12/01/2014 Sunday Politics South West

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.