has cut 30% from investment in flood defence,

one of the biggest cuts it has made to any area of Government spending.

I said when it did this this would be a false economy, because for

every pound you spend on flood defences you save �8 in avoided

flooding and the cost and misery. Ben Bradshaw says his constituency

is a case in point. The flood defences here worked this time, but

there are warnings that the 50- year-old system is? Urgent need of

a �25 million upgrade. The question is, where all this money is going

to come from. David Cameron's encouraging the idea of private

money being used for flood defences, and some councillors in Exeter say

local businesses will have to find the missing �6 million the city's

project needs. But the Prime Minister's coalition colleagues in

the south-west believe the region does need extra Government support.

Not just for flood defence, but for repairs to our roads and railways.

We have the needs down here as much as everywhere else. What we don't

always get is a fair share, in my view, we have got to lobby better

for ourselves, so that we get the support down here, that we can

improve. We are very much the end of the line, in some respects.

Government's also under pressure over flood insurance. Lost

withyell's's owner Joe's shop flooded and he can't afford the

flood cover now. The Nobody will touch me for flood unless a pay a

lot. I have none. That is it. deal between the Government and

insurers that means flood victims are offered cover, even if it is

pricy runs out next year. The industry says with state help it

could offer cheaper premiums to people like Joe. We call it flood

Rewhich provides for affordable and available flood insurance for those

at highest risk. We need Government support. Over the long-term there

will be enough money in this flood in insurance fund but we need their

support in case a large flood happens in the first year, before

there is enough to pay for the claims fully. Negotiations over

this are said to have reached deadlock, David Cameron said he

will take a tough approach. Joe is worried if he is flooded again he

will lose his business. Last weekend he says all he could do was

watch the swollen river with his fingers firmly crossed. George,

this �120 million for flood defences announced on Friday, is it

the mission by the Government that it was wrong to cut the flood

defence budget? No, I think it is adding to what we are doing. It is

worth bearing in mind that flood defence and capital spending is the

singer in DEFRA, huge amounts. There was going to be about 2.2

billion going on flood definances to give new protection to 140,000

homes. The additional money today in the the most pressing areas,

allowing another 50 or so schemes will protect another 60,000 homes.

I know Ben Bradshaw says it was cut, you have to put that in con tect

tect, the Labour Government said they were going to cut spending.

The new Government hasn't cut any furtherment we have gone out of our

way to find new money for infrastructure. These cuts would

have had to happen any way because they had to find the savings and

the last Government were going to do the same. The keelings

Government is doing a good thing now? It is doing a good thing in

putting money in on Friday, thank goodness, but we have been

underspending for years on flood defence, everyone has to accept

that. We have been building in places we shouldn't have been. We

have not been spending money on infrastructure to deal with getting

water away, and the result is not just people who have got know no

insurance, can't afford the premiums but people who can't move

because no-one will buy their houses because of the insurance and

the flooding position. What should the Government be doing? They have

to get a deal in place with the insurer, there were questions last

week in the Lords. Is that why this money is announced. As a bargaining

tool with the insurers: I am not sure I am on the DEFRA Select

Committee. We have been pressing the Government on this for the last

18 month, they need to get a new deal in place when the one that was

set up in 2008 that ran for five years expires. Why is there a

problem? There appears to be deadlock over the detail. Perhaps

bring man ship going on. The Government is going to make sure

there will be some deal in place to replace the old one when it expires

next year. You mentioned the issue of billing on flood plain, we have

problems with the railways we have seen last week, the railways were

closed, why have we seen such a lack of investment in things like

the railway, what should be done about that? I can't answer that. I

don't think anybody can. We ought to have been channelling more into

long-term investment and allowing what were boom year, and there is

no way round that. I don't just point my finger at the Labour Party

and the Labour Government for that, it has been going o on for many

many years. We face this problem, particularly in Cornwall, where

they say we can't make the business case stack up to do this investment

in rail. I don't think... It does come back to the discussion about

the jobs, you have to have the infrastructure in place if you are

going to bring more businesss to the area. I would like to see a lot

more rail investment in the far south-west. We have billions of

pounds going into high speed rail links. What are you going to do

about it? I have been putting pressure on the franchise to get

agreement. Cornwall Council are going to work with Network Rail and

the franchisees on this. Do you think we will see... What upsets

people is they see money going elsewhere, and it is not coming

down here, is it. That is very upsetting. It upsets me as much as

anybody else. That is why I and all the other MPs in Devon and Cornwall

push it, we meet regularly to talk about rail infrastructure in Devon

and Cornwall. We are pressing the case, with the new franchise coming

up there is an opportunity to think creatively and work with Local

Authorities, using European money we can qualify for as well,

sometimes. We have move on, now we have our regular round up of the

The Campaign to Protect Rural England was alarmed when the

planning minister said we should build homes on another 3% of the

countryside.. If they want to have people able to bring up their kids

in a small house with a garden, they have got to accept that we

have got to build more on some open land. The plan to put a minimum

price on alcohol moved forward. The launch of the consultation was week

welcomed, but Ben Bradshaw said it would never happen and said he

would buy Sarah Wollaston a crate of cider if it did. MPs said

National Park member should be directly elected. If we want

thriving businesses, communities in our National Parks, then we need to

make sure that decisions are taken by people chose been by the local

communities, and there was a wee problem in Parliament for Ben

Bradshaw. Urine pouring through the ceiling of his commons office.

Mr Bradshaw. It's a new meaning to flooding. Minute mull pricing for

alcohol, do you think it will happen? Ben Brad Shaw says not.

What is your take on it. It is a very powerful drinks industry at

work, I know people think it makes a huge difference, you look at

countries where alcohol is cheaper they don't have our binge drinking

culture, the problem is the culture rather than the cost. You think it

will happen or you don't? I think it is doubtful. The drinks industry

is very powerful. OK. George what do you think? Will this happen?

mean I think it could happen, the Prime Minister has indicated he is

keen on this idea. I think it is something we should look at,

because you know over the last ten, 20 years we have put up beer duty

and duties on alcohol, being detrimental to pubs, that is a bad

thing, we should encourage people to drink socially, in pubs when

sometimes perhaps if they have to drive they have to limit to one

drink any way. What we have encouraged by having too high

duties in pubs is a culture where people go to the supermarket and

buy cheap alcohol and preload. Drinking before they go out? They

get hammered before they go out and you end up with fights and all

sorts of problems. This is a major issue for people operating

nightclubs, they have people turn up... We need to encourage a quick

bet in the studio who will it happen, won't it happen? I think it

will happen. If I will have to buy cider because Sarah won't drink it.