20/10/2013 Sunday Politics South West

Good morning and welcome to The Sunday Politics. Alex Salmond says a

vote for Scottish independence would be an act of national self belief.

His deputy joins us live from the SNP conference in Perth. Is

Whitehall meddling too much in modern affairs? The Communities

Secretary, Eric Pickles, joins me for The Sunday Interview. Senior

coppers will be answering questions this week over the Andrew bachelor

for. In the South West: A warning the

promise of affordable flood insurance for all is far from

water`tight. And the sheep farmers calling for a relaxation of the

hunting ban. All of that to come. And the Home

Office minister sacked by Nick Clegg, who says his party is like a

wonky shopping trolley, which keeps veering off to the left. He will

join us live at noon. With me to unpack all of this, Nick Watt, Helen

Lewis and Iain Martin. They will be tweeting throughout the programme,

using hashtag #bbcsp. It is the last day of the Scottish national party

conference in Perth. We have discovered that Alex Salmond has

been on the same diet as Beyonce. The SNP leader compared his attempts

to lose weight with the campaign for independence - lots achieved so far,

20 more to do. In a moment, I will be joined by the deputy leader of

the SNP, Nicola Sturgeon. First they report on the independence

campaign. September 18 2014, the date of destiny for Scotland, the

day when these campaigners hope its people will decide to vote yes for

independence. In a recent poll, only 14% said they knew enough to vote

either way. That is unlikely to change any time soon. I think the

Scottish people will be going to the polls next year still not knowing an

awful lot of stuff which is important, because the outcome, in

terms of taxation, debt, exactly what will happen to the allocation

of assets between the two countries, will come about as a result of

negotiation between a Scottish government and the UK Government.

That is not stuff which will be known year. At the moment, polls

suggest Scotland will decide to remain within the UK. A recent

survey found that 44% of those questioned planned to vote no, 5%

yes. But interestingly, the undecideds were at 31%, suggesting

that Alex Salmond's task might be tough but not impossible. There are

a number of reasons which make a vanilla campaign a good idea. It

does not put off cautious voters, it allows for people to imagine their

own version of what independence will be like, and crucially, it

allows for the yes campaign to take advantage of any mistakes by the no

campaign. In other words, the yes campaign are not out there with big

ideas, they are just waiting for the no campaign to trip up. What we do

know is that whatever happens next September, Scotland will be getting

more power. From 2016, a separate income tax regime will come into

force, giving the Scottish Parliament control over billions of

pounds of revenue. What we do not know yet is how the alternative

would pan out. There are issues which would be raised by

independence, issues about how the national debt is allocated, what the

currency will look like, how an independent Scotland would balance

the books, because it would have a bigger job to do, even down the

Whitehall government has to do. Those are really big issues, which a

Scottish government would have to face, on top of whatever negotiation

it had to have with the UK Government. The Scottish

government's White Paper on independence, two to be published

within weeks, should fill in some of the banks. But how Scotland votes in

September may yet be determined by what it feels rather than what it

knows. And joining me from Perth is Scotland's Deputy First Minister,

Nicola Sturgeon. Nicola Sturgeon, we meet again! Hello, Andrew. Former

leader of the SNP Gordon Wilson said, if this referendum fails, it

will fail on the basis that people put their British identity ahead of

their Scottish identity, so we have got to attack on the British

identity - what does he mean? Gordon Wilson is a very respected, much

loved former leader of the SNP. My view is that I do not think the

independence referendum is really about identity. I am secure and

proud of my Scottish identity, but this is a decision about where power

best lies. Do decision-making powers best lie here in Scotland, with a

government which is directly accountable to the people of

Scotland, or does it best lie in Westminster, with governments which,

very often, people in Scotland do not vote for? That is the issue at

the heart of the campaign. Let me just clarify, you do not agree with

him, that you need to go on the attack with regard to the British

identity of Scottish people? No I do not think we are required to

attack British identity. It is absolutely compatible for somebody

to feel a sense of British identity but still support Scottish

independence, because Scottish independence is about a transfer of

power. It is about good government, accountable government, ensuring

that decisions are taking here in Scotland, by people who have got the

biggest stake in getting those decisions right. I represent a

constituency in the south side of Glasgow, and if you speak to many

people in my constituency, if you ask them their national identity,

many of them would say Irish, Pakistani, Indian, Polish, and many

of them will vote yes next year because they understand the issue at

stake, which is the issue of where decisions are best taken. It looks

like you are changing tack ex-, you have realised the softly softly

approach, of saying that actually, nothing much will change, we will

still have the Queen, the currency, and all the rest of it, is moving

over towards voting for a left-wing future for Scotland... Well, I know

that what we are doing is pointing out is pointing out the choice

between two futures. If we vote yes, we take our own future into our own

hands. We make sure that for ever after, we have governments which

will be in demented policies which we have voted for. If we do not

become independent, then we continue to run the risk of having

governments not only that we do not vote for, but often, that Scotland

rejects. We are seeing the dismantling of our system of social

security. There are politicians in all of the UK parties who are

itching to cut Scotland's share of spending. So Scotland faces a choice

of two futures, and it is right to point out the positive consequences

of voting yes, but also the consequences of voting no. But you

are promising to reverse benefit cuts and increase the minimum wage.

You would renationalise the Royal Mail, though how you would do that

nobody knows. You are promising to cut energy bills. These are the kind

of promises that parties make in a general election campaign, not in a

once in 300 years extra stench or choice. Is the future of Scotland

really going to be decided on the size of the minimum wage? --

existential choice. A yes vote would be about bringing decision-making

powers home, but we are also setting out some of the things an SNP

government would do, if elected A decision on what the first

government of an independent Scotland would be would not be taken

in the referendum, that decision would be taken in the 2016 election.

And all of the parties will put forward their offers to the

electorate. We are setting out some of the things which we think it is

important to be prioritised. These are things which have a lot of

support in Scotland. We see the pain being felt by people because of the

rising cost of energy bills, there is widespread opposition to some of

the welfare cuts. So, we are setting out the options which are open to

Scotland, but only open to Scotland if we have the powers of

independence. Given that you seem to be promising aid permanent socialist

near Varna, if Scotland is independent, if you are right of

centre in Scotland, and I understand that is a minority pursuit where you

are, but it would be a big mistake to vote for independence, in that

case, wouldn't it? No, because the whole point of independence is that

people get the country they want, and the government a vote for. So,

right of centre people should not vote for independence? No, because

people who are of that political persuasion in Scotland get the

opportunity to vote for parties which represent that persuasion and

if they can persuade a majority to vote likewise, then they will get a

government which reflects that. That is the essence of independence.

Right now, we have a Westminster government which most people in

Scotland rejected at the last general election. That is hardly

democratic. It is right and proper that the SNP, as the current

government, points out the opportunities that would be opening

up. Can I just clarify one thing, when we spoke on The Daily Politics

earlier last week, you made it clear to me that Alex Salmond, we know he

wants to debate with David Cameron, but you made it clear to me that he

would debate with Alistair Darling as well, and Mr Carmichael... He

made it clear yesterday. Well, he said to the BBC this morning that he

would only debate with these people after he had had a debate with Mr

Cameron, so who is right? I was making the point last week, and Alex

Salmond was making it yesterday and this morning - let's have that

agreement by David Cameron to come and debate with Alex Salmond, and

then Alex Salmond, just like me will debate with allcomers. So if he

does not get the David Cameron debate, then he will not do the

others, is that right? Let's focus on is wading David Cameron to do the

right thing. So, in other words he will not debate, yes or no? Members

of the SNP government... We know that, but what about Alex Salmond?

He said yesterday, we will debate with all sorts of people, including

the people you have spoken about, but David Cameron should not be let

off the hook just putting aside the independence issue, energy prices

are now even playing into the SNP, so every political party has to do

something about energy prices. Yes, it is clearly it is interesting is

the difference between the SNP and the Labour approach. Ed Miliband

electrified the party conference season when he said he would freeze

energy prices for 20 months, seemingly having an amazing control

over the energy market, where we know that essentially what pushes

prices up the wholesale prices on world market. What Nicola Sturgeon

is talking about is actually saying, this amount is added to your bills

for green levies, and we are going to take them off your bills and they

will be paid out of general taxation in an independent Scotland. That is

a credible government, making a credible case, very different to

what Labour is saying, although playing to the same agenda. So,

Labour has got a populist policy, the SNP has also got a populist

policy, the one group of people that do not have a decent response to

this is the coalition? Exactly. What the SNP also have is a magic money

pot, so that speech yesterday, you are right, it was very left wing,

social democratic, but there was none of the icing like Labour has

been talking about, with fiscal responsibility. I think that is the

difference between the two. We know what the Tories would really like to

do, all of these green levies which were put on our bills in the good

times, when they were going to be the greenest party ever, the Tories

would like to say, let's just wipe out some of them, put the rest on to

some general government spending, but they have a problem, which is in

the Department of Energy and Climate Change. Not only that, they really

are stuck now. But there is something in the free schools debate

this morning, the parties are now determined to send a message to

their potential voters at the next election, that they are trying to

fight their coalition partners. Do not expected any change in coalition

policy or free schools policy before the election, but we can expect to

hear the parties try to pretend that they are taking on their coalition

partners. Mr Clegg has said, we would put this free schools policy

into our manifesto, so is it not possible that the Tories will say,

if you give us an overall majority, we will cut your electricity bill

because we will get rid of these green levies? I think that is

entirely possible. The Tories know that they are stuck on this, they do

not have a response to Ed Miliband. How much should ministers in

Whitehall medal in local decisions across England? In opposition, David

Cameron said he wanted a fundamental shift of power from Whitehall to

local people. He said, when one size fits all solution is...

Eric Pickles described it as "an historic shift of power". But the

Communitites and Local Government Secretary can't stop meddling. In

the past few months Mr Pickles has tried to ban councils from using

CCTV cameras and "spy cars" to fine motorists... Told councils how to

act quicker to shut down illegal travellers' sites... Criticised

councils who want to raise council tax... Insisted councils release

land to residents hoping to build their own property... And stated new

homes should have a special built in bin storage section. It seems not a

week goes by without a policy announcement from the hyper active

Mr Pickles. So is the government still committed to localism, or is

it all about centralism now? And Communities Secretary Eric

Pickles joins me now for the Sunday Interview.

Welcome. Nice to be here. You said in July you were going to give town

halls the power to wreak their local magic. So why issue diktats from

Westminster? It is not about giving power to local councils, it is going

beyond that to local people. If local councils refuse to open up

their books, we have to go straight to local people. You have attacked

councillors using so-called spy cameras to enforce parking rules.

Why is that your business? Because there is an injustice taking place.

You cannot use fines to raise money and that is plainly happening. If

you get yourself a ticket from a CCTV, it could be days or weeks

before that lands on your doorstep and you have virtually no

possibility to be able to defend yourself. But just leave it to

people to vote out the council then. We are trying to enforce the law and

it clearly states that you cannot use parking fines in order to fund

general rate. So why are you not taking them to court if they are

breaking the law? There have been a number of court cases taken by local

residents. I am there to stand by local residents. Your even trying to

micromanage, allowing motorist s to park for 15 minutes in local high

street. Why is that your business? I'm trying to ensure that local

authorities understand the importance of the town centre. If

you look at all opinion polls, right now there is a five-minute leeway

but there are many cases of people being jumped on by parking officials

for quite trivial things. It is about saying, surely I can go and

get a pint of milk. But a party that dines out on localism, that is a

matter for local people, not the men in Whitehall. I have to be on the

side of local people. That person who wants to go and get a pint of

milk. Ultimately it is a matter for them. It is a matter for the

council. But a little bit of criticism is not a bad thing. You

have now declared war on the wheelie bin and suggested that new homes

should have built in storage sections. You just cannot help

meddling! I suppose that is possible. You are a meddler! I am in

charge of building regulations and planning. So I may have some

responsibility there. Another one, interfering in local planning

decisions. A couple of places, you ruled in favour of developers. They

want to build over 200 houses against the wishes of the parish and

district councils. The local MP said the Secretary of State's decision

runs roughshod over any concept of localism. Now I have to be a

blushing violet because of course this is still potentially subject to

judicial review. I have to act properly. And Apple went is entitled

to justice. -- an applicant. A local authority has a duty to ensure that

is adequate housing for people in their area. This was not a decision

that I took as a personal decision, it was on the advice of an

inspector. But you contradict what David Cameron himself said in 2 12,

he spoke about a vision where we give communities much more say and

local control. People in villages fear big housing estates being

plonked from above. You have just done exactly that. After a proper

quasi judicial enquiry. What we have is planning framework which local

people can decide where it goes But they cannot say, nothing here. They

have to have a five-year housing supply. Previous to this government

decided exactly where houses would go, now local people can take the

lead. Anna Silbury said because of the way your department rules, local

authorities now have no alternative but to agree development on green

belt land. I do not accept that I think around Nottingham there are

particular problems with regards to the green belt. The matter has been

referred back. the green belt. The matter has been

want to see development on the green belt but on Brownfield site. We want

to see underused land. But you have to remember why we have the green

belt. Not to remember why we have the green

nice, it is their to prevent conurbations bumping into one

another. Your conurbations bumping into one

is vocal about the need to deal what he calls the historic under

provision of housing. Shelter says we need 250,000 new homes per year.

provision of housing. Shelter says Houston statistics are getting

there, but nowhere near that. - housing. You cannot

there, but nowhere near that. - localism agenda as well as meeting

housing demand. I do not accept that. We inherited a position where

the lowest level of building since the 1920s was in place. But it has

steadily improved. It does take a while. You cannot have a localism

agenda where people call the shots on housing as well as meeting the

housing demand. People have a duty to ensure that future generations

have somewhere to live. You cannot pull up the drawbridge. There is

nothing incompatible between that and localism. Because someone has to

be the voice of those people who are going to live there and to make sure

there is the proper amount. Plans now exist for more than 150,000

homes to be built on protected land, including the green belt. That will

mean riding over local concerns Each application will be taken on

its own merits. To suggest that there is an assault on the green

belt is as far from the truth as you can imagine. Should Andrew Mitchell

get his job back if the years exonerated? I would be honoured to

sit with Andrew Mitchell in the Cabinet. I have always believed his

version. But it is a matter for the Prime Minister who he has in

government. He would have no problem in seeing him back in Cabinet?

Absolutely not. Your mother answered Vulcan junior minister Nick balls

said about the Royal Charter for the press, there's nothing we have done

that troubles me as much as this. Is that your view? It is not. I accept

the compromise agreement put together. If the press want to have

an additional protection that the Royal Charter offers, then they can

move into the system. But if they want to continue independently that

is acceptable to me. But you previously echoed Thomas Jefferson,

you said for a free society to operate the river of a free press

has to flow without restriction That is what I said at the time We

had to find a compromise. And that seems to me to be a better

compromise. Let me just show you this little montage of pictures that

we have. I could not be happier Then you are in the Desert and there

you are in San Francisco. Then you are in the casino. That is my

personal favourite. These students took a cardboard cutout of you and

took it round the world with them. Did you ever think you would become

a student icon? I always felt secretly that that might happen one

day. But it came earlier in my career than I thought! Why would

they do that? I think they thought I could do with a bit of an airing! I

went to Norfolk earlier, but that looks better. Thank you.

On Wednesday senior police folk including chief constables, will be

questioned by MPs about what's become known as Plebgate. That's the

incident in Downing Street last year which led to the resignation of the

government chief whip Andrew Mitchell. Last week the Independent

Police Complaints Commission questioned the "honesty and

integrity" of police officers who met Mr Mitchell following the row.

So do scandals like this affect public trust in the police? Here's

Adam Fleming. It's a story of politics, the

police, and CCTV. No, not Andrew Mitchell, but an MP's researcher

called Alex Bryce and his partner Iain Feis.

It started on a summer night in 2011. They'd been in Parliament

After a few words with a police officer, Ian was wrestled to the

ground. Alex came to have a look and the same thing happened to him. Both

were arrested and charged. These pictures emerged on day one of their

trial. A trial that was halted because the police version of events

just didn't match the footage. A lot of people with incidence like this

which we experienced, people think there is no smoke without fire. So

when we said we did nothing wrong, people would think police just would

not do that. There is always that underlying view that some people

have. I think that has been challenged and people who know us

believe that. This year the Met apologised and paid compensation.

And it's led to an unlikely sort of friendship. When the truth came out

about the Andrew Mitchell story I actually sent him an e-mail to

congratulate him about the truth coming out. He did send a reply

acknowledging that. So where are we with THAT saga? Remember last

September? Andrew Mitchell had a row with police at the gates of Downing

Street about his bike. He lost his job as chief whip after accusations

he called the officers plebs. That, he's always denied. This week the

police watchdog the IPCC suggested that three officers may have lied

about a meeting with him at the height of the scandal. Add that to

the charge sheet of cases that haven't exactly flattered the

police. Like the revelation of a cover up over Hillsborough. The

prosecution of an officer from the Met over the death of Ian Tomlinson

during protests in 2009. Along with news that undercover officers were

told to smear the family of Stephen Lawrence. During Thursday's protest

by teachers in Westminster the police operation was really, really

relaxed. And recent scandals have done nothing to affect society's

view of the boys and girls in blue - or should I say hi-vis. About 6 % of

the public say they trust the police. And that's not budged since

pollsters started measuring it 0 years ago.

Of course, in Britain, crime is down, so the perception might be

that the police is doing a good job. And the rank-and-file recently

seamed pretty chipper at this awards ceremony. Is it a good time to be a

police officer? It is a good time. Despite all of the headlines? Still

a good time. But speak to officers privately, and they say Plebgate is

affecting how the public see them. Some of them also think

politicians, the Tories especially, are enjoying that a little too much.

Adam Fleming reporting there. Going head-to-head on this issue of trust

in the police, a Sunday Mirror columnist and Peter Kirkham, former

chief inspector. Peter Kirkham, let me come to you first. Plebgate, the

cover-ups over John Charles De menace, the death of Ian Tomlinson,

the industrial deception over Hillsborough, why is the culture of

deceit so prevalent in the police? I do not agree there is a cultural

deceit. These are all individual incidents which raise individual

issues. I would suggest that your short headline summarising each of

them has taken the most negative view of it. How can you be positive

about the police's behaviour over Hillsborough? It remains to be seen

with the inquiry but we are probably talking about a handful of senior

officers, dealing with the paperwork. Well over 100 testimonies

being doctored by the police. Well, those testimonies were true to start

with, so the officers have told the truth, and they have been changed

for some reason. By the police. By the police all lawyers we have got

this thing that the police conflates everything. There are 43 forces

there is ACPO, there is the College Of Policing... People say it was a

handful of police officers, it wasn't, it was six senior police

officers who were alleged to have doctored 106 D4 statements. Even

today we are hearing that more than 1000 officers are yet to be spoken

to about Hillsborough. -- 164. Do we pretend that Hillsborough, and some

of these examples, are the exception rather than the rule? What is the

evidence that this is now prevalent in our police? I think there is a

lot of evidence, and Plebgate is probably the thing which has

clinched it. The public want to know, how deep does this girl? The

audacity of a group of policemen who think they can set up a Cabinet

minister. Five of those who were arrested and bailed still have not

been charged. One of those officers actually wrote an e-mail pretending

to be a member of the public. I do not see what the problem is in

prosecuting them for that. Taking Plebgate, there are loads of

different bits of that incident There is the officers on duty in

Downing Street, the issue of who leaked the story to the Sun, there

are the officers who claim to have been there who would appear not to

have been there, and then we have got the West Midlands meeting

issue, which has sort of been resolved this week. There has been

misconduct. But at a lower level. But it is the audacity of an

organisation which thinks it can take on an elected minister and

destroy him for their own political purposes, at a time when the

Government are cutting please pay, when they are freezing their

pensions and reducing their numbers. It looks very much to all of us the

public, that the police are at war with the government, and they are

going to do anything they can to discredit the Government. The police

would have every reason to be at war with the Government, because there

if there is a crisis of trust.. But it looks like they fitted up a

Cabinet minister. That remains to be seen, it is being investigated. We

know that those Birmingham officers, they totally misrepresented to, if

not lied outright, about what was said. Again, that is a

misrepresentation of what happened. If you actually go and look at what

is said, it is plain from the context, they were saying, he has

told us nothing new. But he had in the transcript, it said he hadn't.

He would not admit he had used the word pleb. He apologised profusely,

he said it would never happen again, he said many things that he had not

said before. I agree, which is presumably... Thereon many police

forces in this country, they have one of the toughest jobs in the

land, they end up getting involved in almost anything which happens in

society, and there are obviously a number of difficult examples, but

what is the evidence that it is out of hand, other than just several bad

apples? This bad apples argument, we have some amazing police people,

thank God, but it is because of those that we have to root out the

bad ones, the ones that are possibly corrupt. From where most of us are

standing, the ones who are being accused of being corrupt, there does

not seem to be any process to deal with these people. The trouble with

a rotten apple is that it spreads. It is not fair on the good cops to

be tainted by this, and I think the police force, as an institution...

For all of us, we have to respect the police. There is a problem, is

there not? People do worry that if you can fit up a Cabinet minister,

you can fit up anybody... . I would disagree that anybody has proved

that anybody has been fitted up. We are yet to hear what happened at the

gates of Downing Street. But what we do know about the gates of Downing

Street is that we were told by the police officers that passers-by had

heard this incredible row, where Mitchell's file went was bullied.

That is not true... . They did not use those words, actually. All

right, but it is clear that the Police Federation jumped on this as

a politically motivated campaign... I have always said that politics

should be kept out of policing. The federation, they cannot go on

strike, but this was to covertly political, so I criticise them for

that. Do we need a better way of monitoring the police? We need a

more competent and properly resourced Independent police

commission. But if you look at those Bravery Awards, every police

officer, every year, who acts with bravery... That is the police force

we want to believe in. That is the police force you have got. We will

leave it there. Coming up in just over 20 minutes, I will be speaking

to former Lib Minister Jeremy Browne. And in The Week Ahead,

Hello, I'm Martyn Oates. Coming up on the Sunday Politics in the

Southwest: No hogwash, I hope, but we will be talking pigs with this

expert who is now the farming Minister. Well, George Eustice, new

DEFRA minister and pig breeder, is here in our mud`free studio

alongside my other guest this week, the Labour councillor Rosie Denham.

Welcome to you both. We're kicking off with petrol prices. There had

been high hopes in the region that the government would recommend parts

of Devon and Cornwall for the rural fuel rebate, which knocks five pence

off a litre of petrol. Until Friday, that is, when ministers announced

they were only seeking EU approval for Lynton in Devon. It is clear to

see there was an expectation this would not boil down to one single

town in the Hall of Devon and Cornwall? I am disappointed.

Cornwall would have hoped to have one of the tones down here

designated as well. They were looking at very isolated areas and

we are the costs were consistently much, much higher than the national

average. The rules were stripped, but couldn't they have contained

expectations are bit? `` strict. Andrew George said he expected more.

It was the pilot in the Isles of Scilly. It is never easy. We have

also got to recognise what the government has done. We have frozen

fuel duty every year since we have been in power. George Osborne says

he will freeze fuel duty right up until the next election. That has

taken around 10% off of what these prices would have been. Danny

Alexander said today I would like a longer list of pounds benefiting

from this. Labour, in all the years in government, did nothing about

this. I think people in these towns will see a cost of living crisis and

able think is their of the government can offer? I think they

will be looking to the government to come up with something more

substantive. What will the government do about the fact people

cannot get on the housing ladder? We still have a lot of young people out

of work. What will the government do about the fact prices have been

rising much, much faster than income. We will expand the debate

but we must move on to flooding. Flooding has ruined countless homes

in the south`west in recent years and many families are now having

trouble getting flood insurance. Some have been quoted excesses of

more than ?10,000. One analyst blames uncertainty over the scheme

ministers promised would guarantee affordable insurance for flood

victims. More on that in a moment. But first, this report from John

Danks. Floods brought misery to many here last year. The drainage system

in this village was overwhelmed by the amount of rain that fell. This

woman who runs the village shop was one of the lucky ones. The

floodwater kept all the way up here to abide here. It came to the top of

the curb. It did not come across the pavement. It did not come into the

shop over the year. By Cannes she was lucky until she received the

renewal notice for the insurance on her shop. I would understand it if

we had made a clean, but we did not make a claim, it did not even come

over the pavement. This year her quote had risen to more than ?2700,

the excess for flooding was an eye watering ?10,500. We really felt

like we would like to close, it just was not worth being. If we had to

use all the money we have in the bank for cash flow we just could not

do it. We would be bankrupt. The principles agreed between the

industry and government are in the process of change. Analysts believe

this could be why some premiums are becoming unaffordable and excesses

increasing. Ministers say the new plan means people no longer have to

live in fear of being uninsurable. Under the plans household insurers

would be into a fund which would cover the cost. Premiums would

become more competitive for those in high`risk homes by bidders still

concerned some insurers would try to charge high excesses. This woman got

a better policy with someone else. She may however face a similar

struggle when her policy comes up for we knew all next year. ``

renewal. John Danks reporting. One charity which helps flood victims

who are struggling to get insurance says it has seen a rise in calls to

its helpline. Earlier, I asked the National Flood Forum's Paul Cobbing

to explain why. When people are buying and selling houses it may

well be that solicitors are doing searches on flood risk. Some of the

other aspects of that, in terms of premiums, these have been around

insurance companies are appealing for what was going to be the end of

the statement of principles. Eight macro when you see was going to be,

you are suggesting the transition will not happen as the government

says it will? There were proposals made in July which we approve of.

The government says it is getting people peace of mind a deal that

will guarantee affordable flood insurance, that sounds concrete. We

have got a proposal in principle. We have a detailed negotiation going on

to secure that deal. If it goes through, as stated, it will be

really good. Unlike now, where the current arrangements cover access to

insurance but not affordability, these new arrangements will cover

affordability. The issues are that it is not guaranteed and will be a

deal. It is significant because part of the deal lies `` relies on state

aid approval from The European Commission. That is significant.

There are some big cash flows for the insurance industry that need

agreed. We have to make sure this is something they whole insurance

industry can buy into. They have agreed in principle but significant

details need sorted. What happens otherwise? There is a plan B which

the industry will not like either. That is a regulated arrangement

whereby insurance companies are required to offer flood risk

insurance at affordable rates to householders. Because the insurance

industry really does not want that, nor does government, the pressure is

on to make this deal work. At the moment we have a temporary extension

to the statement of principles. I'll be seeing this problem at the

moment? When I talk to insurance companies they all tell me that the

household insurance market is very, very competitive. The margins on it

are very small and they actually sometimes make losses. That is part

of insurance. I think what they are probably doing is making adjustments

to true market conditions. This does not help people who are trying to

ensure their homes. Paul Cobbing from the National Flood Forum

talking to me earlier. This seems a worrying conflict of opinion. DEFRA

say affordable flood insurance will be guaranteed that he is suggesting

that is far from the case in reality. It is the case it will be

guaranteed. The statement of principles we have had for the last

few years has helped people get insurance but it is not a perfect

long`term insurance situation. How big are the obstacles? There was an

agreement this summer which will now take cheap with the Water Bill which

is imminent. You are seeing this will definitely happen? That is

right. There will be elements in the Water Bill which relate to this

agreement. All insurance `` all insurers will pay into it and charge

a small levy from all of their customers to make sure there is a

pool of money to pay for these high`risk homes. It was a

complicated negotiation. I think officials would have been looking in

great detail and they are confident they have managed to find a way of

addressing concerns. This is a solution, a better solution than the

statement of principles. Until then, the statement of principles

will continue. So I guarantee from the Minister, presumably Labour

would be in the same position, how would you have handled this? When

this government came in the knew the statement of principles Woodend and

would run out. Here we are three years later with an extension

because the government has not actually taken the initiative to

sort this out earlier. Would you have this scheme kneeled down? I am

not sure it is kneeled down. In August it was questioned whether the

amount set aside took into account climate changed and the increase in

properties which might become under risk which are not in `` at risk

just now. We have dealt with concerns. The worst concern about

climate change is that there might be one overwhelming incident which

would overwhelm this fund. The government stands behind the insurer

as a last resort in really extreme situations. There will be some

backstop reserve powers. We would not want to use those, we want the

system to work. There will be some backstop reserve powers to compel

insurers to do these things if they will not voluntarily take part. Like

Mark The fox hunting debate was rekindled this week when the Prime

Minister's spokesman said he had sympathy with people who want the

rules of the hunting ban relaxed. Hill farmers say fox attacks on

lambs are increasing and they need more freedom to control nuisance

foxes. But opponents say it is an attempt to get a full repeal of the

ban by the back door. This report from Tamsin Melville contains images

which some viewers may find upsetting. This man has farmed these

dark more films for 25 years. It is a tough way to make a living

excesses they are at risk from foxes. As long as man has been here

foxes have been a problem and we have to control them. If we have a

problem at lambing time and we try to shoot foxes with ?2 in a needy

alike that it is crazy. The early hundred acres of forestry. It is

totally impractical. `` they are 200 acres of forestry. One hound is

completely insignificant, with to be any better? Farmers in Wales have

produced evidence that shows attacks on lands from foxes is an increasing

problem. They say that a pack of hounds are better than two dogs to

flush foxes out. The maths does not stack up in terms of the House of

Commons vote for a repeal so they are trying a back door attempt

weakened the hunting act. The Prime Minister has previously indicated a

free vote on the hunting with dogs and would take place before the next

general election. This remains uncertain. This week he was said to

have sympathy with the specific issue of pest control. Some say this

is about the impact the hunting act is having on their livelihoods in

some of the most marginal farmland in the country. We asked of the

South West MPs if they would support a listing of the two dogs limit. All

the conservatives who responded said they would, including one who has

previously expressed doubts about removing the ban completely. There

are warnings about taking this direction. I am sure MPs are weird

of their constituents feelings on this issue. It is a brave MP who

flies in the face of the majority of the constituents views. This farmer

insists it is not about politics but the realities of hill farming. We

have got to do whatever and they act as it is just now just makes it more

difficult. With the issue of hunting have improved so controversial in

the past, even hunt supporters are warning the Prime Minister should,

for now at least, let sleeping dogs lie. We are joined now by a member

of the countryside Alliance. You would like to see a full return to

hunting with dogs. This realisation would be a significant move in that

direction? It will not make much difference, this amendment. You

could flush it then shoot the fox? This is more about shooting foxes

than hunting them. This proposed amendment will allow dogs or hounds

to flush foxes to guns. This is different to how it was prior to the

act. For the vast majority of packs of hounds they will continue to hunt

trails as they have always done. The impact on Upland farming from

destruction from foxes, they must be able to do something about it. The

recent survey that took place in Scotland showed that by using more

hounds or blog stand the two that are allowed at the moment needed

twice as effective in controlling foxes. Anyone who has an interest in

animal welfare will accept that hill farmers have got to have a

successful method they can use to control foxes. This proposed

amendment will help them hugely. You would not see this as a move to

return to full hunting? It is not, it is about flushing foxes to shoot

them effectively, not about hunting with dogs. Like macro would you like

to see a free vote on repealing the ban? Hunting is not up here with the

government priorities. They have lots of things to deal with. We

would like it to happen but we are realistic that it is unlikely. This

proposed amendment is certainly going to help farmers. We support

farmers and we would hope that the government would seize this

initiative to push this amendment through and help our farming

community. You shoot the sympathy of the Prime Minister? Theory is

anecdotal evidence there has been a big increase in attacks on lands by

foxes. `` the is anecdotal evidence. Dealers also a difference between

the law in Scotland this is allowed. `` David is also a difference.

They'd is also evidence this is about protecting lands. It is

something we would look at. It is highly unlikely in this parliament

that it would be a bill to repeal the hunting act. Parliament is quite

divided on the issue. Would you not have the vote because you think you

might lose it? Government generally do not bring forward legislation

they have no hope of winning. This is a specialist issue about helping

Welsh farmers. We will look at the report. You do have to control

wildlife population. It is often said that Tony Blair said one of the

things he regretted in office was seeing through the hunting ban. Do

you think this argument is a good idea? I think I would share the

concerns that a lot of people do shield which is about exactly what

is being proposed here and whether it would lead in future down towards

the slow repealing the hunting ban. That is not something most of the

people `` population want to see. Now our regular round`up of the

political week in 60 seconds. The number of badgers killed in the

Gloucestershire pilot Carl Phil massively short of the government's

TB tackling target. `` fell short. Animal abusers should face stiffer

sentences says one Torbay MP. At the moment it is only six months and I

think a year or two would be more appropriate. Calls for pics will to

be legalised again, and after the foot and mouth outbreak. This is a

way of addressing a major source of waste going into the waste stream.

And plans for Cornish devolution double. May sometime in the future,

possibly never, can I be insured that in terms of devolving greater

powers to the people of Cornwall is something that will come from the

dispatch box? It was good fun to see you bear with the pics, there is an

argument for bringing back pics will as good nourishing food for animals

and to prevent waste. The foot and mouth disease and the crisis we had

ten years ago was devastating to British agriculture. It was a

tragedy for our industry. We do not want to take any risks. We have to

be very cautious about changing the rules. There are other things to

deal with waste, anaerobic digester and, reducing electricity from food

waste. You will probably not be interested in things like you will

be very interested in waste disposal, what do you think? We have

always to look at ways we can dispose of waste, particularly

household food waste. Any proposals which come forward should be looked

at in a scientific way. So you might consider this being the visited? I

am interested to see the proposals but I would share the concerns about

opening us up to unnecessary risks. I would be willing to look at

evidence but I would take a lot of persuading that we should take any

risks. Thank you for joining me. We did not quite get onto badgers. We

will be down immigration, but not in any way

which links in with this. Thank you to both of you for being my guests

today. Are the Lib Dems like a wonky

shopping trolley? Why is Nick Clegg kicking off over free schools? And

what about Boris and George's love bombing of China? All questions for

The Week Ahead. We are joined now by the former Home Office minister and

Liberal Democrat MP Jeremy Browne. Jeremy Browne, let me ask you this

key question - ??GAPNEXT who is in the ascendancy in your party, those

who would fear to the left, or those who would fear to the centre? The

point I was making in the interview that I gave to the times was that I

want us to be unambiguously and on up genetically -- and

unapologetically a Liberal party. I do not want us to be craving the

approval of columnists like Polly Toynbee. I do not want us to be a

pale imitation of the Labour Party. I think we should be proud and

unambiguously a authentic Liberal party. That is my ambition for the

party. If it is, as you put it, fearing to the left, then I think

that is a mistake, I think we should be on the liberal centre ground But

is it actually veering to the left, your party? I think there is a

danger when a party, or any organisation, feels that it is in a

difficult position, to look inwards, to look for reassuring

familiar policy positions. I do not want us to be the party which looks

inwards and speaks to the 9% of people who are minded to support us

already. I want us to look outwards and speak to the 91% of the

population, for whom I think we have got a good story to tell about the

contribution we have made to getting the deficit down, cutting crime

keeping interest rates low, and also, distinctive Liberal Democrat

policies for example on income tax and pupil premiums. If we look like

we are a party which is uneasy and ambivalent about our role in

government, people will not give us credit for the successes of the

government, and we will not be able to claim the authorship which we

should be able to claim for our policies excesses in government I

want us to be confident, outward looking, and authentically liberal.

If we are that, people real sense that and they will respond

positively. Does that not therefore make it rather strange that Nick

Craig should choose to distance himself from the coalition's schools

policy? Well, I support free schools, I think they are a liberal

policy. Education is a fascinating area, so let's explore it a bit We

have had two very significant and troubling reports in the last

fortnight, one from Alan Milburn, saying that social mobility has

stalled in this country, in other words, what your parents do is a

reliable guide to how you will get on in life and the other saying that

Britain lags behind our competitors, the other

industrialised countries, in terms of the educational attainment of

15-year-olds. Both of those are worrying. We have a scandalous

situation in this country where two thirds of children from

disadvantaged backgrounds are failing to get five Grade A to Grade

C. Some get none at all. If we were the world leaders in education, we

could have an interesting conversation about how we are able

to maintain that position, but we are not. Whether there are good

things one less good things which have happened in our schools over

the last 30-40 years, we really need to raise our game and stop letting

young people down who need a good quality education in order to

realise their full potential in life. It sounds like you do not

share Mr Clegg's designations? I think there are two big dangers for

us as a party. I do not think we should be instinctively statist and

I do not think either we should be instinctively in favour of the

status quo. I want us to have a restless, radical, energetic,

liberal reforming instinct, which is about putting more power and

responsible at the end opportunity in the hands of individual people.

As I say, we look at the education system, of course there are good

teachers and good outcomes in some schools and for some pupils,

overall, our performance in this country is not good enough, so the

status quo has not been a successful stop I am interested in how we can

innovate. -- has not been a success. Are the Tories wooing you? Well I

do not know if that is the right word, I have been reported, and I

have set myself, that the Conservatives have, if you like

made some advances or generous suggestions to me, but I am a

liberal, and I am a Liberal Democrat. I have been a member of

the Lib Dems since the party was founded, I joined when I was 18

years old. I have campaigned tirelessly for the Liberal Democrats

for my entire adult life, so I am not about to go and join another

political party. I would turn this on its head, let me put it like

this, I think there are quite a few liberals in the other political

parties, people like Alan Milburn, who wrote a report on social

mobility, people like Nick Bowles in the Conservative Party. Our

ambition, as Liberal Democrats, should be to attract liberals from

other political parties, and no political party, to the Lib Dems.

Just briefly, have you suggested that the Tories do not run a

candidate against you in the next election? I have not suggested

anything of the sort. The Conservatives have to make their own

decisions about which candidates they select, and I will take on

whoever is select it from each of the political parties. Thank you for

joining us. There is a danger not from Jeremy Browne, but from Mr

Clegg, in that, having been part of a coalition which has gone through

an enormous squeeze in living standards for three years, it did

not look like both was coming, it was being regarded overall as a

failure, but now, it may be turning the corner, so why would you then

start to disassociate yourself from the coalition's policies? Yes, the

danger for Nick Clegg is that he makes the Liberal Democrats looked

like visitors in a guesthouse, a guesthouse which is owned by the

Conservatives. As you say, they were there for the three difficult years,

and just at the moment when the economy seems to be coming right,

and we are getting some nice growth, they seek to distance themselves. It

is interesting that Jeremy Browne came out with the outrageously

disloyal statement that he supported free schools statement. That is a

disloyal Liberal Democrat view, but on Thursday, of course, the Liberal

Democrat party was in favour of free schools, because in that statement

about the Al-Madinah school, David Laws made a passionate defence about

what Nick Clegg is now criticising, which is having on qualified

teachers. If things are now coming right, the big risk for the Liberal

Democrats always was that they would not get the credit anyway. Well if

they diss associate themselves like this, they definitely will not get

the credit. It depends which voters their opinion poll ratings are dire,

he spoke about 9%, and sometimes it is less than that. So, where are

they going to get those voters from? They have not got those

anti-Iraq war voters. Is it not Mission impossible, getting Labour

voters test surely the left of the Lib Dem vote is peeling off towards

labour, not away from Labour? I wonder to what extent, and this

might be speculation, this might be organised and arranged, that Cameron

and Clegg both understand that they have groups of voters that they need

to get, so they need to send messages out to different groups, it

looks like a bit of a setup to me. Boris in China, along with boy

George - let's have a look... Who, according to JK Rowling, was Harry

Potter's first girlfriend? That s right, and she is Chinese overseas

student, is that not right at Hogwarts? Actually, we are not sure

it is right, she is actually from Scotland. It is not only London

which has a diverse society. Putting that to one side, we are inviting

the Chinese into finance our power stations, to run big banks in the

cities, we are giving out more visas to them, are we right to embrace the

Dragon? What worries me about the power stations then, it is 30% of

investment, and it reminds me a lot of PFI, the idea that you do not

want a huge investment on your balance sheet, but if somebody bails

out halfway through, we cannot stop with a half finished power station.

It is EDF, the French company, which will actually build it, and we will

be guaranteeing the debt for them. It is extraordinary that there has

been so little adverse comment after George Osborne and Boris's trip to

China, and is it now really the UK Government policy, to sell Britain

to the Chinese? There was a debate in government about this, as they

were getting ready for the trip and there will be at some point in the

next six months be a David Cameron trip to China. He has had to wait

three years because they were annoyed about him meeting the Dalai

llama. There were some people in the Foreign Office who were saying,

fine, but tread carefully. George Osborne's view is absolutely not,

get in there, I do not care about any of these problems, get stuck

in. I think he is storing up five years since the financial crisis,

Chinese banks are being given a special, light touch regulatory

regime. What could possibly go wrong?! There is lots to see. Energy

prices have continued to dominate this week. We have got the EDF deal,

whereby we are going to be giving them twice the market rate for their

energy. But for the coalition, all eyes are on the GDP figures. The

expectation and hope is that the recovery will be stronger than the

figures have suggested so far, on which basis it can influence the

result of the next general election. The chief economist at the

Bank of England was saying on Twitter last week that the Bank of

England may now bring forward the assessment when it says, maybe we

are going to have to change monetary policy, if unemployment goes below

7%. And we know what that means interest rates. The Bank of England

on Twitter! That is it for today. The Daily Politics is back tomorrow

on BBC Two. I will be back with prime Minster 's questions on

Wednesday, and of course, we will be back at 11 o'clock on BBC One next

Sunday.