02/02/2014 Sunday Politics South West

Morning, folks. Welcome to the Sunday Politics. The unions helped

him beat his brother to the top. Now Ed Miliband wants to change Labour's

relationship with them. Who will come out on top? We will be asking

one union baron what he thinks. Cracks in the coalition after

Education Secretary Michael Gove sacks the chairwoman of Ofsted. His

Lib Dem deputy is said to be hopping mad. We will be talking to the new

deputy leader of the Lib Dems, Malcolm Bruce.

Caught a bout of the EU blues? David Cameron has been drowning his

sorrows with the President of France. Who better? We will be

asking if the EU referendum bill is dead in the water.

And bad weather getting you down? Getting from A to B a bit of a

nightmare? Fear not! The leader of the Greens will be here with her

traffic and travel report. Dutch And coming up here: Our council is

about to be told to tear up their budgets the next year?

Will it provide the kind of reassurance people want?

Yes, all that and more in today s action-packed Sunday Politics. And

blowing more hot air than I have had hot dinners, Helen Lewis, Nick Watt

and Iain Martin. After the row about candidate

selection in Falkirk, Ed Miliband said he wanted to reshape the

relationship between Labour and the unions. The biggest changes involve

union membership of the party, which in turn will affect future Labour

leadership elections. Some claim this is Ed's Clause 4 moment. But

the unions will continue to be powerful at conference and on the

party's ruling committees, and they will still be able to bankroll the

election campaign. Here is Labour's deputy leader, Harriet Harman,

speaking earlier. What he is proposing for the March the 1st

conference is a huge change in financing, in the election of the

leader, in what goes on at local level. In due course, it might have

implications for the NEC elections and conference. But this is already

a big issue to take forward. Joining me now is Paul Kenny,

general secretary of the GMB union and chair of the Trade Union and

Labour Party Liaison Organisation. Is this Ed Miliband's Clause 4

moment? I don't know about that It is certainly a bold move,

particularly to have an electoral college, which as you said was the

system which elected him in the first place. Everybody admits that

has needed reforming for some time. Moving to a one member, one vote

situation seems to me to be sensible. I know some people are

upset, mostly MPs, who will lose their golden share. But it is

nonsense that one MP should have the same vote as 1000 party members So

the MPs have lost out. Have the unions lost out? Well, the system is

currently that union members get a ballot paper, but they have to

declare that they are a Labour supporter and they have to sign to

that effect in order to participate. Then their vote is counted. At the

last election, about 200,000 trade union members gave that indication,

and they participated in that way. That will not change. The way it is

organised will be different. The big change in the electoral college is

that the logical weight given to MPs will disappear. I wonder if you have

really lost anything. At the moment, there are about 3 million people

automatically affiliated from the unions to the Labour Party. If only

10% of them opt in, that will still mean twice as many union individual

members, 300,000, versus about 180,000 Labour Party members. So

union members and maybe even the unions will have as big an influence

on the leadership elections as you do now, maybe bigger? Well, they are

individual votes. Different unions support different candidates. It is

lost in the media myth of barons and block votes, but there is an

individual vote. Different unions recommend different candidates, and

union members vote accordingly. Ed Miliband won more individual votes

by a country mile than David, but it got messed up in the process of this

electoral college. As I have understood the proposals so far

they are not a done deal. There is a lot of discussion. But it seems

there are three hurdles. Firstly, union members themselves will have

to agree whether they want to affiliate to the Labour Party. If

they don't, the rest of it falls. If they decide they do my they will ask

union members to support that an individual basis the next five

years, which will have financial implications. Then there will be a

third position, which is that people who may want to agree with the

union's position and affiliate with the Labour Party may want to go

further and become active supporters of the Labour Party, participating

in leadership elections. They will have to give their sanction to that

at a third stage. So the implications in terms of

constituency parties and so on are a lot less than the idea that the 3

million who are currently affiliated will change. At the moment, the

unions, because of the automatic affiliation, hand over a affiliation

fees of about ?8 million a year to Labour. You will now get to keep

that money, because the individuals will have to put up the money

themselves. You can keep that money and determine if you give it to

Labour to fight the election campaign, correct? Incorrect.

Firstly, the affiliation fees are paid from what is called the

political fund, which most unions have to set up in order to

participate. The union will continue to pay the ?3 a affiliation fee for

those members who want the union to be affiliated. But you get to keep a

lot more money. In reality, we will see a transitional period of a few

years. Less people will probably say yes, depending on how popular Labour

are, about whether they want the union to give money to the Labour

Party. The GMB has already done this. By the way, don't call me

kneel. It is Andrew or Mr Neil. The unions will have a bigger chunk of

money because the unions will not be handing over all of the money at one

time. But you could still play a major part in funding the Labour

election campaign. We'll how much you give the dependent on what the

Labour Party puts in its manifesto? Of course it will. It will have to

justify our support to Labour for the members who provide money to the

political fund. If we did not argue for the cert is social justice

campaigns and laws we want to see, we would be failing in our job. I

don't intend to hide that from anybody. The unions are there to

fight for their members. That is our job. So you will still be a major

part of the bankroll of the Labour campaign. You will still have 5 % of

the votes at a Labour conference, and you will still have a major part

in the Labour National executive committee and the policy committee.

It is right to say the unions are still at the heart of Labour, are

they not? Well, if you sick to break the affiliated link between trade

unions and the Labour Party, the whole thing collapses. That is what

anchors the Labour Party as far as we are concerned. Many of our

members think that when they want to look for ferrochrome and rights

social justice, housing and the health service, Labour are better it

quipped to deliver that for working people than the current parties

That is why we have traditionally supported them. But not at all of

our members support Labour, which is why we don't affiliate all of them

to Labour. There are over 30 million people in the British labour force

now. Union membership is only 6 5 million out of that 30. A 6.5% of

that do not vote Labour, they vote Tory or liberal or nationalist in

Scotland. So you are a relatively small pressure group. Why should

Labour be in thrall to you? We are the biggest voluntary organisation

in this country. Sorry about that, but that is the fact. People make

conscious choices. My own union the GMB, has been growing for eight

years. So this dying picture you are trying to paint... In terms of

accounting for the fact that some do not support Labour, that is why

unions do not affiliate all of their members to the Labour Party. We have

adjusted to that. If you don't like being called Neil, I don't like

being called a barren either. What about Mr Baron? I don't like that

either. We are representatives of working organisations. It may be

inconvenient for politicians to have to listen to working people, but we

will continue to press. Lord Baron, thank you very much.

So, is this a Clause 4 moment for Ed Miliband? Not really, but to his

credit, he is going ahead with this. There was a point at which it looked

as though Ed Miliband would back away from reform. To his credit he

is trying to create a mass membership party again. But when it

comes to the crucial business of funding a general election campaign,

these reforms will make Labour more reliant on large donations from

trade unions. They could have more power now, because they get to hold

back this money, whereas beforehand, they had to hand it over

automatically. As Mr Kenny just said, how much they handover will be

dependent on good behaviour. Yes, but these are pragmatic reforms The

fact that Ed Miliband has a lot of capital in not being seen as a

Blairite has helped him get these through . The response has been

muted, which suggests good party management on his behalf. That may

be because they will still have 50% of the votes at a party conference.

Mr Kenny was clear that that could be deal-breaker if they tried to

take that away. They have more places at the NEC than anyone else,

and party members, if only 10% of them signed up, they will outweigh

individual members in the constituencies. It was interesting,

how relaxed Paul Kenny was. He was taking thousands of pounds from the

Labour Party a few months ago because he was annoyed about these

reforms, and now he is relaxed because they still have 50% of the

vote at Labour Party conference and Labour Party Parliamentary

candidates are still selected in the same way. But there is a simple

point here. Yes, you can pick apart what Ed Miliband said and said the

unions have too much influence, but the only way he could have gone all

the way was to break the link with the trade unions, and he was not

going to do that. It was not the Labour Party that founded the

unions, it was the unions that founded the Labour Party. Even Tony

Blair did not break the link. In that context, Ed Miliband has gone

incredibly far. For the last 50 years, this opting into the union,

you have to turn to page 50 of your union terms and conditions to say,

do you want to opt out of the political levy 's that is going to

go, which will mean that when the next Labour leader is elected from

the union votes, they will get their ballot from the Labour Party and you

will append the fast where ballots went out from Unison macro and GMB

with a picture of Ed Miliband on the front of the ballot paper saying,

vote for aid. They were Stasi and Saddam Hussein ways of trade union

members electing the Labour leader, which will go. I am sorry his

Lordship is not still here to answer that question.

HMS Coalition is not a happy ship. The lovey-dovey days in the rose

garden are long gone. It is not a loveless marriage, perhaps even an

open one. The latest split is over the decision by Education Secretary

Michael Gove to replace Labour peer Sally Morgan as head of the schools

inspectorate, Ofsted. Mr Gove's deputy, Lib Dem David Laws, is said

to be spitting blood about her removal, although only through

surrogates. He has not said a word on the record. Here was the

Education Secretary a little earlier. If there is another

opportunity for Sally to serve in a different role at a different time,

then I would be delighted to support her in the role which she thinks it

is appropriate to do. There is nothing wrong with Sally but there

is a principle across government that there should be no automatic

reappointment, and that after three or four years, it is appropriate to

bring in a fresh pair of eyes. That is good corporate practice in order

to ensure that you refresh boards, bring a new perspective, and have

tough questions asked. We're joined now by the newly elected deputy

leader of the Liberal Democrats Malcolm Bruce. He's in Aberdeen

Welcome to the Sunday Politics. David Laws is said to be furious

with Michael Gove, is he? I think he is because Sally Morgan has been

doing a good job and that has been generally agreed across the whole

spectrum. I think Ofsted is an impartial body that inspects all

schools and it shouldn't be subject to some kind of political direction.

That is the concern, that she is being removed when she was doing a

good job and most people thought she should be reappointed. It is

strongly rumoured her successor will be a high-ranking Tory backer. Why

hasn't David Laws said this himself, have you spoken to him? I have, and

I know he is not very pleased about it but he will want to speak to

Michael Gove himself when he gets to see him on Monday. The question you

have to take on board is that David Laws is the schools minister,

effectively the one who has engagement with Ofsted, and he is

seeing it being undermined by the Secretary of State. There is a

question that if Michael Gove is so pleased with Sally Morgan why is he

replacing her, and who will he be replacing her with, and on what

basis? Maybe parliament should have a confirmation hearing so that we

can be assured that whoever is put in charge is there because they are

good at it. Why has he licensed his surrogates to save this rather than

saying it himself? He didn't, he knew I was on the programme this

morning so I am giving you the answers as best I can. David is

perfectly capable of speaking for himself. He hasn't so far. You asked

me to come on this programme and David was anxious for me to know he

wasn't happy about it, and I can certainly tell you that. I can also

give you my own opinion which is that Ofsted is not the Department

for Education, it is an independent body. The question you have to ask

is will Michael Gove but someone in charge of Ofsted who will have a

political agenda? If so, that is not what Ofsted should be used for.

Let's move on to your own position. You are 69, white male,

middle-class, what is your answer to the party with diversity problems? I

don't think that is what they voted on. They felt I had a wealth of

experience that would be vulnerable to the party from the period now

until the election, not least because the central issues that will

concern voters are the economy, and I have a track record of promoting

the party's economic policy over many years. But you are not even

standing at the next election. No, but we need to get to the next

election and my colleagues have confidence that I can do a useful

job for the party in that situation. We have developed and delivered

policies that I have helped to shape and I want to persuade people to

understand the Liberal Democrats have made a fundamental difference

to the economic recovery. But you know what has been happening with

the Liberal Democrats and their problems with women. Wasn't this a

chance to select a woman in a major part? You only have seven female MPs

out of 57, not a single Lib Dem woman in the Parliament. Again, why

you rather than making a break and bringing someone in onto major

positions? My colleagues have concluded that the role I am best

qualified to do it, that is why they voted for me. We do only have seven

women and that is an issue we need to address. Two of those women are

ministers, one is a government whip. We seem to have lost our line to

Aberdeen, just as Malcolm Bruce was in full flight defending his

position. I'm not sure if we can get the line back, just bear with me for

a few seconds to see if we can get it. It looks as if we have lost

Malcolm Bruce, I do apologise to Malcolm Bruce and the viewers that

we were not able to continue that interview.

Fierce winds, torrential rain and a tidal surge have brought more misery

to thousands. Official records show that southern England has seen the

wettest January since records began in 1767. I remember it well. The

Somerset Levels have been hit by weeks of flooding, with little

respite from relentless rain. And, the residents of one village on the

Levels, Muchelney, has been cut off for almost a month. We sent our Adam

out with his wellies and a properly filled out risk assessment form The

very wet road to Muchelney. This village of about 100 residents has

been cut off for about four weeks, and like the weather vane, it feels

a little bit spooky. It came up to here and your front door was there.

Anita is just relieved the water stopped here, practically on her

doorstep. Now it is the practicalities that are the problem.

Driving around for food is quite a hassle. You are foraging. It's not

as bad as that but we do have a few bits in the vegetable garden still,

and we had some nice apples until the rats ate them but we are not

doing too badly on that score. It sounds like the medieval! That's

what it feels like. Talking of retro, who knew Somerset still had a

Coleman, this is Brian's first delivery since Christmas. Everything

has gone old-fashioned. We are now talking to neighbours we might never

have seen before or spoken to so we are getting to know more people in

the village. She's right, there has been an outbreak of Dunkirk spirit,

quite literally. The council and the Fire Brigade have put on this boat

service to get people to work and school. The church has become an

unofficial flood HQ. This is where people pick up their mail, and this

is where the people who run the boat stopped for their tea breaks. It all

seems quite jolly, if a bit boring, but it is no fun for the homes and

businesses that have been inundated, or for the farmers whose land is

underwater, an area the size of Bristol, or for the villages which

are less isolated but where the flooding is worse. People like the

parish chairman are starting to get angry with how the Government has

responded. It was all a bit late. We knew what was going to happen with

the amount of rain on the fields and the Government was so slow to

react. The county council got the boat going quickly but it was

another four weeks nearly before the button was pressed for the major

incident. Right on cue, the cavalry arrived in the shape of emergency

crews from other parts of the UK. The rumour is that they will bring

in a hovercraft but the bad news is that the weather is becoming more

grim this weekend. There has been a surge in bookings at the campsite

where people have seen the Somerset Levels on holiday and would like to

come on holiday, if it ever stops raining. I'm delighted to say we

have got the line back to Aberdeen, somebody has put a shilling in the

meter. We can go back to Malcolm Bruce. We were talking about the Lib

Dem women and your election, I suppose the point some people are

making is that your party has as many knights in Parliament as it has

women and you are one of them. The good news is that for the five MPs

who are standing down, who have had candidates elected in their

constituencies so far, all five candidates that have been selected

are women. We need to fight hard to get behind those women and get them

elected so that we have a much better balanced parliament in the

future, but given that we have few women, you really have to pick

people appropriate for the job and we have appointed the women as I

have said but we need our image to be balanced. How many women

candidates will there be come the next election? At the moment, 1 ,

five more than we have now, and we haven't finished selection. Where

there are men sitting and standing again, that is not likely to change,

but where they are standing down we are overwhelmingly choosing women,

and in my view good and very able women. What I would want to say to

people is that if you want to see the Lib Dems have more women, go to

those seats and help us hold them. We are told that only 20% of the 57

seats have female candidates and in the unlikely event that you were

able to hold onto them all, it still wouldn't be a sea change to have

20%. The point is you have to build them up. We are supporting female

candidates. These are really good candidates who will make first-class

MPs and I certainly believe you will gradually see the Liberal Democrats

taking them on. We don't have 3 0 seats that we currently hold like

other parties, but what I can tell you is that increasing --

increasingly we will have female candidates. One newspaper has said

that you will deal with the Chris Rennard fallout quickly and

privately, what does that mean? It means I will not be telling you

because these things are not helped by comments on the airwaves. I hope

it will be possible to have a resolution without people going to

court but I don't think it helps anybody for me to comment on any

aspect of how this will be done and I'm not prepared to do so. If you

are not in full possession of the facts, why did you say you will deal

with this privately? I have come into this halfway through, I don't

have full possession of the facts, I doubt you do, and we have a process

that needs to be followed through. Any comments in public do not help.

Isn't it hypocrisy of a high order to hear from a party that is

constantly calling for transparency in other institutions but when it

comes to your own, you say, I am not going to talk about it. There are

all sorts of disputes that happen in the world and often people don't

talk about them because talking about them aggravates the

situation. I believe you have to deal with them privately and I don't

think trial by media in this context is helpful and I don't believe that

those who choose to make those comments are making it easier to

solve them. There are problems in other walks of life and the Liberal

Democrats are not the only ones with these problems. We are trying to

change that culture and I think we will do it effectively in our own

way. We have a pastoral care officer now and I think that is the right

way to do it. Thank you for that. Let's now go back to the story of

the flooding in Somerset. We are joined by the leader of the Green

party, Natalie Bennett in Millbank. Natalie Bennett, don't the Green

party bears some responsibility for these floods? You have sided with

the Environment Agency in the decision not to dredge rivers and

that is one of the reason why these places have been flooded. Firstly I

want to give my sympathy to everyone dealing with these floods. The

homeowners, the farmers seeing sodden fields for weeks and weeks.

We get that, we all have huge sympathy, particularly because so

little seems to be done to help them. What is the answer to my

question? I think there is strong evidence that dredging is not the

answer. If you think about the flow of the river, where the pinch points

are is things like bridges, weirs and towns. If you dredge the river

in between those barriers, you just make the water faster to those

points. The experts are saying that dredging is not the answer, it may

be in particular cases, but you have to look at each river system on its

own merits and very often the best way of dealing with this is working

out ways to slow the watered down and make sure that people don't

suffer unduly while you are doing that. The west of England

agricultural Society, which I would venture knows more about the

Somerset Levels than either of us, has said that without dredging, this

was a disaster waiting to happen. The local drainage boards have been

calling for years for dredging to be resumed. The National Farmers' Union

has called for it, and the chairman of the West Sussex flood defences

has called for more drainage, and he is a drainage engineer by

profession. So I don't know where your experts are, but the experts on

the ground am not the urban ones in London, seem to think this has not

been caused, but made worse by the failure of the Environment Agency to

continue to dredge. If you look at the example of the planning and

climate change coalition, which is led by the town and country planning

Association, who you would not describe as a group of radical

greens, these people have said we have to look at how we deal with

flooding in the future. But not in Somerset. These are the people

currently being flooded, not somebody sitting in a quango office

in London. They have asked for this to happen and it hasn't, and they

are now flooded in definitely. We have to look at what is happening on

a case-by-case basis. If you look at Germany, there are many cases there

were, to deal with flooding, many farmers are paid to hold water on

their land. Maybe we need to introduce those systems, because we

have to protect farmland, but we also have to protect urban areas for

safety. We saw a horrible flood in Wales were lines were endangered --

where lives were endangered. That is the priority, to protect lives,

property and farmland. Lives are endangered at the moment,

particularly as this stagnant water turns toxic. And yet we are in a

situation, again encouraged by the Greens and the lobbying Environment

Agency, it says it does not want to dredge because dredging is

expensive, yet it spends millions on a bird sanctuary. That is getting

everything totally wrong. The government is getting everything one

by cutting on flood defences. It has not cut on a bird sanctuaries. I

don't know the details of that. But looking at the broader issue, we

have to prepare for climate change. The government has slashed funding

to the Environment Agency and has cut back on the number of staff

available to deal with it and has removed the requirement on local

councils to plan for climate change. These are all gambling the future of

our lives and property and the future of our environment. Hasn t

the high watermark of greenery now gone well past? You don't come out

of the Somerset Levels with any great reputation. The UK government

is now going to start fracking as quickly as it can. Brussels is

loosening the CO2 obligations for 2030. The President of America is

about to give the go-ahead to the keystone pipeline, a totemic issue

for American greens, and your party is in a state of civil war in

Brighton. It is over, isn't it? Absolutely not. We are seeing large

amounts of extreme weather around the world. Any one event is whether,

but we are seeing a lot of it and people are recognising that climate

change is happening. If we are going to quote international experts, I

can quote to you Ban Ki-Moon, the UN Secretary-General, not known as a

radical green, and he said after the IPCC report came out that the heat

is on and we must act. If you go to Christine Lagarde, head of the

International Monetary Fund, again not a radical green, she was asked

what kept her awake at night, and she said, we are not doing enough

about climate change. So actually, people around the world are looking

at what is happening around them are both people on the ground and people

in high positions are saying we have to act on climate change. And in the

case of Britain, that should absolutely not mean fracking. Sorry

to interrupt, but I have evidence that you are planning a little

career change. Don't go away. This is what happens when you let Nigel

Farage present the weather. One thing leads to another and low and

behold, the Sunday Politics now has a new traffic and travel reporter.

Let's go back to Green Party leader, Natalie Bennett. Thanks, Andrew It

is easy out that, so let's start with our airports. I am pleased to

say that Heathrow's third runway, Boris Island and all short-haul

flights are, just like our arguments, well grounded. We suggest

making or alternative arrangements, like a re-nationalised rail

network, although it would be a glaring omission if we did not admit

that that plan is currently being delayed by Labour Party foot

dragging. Speaking of trains, we are hearing that high-speed two may well

be derailing, or at least getting bogged down in political fog. One

viewer, Ed Balls, has texted in to say he is completely lost. Thanks

for the update, Ed. You are not alone among political commuters

Meanwhile, dumped UKIP manifestoes are causing major tailbacks across

the South, apparently stretching all the way to Brussels. This does make

driving road tricky, but UKIP's MEPs can, of course, just hop on their

gravy train. The tree had a roundabout is blocked after reports

of a political earthquake. It seems that a green unwound his beard to

block a dodgy gas extractor. A motorist who turned out to be the

environment minister object into the delay and was told to frack off as

furious badgers demanded that he stopped moving the goalposts.

Unregulated traffic in the city of London continues unchecked.

Pedestrians should try to block bankers with sacks of loot rushing

for the payments. But do beware the Lib Dem Exodus that is clogging up

the motorways. Although they are in a jam, or is it a fudge, we are

happy to make way for them, as, like all refugees, we say they are

welcome here in muesli green. That is the travel. Back to you, Andrew.

Natalie, I think you make my point. You are now preparing a new career

in traffic and travel. Well, I do believe in lifelong education and

that was an example of it. We know you have had a tough time today to

get to our studio. Thank you for the effort.

You are watching the Sunday Politics. Coming up in just over 20

minutes, we will have Hello, I'm Martyn Oates. Coming up

on the Sunday Politics in the South West: The Tory MP who says he's been

told the Government's clamp down on solar farms isn't worth the paper

it's written on. And for the next 20 minutes, I'm

joined by Conservative MP Sheryll Murray and the Labour peer and

former DEFRA minister Lord Whitty. The week began with the Somerset

floods being declared a major incident. And by end of the week,

the Government had sent the Army in. But local residents and MPs want a

long`term solution, which many of them think means dredging the area's

major rivers. Last week that seemed almost as

remote a possibility as it has been for the last two decades. Thereon

many places around the country where they think dredging is the right

answer and we do it in places and we've done some work at various

places. There can be benefits but it's trying to work out what the

wider benefit is and then you can justify a greater spend. But it

always has to be to do with economic so, however that you calculate it.

Then on Monday, a rather embattled Environment Secretary suggested it

was creeping a little bit closer. Are you going to do anything fast?

Higher vast all interested parties to give me a concrete plan in six

weeks which will provide satisfaction. `` I have asked. That

may involve dredging the rivers but will involve long`term plans to hold

the water back. By Wednesday, though, the Prime Minister coolly

announced that dredging would happen almost immediately ` almost as if

that were obvious. I can confirm that dredging will start as soon as

it is practical, as soon as the waters have started to come down.

As the shadow environment secretary said, this was a slapped down from

the prime minister to his own environment secretary. I don't think

it was. What we have to look at is... He left the environment

minister, the floods agency on the hook for weeks. And then he stood up

at PMQ is and said, " dredging? Of course" ! The Prime Minister didn't

actually say we would start dredging tomorrow. As as soon as possible.

That's probably after the six week report has come out. But don't

forget, MPs of all parties have been consistently calling for this. One

of the things you have to look at ` and Larry may be able to make more

comment and expand on this with his Environment Agency hat on ` is that

it's not just a one`off thing. You have to continue to dredge because

the silt comes back. There seems to be a broad consensus on that now.

Labour has generally been critical of the amount of money the

government is putting into flood defences but this is a long`standing

problem that Rhodri your government didn't want to dredge the rivers in

question. Their eyes `` there is a serious problem in Somerset at the

moment. People will say it is because of 20 years of neglect.

People are overreacting to a campaign in the Daily Mail. Reality

is that dredging may be part of the solution but is not the totality of

the solution. This is a catastrophic event on already sodden fields,

where no water could go anywhere. We had the highest rainfall ever in

January since records began. In the face of that, plus the fact you have

a tidal river pushing back up words, `` upwards, you've got a

situation where no amount of dredging on its own would have

helped. Partly, the men and women of the Environment Agency are out there

many hours a day trying to help. But the government needs to provide the

money for this. I think it's partly a knee jerk reaction by the Prime

Minister to avoid the facts that the government are cutting money for

flood defence, and trying to pretend they weren't. They had to issue a

correction. There is a real problem of diverging attention. The reality

is... This was a knee jerk reaction, or due to the Daily Mail.

I don't believe that and I think we are seeing these cuts occur more

consistently. `` these floods occur. We, as politicians, have to do our

best within the financial restraints that we've got... The money has been

found for Somerset now. Owen Paterson was right in part of what

he said. You have to look at the total catchment area, from the top

of the hill right down. Moving on now.

Council tax is public enemy number one, according to Local Government

Secretary Eric Pickles. He's keeping councils of all sizes waiting to

know how much they can hike their share of the bill from April,

without triggering a referendum. Some parish councils, currently free

from any restrictions, are proposing massive increases ` and Mr Pickles

isn't happy about it. Tamsin Melville reports.

Public toilets have become a big political issue in Cornwall. And

here in Falmouth, there's real anger brewing that a bid to keep their

loos open is at risk because of a Government threat to cap the amount

of council tax town halls can charge. This is an absolute

nightmare. It's a nonsense. It is centralism gone mad, not localism.

It's not just the loos Falmouth needs extra cash for ` it's even

things like keeping on top of weeds. As Cornwall Council cuts its funding

for things it doesn't have to provide, the town council's under

pressure to step in to save services like CCTV and some bus routes. It

wants to put up its share of council tax by 20%. For the average

household, that's ?27.40 extra a year. These are issues that have

been very close to people's hearts. Even the local MP isn't saying she

understands why we're picking up these services and have to increase

the council tax. Clearly, Eric Pickles is living in some ivory

tower and doesn't understand what localism is all about. Falmouth's

certainly not the only Cornish town wanting to hike its share of council

tax. Over on the north coast, Newquay wants to double its precept.

And these increases aren't going unnoticed in Westminster. The

Government takes a dim view of council tax hikes ` and the big

councils already face having to hold a referendum if they increase by

more than 2%. Now there's a threat to apply the same thinking to towns

and parishes. Falmouth's Conservative MP Sarah Newton thinks

that's wrong and has been lobbying ministers ` prompting this

unsympathetic reply. So in Falmouth, what do the people

think of a 20% rise? I think that's a lot of extra money. Something like

another fiver would be enough. I'm not really in favour of it but I do

understand why the local council want to do it. I'm not happy but I

would pay it! And some argue the Government should give towns and

parishes the freedom to get on with their job. I think the town councils

are responding to local need. Their role is to maintain and improve the

quality of life, not only for the people who live there at who work

there or choose to visit there. The whole place relies on having a local

input. It's not just town councils playing the waiting game ` all

councils are waiting to hear if the increase that triggers a referendum

is lowered from 2% to 1.5%. Ministers say they hope to make an

announcement in the very near future.

We're joined now by the Cornwall councillor in charge of finance. If

the referendum limit is brought down, this will cause you real

problems, won't it? You set your budget nice and early, you say,

based on the 2% threshold. Indeed. We wanted to be prudent and plan

ahead as far as possible. By setting a budget in November, it gives us 18

months to have a proper conversation with the people of Cornwall about a

fundamental change to the way we struck to the council, and also

means we can make extra savings of about ?7 million. Brandon Lewis and

Eric Pickles faffing until the last minute, playing games, playing

politics, does us no favours. Have you got a contingency plan? What's

the likely result of the threshold coming down? We'll have to see what

they do. I don't want to play their game. I want to get on with doing

the best for the people of Cornwall. We've set a budget, which has been

agreed by the full council, and we want to get on and run the council

as the people of Cornwall instructed us. That's what we think we have the

power to do. No hints about what might because it or whether you

might go for a referendum? I don't want to go for referendum, mainly

because it can't be held until May, two months into the financial year,

two months of spending up higher level. To have a referendum is

democratic but it is far too late in the day. We need the government to

change the rules on finance, to make it simpler and allow councils, like

businesses would, to plan in advance so we can be certain. On this

increase, we were having a chat just under a year ago. You then said, "

let's freeze council tax because that's what people tell us they

want" . The people now telling you they want arise? Absolutely. We had

a discussion last year and the people said they wanted to see a

freeze. Extra pressure has come on... You could have a referendum.

We could but it introduces uncertainty. I don't want to be

uncertain. I want to plan on the basis of what we can do. If the

government had told us a year ago what the referendum threshold would

be and it was different to what it currently is, we would have planned

accordingly. It's this last`minute chopping and changing. Sheryll

Murray doubts the fact that people want an increase in their council

tax. Let's be clear that what Cornwall benefits from charging the

taxpayer 1.9% is actually 0.97% because by increasing by more than

1%, they've denied the reward grant that the government would give them.

So that's the first thing. The second thing is, Alex has just said

that if they had known about the threshold at triggered a referendum

being reduced before they made their decision, they may well have put the

council tax up by 1.49%. If they could but the council tax up by

1.49% after they were told, why not do it now? The third thing... You

are putting words into my mouth. We had elections in May, when there

were all sorts of promises made by a lot of councillors in their

manifesto. One was to repair potholes. A lot of people got

elected on that front. Now we are finding ` and I'm finding in my

postbag everyday ` people complaining about toilets closing,

charities not having their rubbish collected, potholes in the road. Get

a grip, Alex. Could you go for just under 1.5%? I'm not playing Eric

Pickles and Brandon Lewis's game. The relationship is pretty crucial,

isn't it? We're in a coalition government that Lycra don't forget

that. When we went to see Brandon Lewis a couple of weeks ago, we set

out the case for Cornwall about why going early made sense. He smiled

and nodded and said, "we'll do what we do anyway". We need a better

relationship between ministers and local councils. Whatever political

group the ministers are, we've got to have a good relationship for the

good of the people of, in our case, Cornwall. We've got to stop playing

games and I wish the ministers would get a grip. Larry, when you were in

government the capping regime still existed. Do you think that was

better than the referendum system? There's a long, sorry history of

central government of all kinds trying to micromanage local

expenditure. I think it is basically wrong, which ever government is

doing it. As Alex said, even in that long history, to have a decision as

late as we have now and then impose a referendum which won't be taking

place until we're in the next financial year is completely barmy.

What about parish councils? There is a problem mortgages that if you put

a squeeze on the and district level, towns and parishes feel they need to

take more. The pressure is actually from central government. You don't

disagree with that, do you? One of the things we need to see happen is,

when a primary authority hands over responsibility for things like

public conveniences, they also hand over things like car parks, so that

its cost neutral. That way, we wouldn't see local town councils

having to increase their precept and they would be able to go ahead and

look after the hard`working people... I know you have local

differences with Alex but the reality is you, like a lot of Tories

and Lib Dems, think the government grossly underfunded rural

authorities. Brandon Lewis said, " go away, this is nonsense". I'm

sorry but Larry's party started that. But you're in government now.

We need to season three balancing between the finances... Are you

going to vote for the government settlement? It depends... I will go

into the chamber and will certainly speak up for Cornwall. Nobody spoke

for Cornwall and the rural authorities more than I did and we

will present the position and see what is on the table. What is very

difficult for me to say now, with this 1.97% increase in council tax,

is that I can make the case. Behind all this is the fact that the local

government has taken the bulk of the public expenditure cuts, quite

disproportionately, and that is causing difficulty all over. We can

argue between different authorities but that is the problem and that was

the wrong priority by the government because most services people depend

on are delivered by local authorities. We can't be underfunded

compared to the average urban authority. I want Sheryll Murray and

the other MPs for Cornwall to go in and argue for the ?42 million. We've

been awarded ?420,000 extra this year, 1%. I want the other 99% if

not this year, next year. That is the fairness of the people of

Cornwall deserve. We want to be able to provide the best possible

services. We know we have to make cuts ` every council has to ` but we

need fairness. Let's not forget it as a reward grant. If you don't

comply with what the government is saying, you don't get the rewards.

We've got to leave it there. Alex, thank you for joining us.

Many rural MPs, like Sheryll, were doubtless delighted when the

Government announced it was tightening up the planning rules for

solar farms. But this week one of her Conservative colleagues told the

Planning Minister the guidelines were still absurd and heavily

weighted in favour of developers. Janine Jansen reports.

There's often strong local opposition to the visual impact of

solar farms. This one was no exception. It's a 32`acre site near

Avonwick in the South Hams. The developer claims its photovoltaic

panels will create enough electricity to power up to 850

homes. But the Campaign for Rural England thinks solar farms are

ruining the look of the countryside. Solar farm, solar harm. This

application north of Sidmouth, on an area of natural beauty, has just

been turned down due to its large scale and unnatural appearance.

Campaigners say beautiful parts of our countryside are being

increasingly targeted. The demand has been such that the network has

become saturated, presumably elsewhere, and the available spots

for choosing network connectivity are now moving towards protected

landscapes. If they haven't been already. This week at Westminster,

one MP said the planning rules around solar farms need to be

changed. But the Minister insisted that government guidelines are

strong enough to protect the countryside from unsuitable

developments. National planning policy framework is the framework of

national planning policy and every planning decision, by every planning

authority in the land, must abide by the policies in this framework. At

his conservative colleague wasn't satisfied. Unfortunately, money

talks and this has become big business. Many planning officers are

nervous, as our local councillors, that if they reject this, the cost

of appealing is such that there is a risk to local taxpayers that they

will have to foot the bill. In the South Hams, they've approved seven

solar farms and refused two. But out of those two refusals, one is

appealing. Councillors insist they're not afraid of appeals ` but

say some can be costly. It can take one day, it can take five days. So

generally speaking, it varies between maybe ?20,000 and ?50,000

for a public appeal. Ministers are promising to publish a new solar

strategy in the next few months. It may be too little, too late for

those who believe the South West is already nearing capacity.

Larry, this is like wind farms ` something that causes a lot of

strife within the coalition and the Conservative article stop what would