12/01/2014 Sunday Politics South West


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 12/01/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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


coalition is fighting over cuts. Nick Legg says Tory plans to balance


the books would hit the poorest hardest. He will not say what he


will cut. That is the top story. Chris Grayling called for a


completely new deal with Europe as he battles will rings from the


European Court of Human Rights. He joins me.


Labour promises to shift house-building up a gear, but how


will they get a In the South West: The problem of


bed blocking at the region's hospitals, and the gypsy and


traveller debate returns as another plan to provide legal pitches is


scrapped. be serious. Have cuts left to the


service being overstretched? With me for the duration, a top trio


of political pundits, Helen Lewis, Jan and Ganesh and Nick Watt. They


will be tweeting faster than France or long scoots through Paris. Nick


Clegg sticks to his New Year resolution to sock it to the Tories,


the is how he described Tory plans for another 12 billion of cuts on


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


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


not make any additional contributions from their taxes if


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


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


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


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


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


additional sacrifices to fill the remaining buckle in the public


finances. Nick Legg eating up on the Tories


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


taking these ostensibly on popular positions and it only makes sense


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


problem. Chris Grayling is a busy man, he has


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


and unhappy probation officers taking industrial action.


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


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


Traditional Tory policy on criminal justice and prisons has been tough


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


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


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


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


everything else within today's financial realities. The Justice


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


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


more and more people for longer without actively seeking to change


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


training prisoners inside, and outside they offer jobs to


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


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


dramatic change positively, working with prisoners, particularly in the


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


from size and types of prisons to probation services, reoffending


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


reforms need closer inspection? Chris Grayling joins me now.


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


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


European Convention of human rights? It will contain a promise


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


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


Supreme Court our Supreme Court, Supreme Court our Supreme Court


they can be no question of decisions over riding it elsewhere, and we


have to have a situation where our laws contain a balance of rights and


responsibilities. People talk about knowing their rights, but they do


not accept they have responsible it is. This is what you said last


September, I want to see our Supreme Court being supreme again... That is


clear, but let's be honest, the Supreme Court cannot be supreme as


long as its decisions can be referred to the European Court in


Strasbourg. There is clearly an issue, that was raised recency --


recently. We have been working on a detailed reform plan, we will


publish that in the not too distant future. What we will set out is a


direction of travel for a new Conservative government that will


mean wholesale change in this area. You already tried to reform the


European Court, who had this declaration in 2012, do you accept


that the reform is off the table? There is still a process of reform,


but it is not going fast enough and not delivering the kind of change we


need. That is why we will bring forward a package that for the


different from that and will set a different direction of travel. We


are clear across the coalition, we have a different view from our


colleagues. You cannot be half pregnant on this, either our


decisions from our Supreme Court are subject to the European Cup or not,


in which case, we are not part of the European court. I hope you will


see from our proposals we have come up with a sensible strategy that


deals with this issue once and for all. Can we be part of the


Strasbourg court and yet our Supreme Court be supreme? That is by point,


we have to curtail the role of the court in the UK. I am clear that is


what we will seek to do. It is what we will do for this country. But


how? I am not going to announce the package of policies today, but we


will go into the next election with a clear strategy that will curtail


the role of the European Court of Human Rights in the UK. The


decisions have to be taken in Parliament in this country. Are you


sure that you have got your own side on this? Look at what the Attorney


General says. I would be asking Strasberg a


different question to that. If the best in class, he is saying is


enough is enough, actually somebody in Strasberg should be asking if


this has gone the way it should have done. I would love to see wholesale


reform in the court tomorrow, I m reform in the court tomorrow, I'm


not sure it is going to happen which is why we are going to the election


with a clear plan for this country. Would you want that to be a red line


in any coalition agreement? My mission is to win the next election


with a majority. But you have to say where your red lines would be. We


have been very clear it is an area where we don't agree as parties,


have been very clear it is an area where we don't agree as parties but


in my view the public in this country are overwhelmingly behind


the Conservative party. 95 Conservative MPs have written to the


Prime Minister, demanding he gives the House of Commons the authority


to veto any aspect of European Union law. Are you one of the people who


wanted to sign that letter but you couldn't because you are minister? I


haven't been asked to sign the letter. We need a red card system


for European law. I'm not convinced my colleagues... I don't think it is


realistic to have a situation where one parliament can veto laws across


the European Union. I understand the concerns of my colleagues, but when


we set out to renegotiate our membership, we have got to deliver


renegotiation and deliver a system which is viable, and I'm not


convinced we can have a situation where one Parliament can prevent


laws across the whole European Union. So you wouldn't have signed


this letter? I'm not sure it is the right approach. I support the system


I just talked about. Iain Duncan Smith has suggested EU migrants


coming to work in this country should have to wait for two years


before they qualify for welfare benefits, do you agree? Yes, I think


there should be an assumption that before you can move from one country


to another, before you can start to take back from that country's social


welfare system, you should have made a contribution to it. I spent two


and a half years working in Brussels trying to get the European


Commission to accept the need for change. There is a groundswell of


opinion out there which is behind Iain Duncan Smith in what he is


saying. I think we should push for a clear system that says people should


be able to move from one country to get a job, but to move to another


country to live off the state is not acceptable. You are planning a new


2000 capacity mega prison and other smaller presence which will be run


by private firms. After what has happened with G4S, why would you do


that? No decision has been made about whether it will be public or


private. What do you think it will be? I'm not sure yet. There is no


clear correlation over public and private prisons and whether there


are problems or otherwise. Oakwood is in its early stages, it has had


teething problems at the start, but the rate of disturbance there is


only typical for an average prison of its category. If you take an


example of Parc prison in Wales a big private run prison, run by G4S,


when it was first launched under the last government it had teething


problems of the same kind as Oakwood and is now regarded as one of the


best performing prisons. Why would you give it to a private company


then? We have only just got planning permission for the so we will not be


thinking about this for another few years. Some of the companies who run


prisons are under investigation with dreadful track records. In the case


of G4S, what we have experienced is acceptable and they have not been


able to go ahead with a number of contracts they might have otherwise


got. They are having to prove to the Government they are fit to win


contracts from the Government again. They are having to pay compensation


to the Government and the taxpayer. What has happened is unacceptable.


So why would you give them a 20 0 capacity mega prison? Or anyone like


them? It cannot be said that every private company is bad. In addition


to problems at Oakwood, you are quite unique now in your position


that you have managed to get the barristers out on strike the first


time since history began. What happens if the bar refuses to do


work at your new rates of legal aid and the courts grind to a halt? I


don't believe that will happen. When the barristers came out on strike,


three quarters of Crown Courts were operating normally, 95% of


magistrates courts were operating normally. We are having to take


difficult decisions across government, I have no desire to cut


back lately but we are spending over ?2 billion on legal aid at the


moment at a time when budgets are becoming tougher. You issued


misleading figures about criminal barristers, you said that 25% of


them earn over ?100,000 per year but that is their turnover, including


VAT. 33% of that money goes on their expenses, they have to pay for their


own pensions and insurance. People are not getting wealthy out of doing


this work. I don't publish figures, our statisticians do, with caveats


in place explaining the situation. Where you have high-cost cases,


where we have taken the most difficult decisions, we have tried


hard in taking difficult decisions to focus the impact higher up the


income scale. But do you accept their take-home pay is not 100,000?


I accept they have to take out other costs, although some things like


travelling to the court, you and I and everyone else has to pay for


travelling to work. That is net of VAT. We have had a variety of


figures published, some are and some are not. Let's be clear, the gross


figures for fees from legal payments include 20% VAT. On a week when even


a cabinet minister can be fitted up by the police, don't we all need


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


well-financed legal aid? There is no changes people will end up in court


unable to defend themselves. We have said in exceptional circumstances,


if you haven't got any money to pay, we will support you, but there is no


question of anyone ended up in court, facing a criminal charge


where they haven't got a lawyer to defend them. Let's look at how so


many dangerous criminals have managed to avoid jail. Here are the


figures for 2012. Half the people for sexual assault found guilty, not


jailed. I thought you were meant to be tough on crime? Those figures


predate my time, but since 2010 the number of those people going to jail


has been increasing steadily. If you put the figures for 2010 on there,


you would see a significant change. We will never be in a position where


everybody who commits violence will end up in jail. The courts will


often decided to his more appropriate to give a community


sentence, but the trend is towards longer sentences and more people


going to jail. That maybe but it is even quite hard to get sent to jail


if you do these things a lot, again and again. In 2012 one criminal


avoided being sent to jail despite having more than 300 offences to his


name. 36,000 avoided going to jail despite 15 previous offences. That


is why we are taking steps to toughen up the system. Last autumn


we scrapped repeat cautions. You could find people getting dozens. As


of last autumn, we have scrapped repeat cautions. If you commit the


same offence twice within a two year same offence twice within a two-year


period you will go to court. You still might end up not going to


jail. More and more people are going to jail. I cannot just magic another


34,000 prison places. You haven t 34,000 prison places. You haven't


got room to put bad people in jail? The courts will take the decisions,


and it is for them to take the decisions and not me, that two men


in a bar fight do not merit a jail sentence. These figures contain a


huge amount of offences from the most minor of offences to the most


despicable. Something is wrong if you can commit 300 offences and


still not end up in jail. That's right, and we are taking steps so


this cannot happen any more. Nick Clegg said this morning you are


going to make 12 billion of welfare cuts on the back of this, he is


right, isn't he? People on the lowest incomes are often not paying


tax at all, the rich... But these cuts will fall disproportionately on


average earners, correct? Let's look at the proposal to limit housing


benefit for under 25s. Until today, after people have left school or


college, the live for a time with their parents. For some, that is not


possible and we will have to take that into account, but we have said


there is a strong case for saying you will not get housing benefit


until you are some years down the road and have properly established


yourselves in work. And by definition these people are on lower


than average salaries. Give me a case in which those on the higher


tax band will contribute to the cuts. We have already put in place


tax changes so that the highest tax rate is already higher than it was


in every year of the last government. The amount of tax...


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


in the run-up to the next general election.


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


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


peacetime since 1920. The Office for National Statistics estimates that


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


including loan guarantees for developers and a new homes bonus to


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


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


criticised planning reforms for causing "physical harm" to the


countryside. Nick Clegg meanwhile prefers a radical solution - brand


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


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


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


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


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


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


diverse and competitive industry, where self build plays a greater


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


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


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


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


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


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


agree, there are some fundamental structural problems with the land


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


the possibility and flexible it is to use the compulsory purchase


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


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


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


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


Local Government Association are telling us that there is a problem


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


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


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


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


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


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


there is another problem before that. That is around transparency


about land options. There is agricultural land that


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


the neighbouring authority. In Stevenage, it is estimated at


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


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


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


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


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


built, and in areas like Oxford, Luton and Stevenage... Do you agree


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


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


incentivise local authorities to come forward with sites for new


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


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


at the moment, Private Housing building is only just beginning to


recover, but it has been pretty steady for a while. The big


difference between house-building now and in the past, since Mrs


Thatcher came to power a and including the Tony Blair government,


we did not build council houses. Almost none. Will the next Labour


government embark on a major council has programme? We inherited housing


stock back in 1997... This is important. Will the next Labour


government embark on a major council has programme? We have called on


this government to bring forward investment in social housing. We


want to see an investment programme in social housing, I cannot give you


the figures now. We are 18 months away from the election. Will the


next Labour government embark on a major council house Northern


programme? I want to see a council house building programme, because


there is a big shortage of council homes. That is a guess? Yes. We got


there in the end. -- that is a yes? We will be talking to Patrick homes


in the West Midlands in a moment. You are watching the Sunday


Politics. Coming up in just over 20 minutes, I will look at the week


ahead with our political panel Hello, I'm Lucie Fisher, coming up


on the Sunday Politics in the South West: The gypsy and traveller debate


continues as yet another plan to provide legal pitches is scrapped.


And for the next 20 minutes, I'm joined by Labour councillor Phil


Bialyk, and Conservative MP Sarah Newton. Welcome both of you to the


programme. Let's start with house building


targets. Next week councillors in Cornwall will decide how many new


homes should be built in the county over the next 20 years. Political


tensions are mounting. The Conservatives want the target of


47,000 to be cut to 33,000, but the Lib Dems say reducing the numbers by


that amount would be a "recipe for disaster".


Sarah, you are calling for less homes to be built. Why, when we know


that waiting lists are so high? What is so interesting if you look back


over the next `` past ten years in Cornwall we have had record levels


of house`building yet we have record levels of people living in dreadful


housing situations and not leaving have a household so clearly the way


it has been done in the past has not worked. Why not? We are not spending


enough money on building affordable homes that you can buy and read. The


book are placed out of living in Cornwall. Who is getting the homes


we are building? Second homeowners are the problem? The types of homes


we are building are simply unaffordable for many people in


Cornwall who was on low wages at the priority must be local needs


housing, that must come first and we need to build many more of those as


a percentage of the target. Of course we welcome people coming to


live in Cornwall, especially people coming to set up businesses in grow


them and employ people, we have a lot of inward migration into


Cornwall over the past ten years. And building less homes is the


answer? Building more affordable homes is what we need, genuinely


affordable homes for people to buy or rent. Phil, is 40,000 homes over


the next 20 years the right way to go? Labour target is 60,000 homes.


The people need homes. That is what we need. Server, Kew said talking


about reducing homes. The Conservative government where


Columbus that in councils for not building homes at your suggesting


introduction. This is important that the decision for Cornwall


councillors. They will be debating that and I did join the debate in


Parliament yesterday. I was getting clarification because unlike the


Labour Party which made their decisions about house`building


targets through the regions except... Implicitly will chair the


potential house`building targets they were rejected by the


Commissioner. `` except in places like Wiltshire. What I want to see


and what was clarified in the debate we had is that so long as there is a


good evidence base that Cornwall is meeting its housing need that it can


properly substantiate that... Phil Bialyk, will this work? Know, and I


am happy that we have affordable houses in Exeter, we have had


something like 180 affordable houses since April of this year. We have


plenty more coming up and we are obviously trying to encourage


development. People want homes. People want to be able to go home


after an and turn the key on your own home. That is so important. The


job, a home is what people want. I will have to stop you. Ten to move


on. This week new bed blocking figures


revealed problems at some of the region's biggest hospitals are far


from being resolved. Operations are still being cancelled because


patients who're well enough to be discharged remain stuck on wards. In


Cornwall the Council is still being blamed for failing to provide the


community care which would allow people to leave hospital. In a


moment we'll speak to the councillor in charge, but first this report


from Tamsin Melville. Last week aged dual Florence Uren


was all ready for the new operation at the Royal Cornwall Hospital. She


had spoken to the NEC success, met the surgeon and was waiting to go to


theatre which he was told to go home because no bed was available. I was


very upset. I had been looking forward to going in to get rid of


the pain. I can play in the hospital, the staff were brilliant.


They could not have done anything better. What upset me was that I had


the bed and it was taken away. There are currently hundreds of cases of


so`called bed blocking in the region's hospitals, where a lack of


one would care is forcing some operations to be cancelled. It is


regrettable when patients must wait for beds or packages of care and we


know there is an issue in Cornwall so we are working with our community


partners executive team of hospital workers and working with other


executives in the unity to try and prove that because clearly patients


that cannot leave the hospital that means there our bed pressures and


forces patients waiting for surgery in two cancellations. In the week


before New Year at the Royal Cornwall alone there are more than


100 beds blocked, twice the national average. That is despite a plan to


improve the situation after 14 operations had been cancelled in


just one day in October. As part of the shake`up of the NHS since April,


pencils `` councils have had to set up health and well`being boards.


These are responsible for ensuring that public health and social care


all work together. You're in Cornwall that system is under some


scrutiny. The October crisis wanted accusations that the council was to


blame for failures in the social care system. From what I have been


hearing the leaders of the NHS in Cornwall have been working very hard


for some time to join up their services, to work well, to do things


more efficiently, better for patients and the missing piece of


the jigsaw has been Cornwall Council. The council has always


stressed it is not to blame and all partners agreed to improve


communication. Health watchdogs are not happy with the latest figures. I


was disappointed to hear that bed blocking in January has again become


an issue when a lot of work was done by the different partner


organisations in health care in October and November to try and


improve the situation as we went into winter. I can only say I am


very disappointed that measures that have been put in have been not


effective enough at this stage. Independent health and social care


providers have told us that they want the council about a looming


crisis back in September. They told us that a continuing lack of


communication and coordination by the council has had a detrimental


effect on the continued provision of care across the county. Meanwhile,


Florence just wants her. Everybody has tried to do this for me but


nothing has happened. I am just hoping that next time everything


will go all right. Florence Uren ending that report


from Tamsin Melville and joining us to discuss this is the Cornwall


Council Cabinet member for Health and Adult Care, Councillor Judith


Haycock. Welcome to the programme. Judith, the shareholder managers


involved here, the people who should be able to take in these patients


who are blocking the bed that the update for others in hospital see


that you are to blame. What do you make of that? The figures you are


giving, the 109, is not a figure that I recognise at all. We have


single figures that we have been looking at and... This is from NHS


England, that figure. That figure also contains other people, not only


people looking for care packages from the council, that is people who


are looking to be moved on to community hospitals or just actually


leave the hospital. What do you see to the care home managers who are


asking why you will not sit down and have a conversation with them?


Presumably you could tell them that. At the moment we are in the tender


process looking at the provision of care. They see that you will not sit


down and have a face`to`face chat with them. That is all we are after.


That's said reasonable doesn't it question there have been discussions


but at the moment people might have discussions when we are in the


tender process. Do you feel that the council is being made a scapegoat?


According to my figures we are talking about single figures for


people are looking at care packages from the council. At the moment we


have got four or five every day. OK, I will ask seller. Is the situation


improving since October when we had the hospital in a crisis? What I


hear, apart from the providers that have given out that statement,


certainly from the NHS partners, I got an update from then just


yesterday and they say yes, communication has definitely


improved and there is a drive to try and reduce the situation. Have been


seeing that the council has been at fault. Yes and there has been a


confusion with Judith is probably quite right, I have not seen the


data, when she is talking about the actual numbers of people who


Cornwall Council have a statutory responsibility as the people paying


for the care packages, what Cornwall Council are still not fully grasping


in my view is the responsibility through the health and well`being


board as tabs and quite rightly said. That is the body, the


strategic audio Cornwall that gets all the parties together, that has


the responsibility of integrating, coordinating services in the


patient, whoever is paying for their care. Most people pay for their own


care. Do that, you are not grasping this situation according to seller.


The health and well`being waters working extremely well, we have the


fun coming from the government. `` the health and well`being board.


Have a plan of working together with Oliver partners. That all of this


mean that people will not be stuck in the in A.D410 hours when


Whittington care? It is those patients we are worried about.


Others cannot be moved out of the hospital because they have nowhere


else to go. It overjoyed at care packages with our partners so people


are not having new ministers visit and we know exactly what is


happening. The Axel Biela, what you make? I want to know who is talking


to Florence Uren about her problems. She is the person, when all of these


higher faculty of costs and call centres, there are people out there


who need care. Phil, we all knew the population was going to get older.


You knew and adult social care was going to become a problem as a


result, what did Labour to wealthy have the chance? The Mac what we did


not do was get rid of 6500 nurses nationally. What we did not do is


spend ?3 billion a reorganisation of the health service. I think we could


have sorted out Florence Uren's problems and many of these problems.


You would say that this is a problem not with the council but with


central government? Seller is in government and she


doesn't blame everyone. They need to do something about it. There are


more doctors and nurses know that there were in 2010. We are working


extremely hard to tackle this issue which is quite rightly identified in


your package as being about lack of coordination, lack of joining up


services. I did not mention the word cost once because this is an area


where we have not cut the NHS budgets as an extra resources going.


The council is quite right, budgets as an extra resources going.


Letter Judith, do you have enough money? Is money problem? Obviously


money is going to be a problem but it is not that big a problem. We are


working with health partners in the new better care fund is that our


problem is that we make sure we work together with IT and peace confident


jealousy. IT is the problem with bed blocking? Then blocking is now the


problem and you're seeing it? That is working on your figures, that you


seeing it as twice the national average. Figures from NHS England.


Would you are questioning. I will go back to seller, this government says


it will make adult social care eight priority. The giving what is going


on at the Royal Cornwall Hospital shows you are doing that? Idea, as


we speak I am working on the Care Bill which is the most landmark


piece of legislation which absolutely has support from Labour,


what we are doing is achieving what they would never have achieved any


government achieved for many decades, which is to grasp this


remake complex issue, how we are going to provide joined up


integrated care about people and their families. Last point, Phil?


It is all worth it leaves nothing to Florence Uren. She is getting much


better quality of care. We must deal with this preferably. Cannot stop


you there, Sarah, and thank you, Judah for joining us.


There are few challenges which cause councillors as much concern as


providing gypsy and traveller sites. Last week plans for ten official


pitches in Plymouth were abandoned. A decision which has been welcomed


by local opponents, but condemned by the travelling community. Johnny


Rutherford reports. Celebrating a victory. But it has


been a long struggle. Absolutely disgusting. Back in 2900 City


Council decided to build a traveller site on the edge of town next to a


nature reserve despite a large resident campaign. By 2011 planning


permission had been granted for a permanent ten site. Though the


council have announced they have decided to scrap the plans. We feel


ecstatic that the council has no after all this time listened to the


residents, whereas before they start to themselves, we are the


councillors, apart from the other councillors, we are the council and


will do what we want to do and not what you want to do. Anyone who


knows the site, it is all right for people to see you must live


somewhere, but if you know the site and you know how dangerous this site


is, we are very concerned with accidents that happen there, the


children would have nowhere to play on a really dangerous bend. The


traffic that goes true then it. The site you're on the literary world


was once used by gypsies and travellers, it closed more than 40


years ago and the authorities said that the land would never again used


as a permanent site. It is a detail which the council apparently took


more than five years remember. Note the area is going to be enhanced and


protected for wildlife. The Coalition scrap the official targets


which forced councils to provide a set number of travellers pictures


but it has allocated ?16 million to be used on new and existing


travellers sites in England. Some politicians strongly object to this


use of public money. I do not think it is any responsibility of local or


national government to provide sites for travellers. In most cases the


people who are not foldable but aplenty of resources and what we


should be doing is we should be much better at enforcing the law and


removing them when the gate crashed onto someone else's land.


Nevertheless, Plymouth has managed to claim just under ?2 million.


Originally for the sites. The money has been allocated for efforts for


ten pages and will be added to the improvement scheme for 13 pitches at


the only permanent gypsy travellers site next to Chelsea Meadow. The


location of the proposed transit site of 16 pitches at Bradley Park.


Plymouth city council were not available for interview but they


acknowledged the need to provide more travellers sites for the


Plymouth area. Johnny Rutherford reporting. Joining us as a member of


the charity of friends family as Terry `` friends family and


travellers. This is a has been thrown out. Is the government doing


enough to encourage councils to provide more site? We do not think


there is. We do not think they are, rather. There was once a statutory


duty on local authorities to provide sites and that came with a 100%


central funding for state provision. That was repealed in 1984 so no even


though local authorities must identify land for sites they must do


a the assessment which permit will have done in the will have an amount


of pictures they are supposed to provide. We can be seen to discuss


it a lot like what happened in Plymouth. They have applied the


client and the method has been stopped. What is going to be the


penalties on the local authorities for not providing this? You will


still have 25% of Gypsy and Traveller caravans, the homeless and


have nowhere to put their caravan on. You pay rent to live only say


that council tax, he would have AV source. The Mac I will stop you


there. I will ask seller, should there be in return to statutory


regulation? A penalty for pencils not providing the site? It is right


that local people work for councils as the lady was seeing. Local people


will always say no, aren't they? Know, if you look at what has


happened over the past few years there are no more people living on


registered sites in the murder people living off registered has


gone down. By making the money available to help improve and expand


on existing sites... Your Conservative colleague Gary Street


he said we should not spend public money on this at all. The Nikkei is


entitled to his opinion and is an extremely valued colleague. `` she


has entitled to his opinion. Still, it is your colleagues on the city


council in Plymouth who have abandoned plans for the site. You


agree with them? My understanding is that there is a


financial concern. The mat budgets come into it. Seller has said that


they are listening to local people but in the end of the know it is an


issue that must be dealt with. People need homes. We should not


ghettoise people. We should not demonise people either. Whether it


is Bulgarian Romanians, it will be gypsies. If you created more sites


with that encourage more Roma gypsies, maybe, from Romania and


Bulgaria to come to them? If they were not been provided elsewhere?


And would that be a problem? Don't sound like the Daily Mail for


goodness sake. That will not happen. Could I comment on that? Just a


couple of things. Roma gypsies in Eastern Europe do not really live on


site any more so I would not think they would live there, they have


been settled and housing for a long time. They would not be looking to


live on Gypsy and Traveller sites in Britain. Add in regards to sellers


point with the increase in state provision that increase has not been


in public provision it has been on private sector people have what it


one land and achieved planning permission, often having to fight a


planning appeal because they have been turned down permissions so that


is not public sector, so what we need public safe for people who


cannot afford to divide their own land in the way that you have social


housing and that is what this site in Plymouth was to be. We need many


more of them. I do not see councils providing public sites. Emma, you


have the last word. That is the end of the discussion. Thank you.


Now our regular round`up of the political week in 60 seconds.


Storms brought the deluge of political comment, with some MPs


resigned to the elements. There's nothing you can do a text mother


nature when she is as powerful as this. Others concerned about whether


there was enough cash to keep water away from release. Is my honourable


friend confident that with an existing wee sources in the testing


budget that we are given sufficient priority for flood prevention


methods? Devon and Cornwall police commissioner says he was


disappointed by the 2.5 million pound cut his budget. A planning


enquiry started in East Devon over housing plans which will see the


size of one village increased by 40%. If this village falls then


nowhere in Britain is safe. If 40% is deemed appropriate then what is


to stop more? The environment select committee says confidence in the


badger cull had been undermined by repeated revisions of estimated


badger numbers. Still, let's look at the flood


defence budget. There is confusion as to whether there has been cut or


not? What are the likelihood of more money being spent on the extra


really like? Network Rail must come up with the money, and at that is


owned by government. Government must put money into it. It is an


important rail link and it is part of the arty in the West Country. We


cannot keep having a situation whereby we are cut off for days on


end. People's travel arrangements, businesses will rely upon it. As the


clip 2.5 million has cut from the environment agency. That is where


money must be spent on this. We do need is to spend money. Money must


be spent? You'll like huge amount of money are going into flood defences


and on that issue we have absolute commitment to ensure we defend that


line and I was really pleased. We have already started to see the


investment. I must stop you there. That's the Sunday Politics in the


South West. Thanks to my guests will not be revoked. And I wouldn't


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


body that is there for the cooperation amongst member states to


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


There is a big decrease in the number of New Zealanders who came in


the last quarter for which figures are available, but a huge increase


in people coming from the continent. Does it really make sense to stop


our second cousins coming so that we can allow people freely to come from


the continent? I do not think so, we need to have domestic control of our


borders in the interests of the United Kingdom. There are still lots


more people coming from the rest of the world than from the European


Union. That has been changing. But there are still more. A lot more.


The permanent residence coming from the European Union are extremely


high. In the period when the Labour Party was in charge, we had to put 5


million people coming here, of whom about 1 billion were from Poland. --


we had 2.5 million people coming here. We have no control over them.


Like the clock behind you, you are behind the times on these figures. I


have stopped the clock for your benefit, because it was going to


chime otherwise! I thought that might be distracting! Only a Tory


backbencher could stop a clock! Helen, when you at this up, it is


preparing to get out, is it not? We have had this one bill about a


referendum that seems to have tied us up in knots for months on end. If


Parliament could scrutinise every piece of EU legislation, we would


never get anything else done. It would be incredible. Even Chris


Grayling said earlier that you can not have a national veto on anything


that the EU proposes. I am surprised that Jacob Rees Mogg is talking


about dismantling one of Margaret Thatcher's most important legacies,


the creation of the single market, and the person sent there to dream


it up under Margaret Thatcher said the only way you can run this


sensibly is by not having national vetoes, because if you have that,


guess what will happen? The French will impose lots of protectionist


measures. It was Margaret Thatcher's idea that national


parliaments should never veto. How could you fly in the face of the


lady? Even the great lady makes mistakes. Excuse me, Jacob Rees Mogg


says even Margaret Thatcher makes mistakes! No wonder the clock has


stopped! Even be near divine Margaret made a mistake! But on the


single market, it has been used as an excuse for massive origination of


domestic affairs. We should be interested in free trade in Europe


and allowing people to export and import freely, not to have uniform


regulations, as per the single market, because what that allows is


thought unelected bureaucrats to determine the regular vision. We


want the British people to decide the rules for themselves. If this


makes the single market not work, that is not the problem, because we


can still have free trade, which is more important. If David Cameron is


watching this, I am sure he is, it will be nice for you to come on and


give us an interview, he must be worried. He is beginning to think, I


am losing control. It is a clever letter, the tone is ingratiating and


pleasant, every time, you have stood up to Brussels, you have achieved


something, but the content is dramatic. If you want Parliament to


have a veto, you want to leave the EU, because the definition is


accepting the primacy of European law. The MPs should be clear about


that. It is almost a year since the Europe speech in which David Cameron


committed to the referendum. The political objective was to put that


issue to bed until the next election. It has failed. David


Cameron is going to have to pull off a major miracle in any


renegotiations to satisfy all of this. Yes, it makes me think how


much luckier he has been in coalition with the Liberal


Democrats, because there is a bit of the Tory party that is


irreconcilable to what he wants to do. The Conservative MPs are making


these demands just as David Cameron is seeing the debate goes his way in


Europe. Angela Merkel has looked over the cliff and said, do I want


the UK out? No, they are a counterbalance to France. France one


the UK to leave, but they do not, because they do not want to lose the


only realistic military power Tom other than themselves. Just when the


debate is going David Cameron's way, Jacob Rees Mogg would take us out.


Let me move on to another subject. That is nonsense. The debate is not


beginning to go David Cameron's way. We are having before us on Monday a


bill about European citizenship and spending British taxpayers money so


that Europe can go and say we are all EU citizens, but we signed up to


being a part of a multinational organisation. The spin that it is


going the way of the leader of a political party is one that has been


used before, it was said of John Major, it was untrue then and it is


now. It is, for the continuing deeper integration of the European


Union. I want to ask a quick question. Chris Grayling said to us


that the Tories would devise a way in which the British Supreme Court


would be supreme in the proper meaning of that, but we could still


be within the European Court of Human Rights. Can that circle be


squared? I have no idea, the Lord Chancellor is an able man, and I am


sure he is good at squaring circles. I am not worried about whether we


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


remain in the convention or not PMQ 's, we saw a bit about this week,


Paul Gorgons had died, so the house was more subdued, but he wants a


more subdued and serious prime ministers questions. Let's remind


ourselves what it was like until now.


What is clear is that he is floundering around and he has no


answer to the Labour Party's energy price freeze. The difference is


John Major is a good man, the Right Honourable gentleman is acting like


a conman. Across the medical profession, they say there is a


crisis in accident and emergency, and we have a Prime Minister saying,


crisis, what crisis? How out of touch can hate the? You do not need


it to be Christmas to know when you are sitting next to a turkey.


It is not a bad line. Is Ed Miliband trying to change the tone of prime


ministers questions? Is he right to do so? The important point is this


was a special prime ministers questions, because everybody was


really sad and by the death of Paul Goggins and in the country, the


legacy of the floods. That was the first question that Ed Miliband


asked about, so that cast a pall over proceedings. When it suits him,


Ed Miliband would like to take a more statesman-like stance, but will


it last? That is how David Cameron started. His first prime ministers


questions, he said to Tony Blair, I would like to support you on


education, and he did in a vote which meant Tony Blair could see off


a naughty operation from Gordon Brown. But it did not last, they are


parties with different visions. Jacob Rees Mogg, would you like to


see it more subdued? I like a bit of Punch and Judy. You need to have


fierce debate and people putting their views passionately, it is


excellent. I am not good at it, I sit there quite quietly, but it is


great fun, very exciting, and it is the most watched bit of the House of


Commons each week. If it got as dull as ditchwater, nobody would pay


attention. Three cheers for Punch and Judy. Ed Miliband is going to


make a major speech on the economy this week. You can now define the


general approach. We had it from Emma Reynolds, we have seen it over


energy prices, this market is bust, the market is not working properly,


and that will therefore justify substantial government intervention.


Intervention which does not necessarily cost money. It is the


deletion and reorganising industries. It constitutes an answer


to the question which has been hounding him, what is the point of


the Labour Party when there is no money left? He says, you do not


spend a huge amount fiscally, but you arrange markets to achieve


socially just outcomes without expenditure. It is quite serious


stance. I am not sure it will survive the rigours of an election


campaign, but it is an answer. Is that an approach, to use broken


markets, to justify substantial state intervention? Yes, and the


other big plank is infrastructure spending. The Lib Dems would not be


against capital investment for info structure will stop Emma Reynolds


talking about house-building, the idea of pumping money into the


economy through infrastructure is something that the Labour Party will


look at. Jacob Rees Mogg, you once thought Somerset should have its own


time zone, and today, you have delivered on that promise! Live on


the Sunday Politics! I try to deliver on my promises!


That is all for today, the Daily Politics is on BBC Two every day


this week, just before lunch. I aren't back next Sunday here on BBC


One at 11am. -- I am back. If it is Sunday, it is the Sunday Politics.


Download Subtitles