13/04/2014 Sunday Politics South West

Aternoon folks, and welcome to the Sunday Politics. As MPs head off for

their Easter break, campaigning for the European elections in six weeks'

time gets underway. In a Sunday Politics special, we'll debate the

issues at stake on May 22nd with senior party figures from the

Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats, and UKIP. And as ever

we'll be discussing the week ahead with our panel of top political

In the south`west. The plans to commentators.

In the south`west. The plans to create more jobs and boost wages.

And the row about the cost of a new nuclear power station at Hinkley

Point. newspapers which some claim are

politically slanted and not impartial about informing people of

local services. So all that to come between now and

quarter to four and for the next thirty minutes or so we'll be

debating the European elections Here in the studio we have Syed

Kamall, leader of the Conservatives in the European Parliament, Richard

Howitt, chair of the Labour group of MEPs, Sarah Ludford, deputy leader

of the Lib Dems in Europe, and Patrick O'Flynn, UKIP's director of

communications. Welcome to you all. In a moment, all four will give us

their opening pitch for the elections. A little earlier they

drew lots to decide who'll go first. And that privilege goes to Syed

Before that, though, here's a quick reminder of what all the fuss is

about. The vote to choose members of the

European Parliament takes place on Thursday the 22nd of May. The same

day as local elections are held in England and Northern Ireland. The UK

sends 73 England and Northern Ireland. The UK

sends NTP is to Brussels. And the vote is a form of proportional

representation. In total, there are 751 MEPs from the 28 member states.

What do they do all day? The European Parliament's power has

grown. A vet of the EU commissioners and they can amend, approve or

reject nearly all EU legislation and the EU budget. Some laws MEPs have

been responsible for include price caps on mobile phone chargers,

banking regulation and cover food regulation two -- labelling.

Syed Kamall, you have 30 seconds. Europe cannot go on as it is. Europe

needs to change. And our relationship with Europe needs to

change. Only the Conservatives have a plan to deliver that change and of

the British people and in-out referendum. Labour and the Lib Dems

will not and UKIP simply cannot Only the Conservatives will offer

the three yards, with Conservative MEPs working alongside a

conservative Prime Minister. For, really is and above all a

referendum. Sarah Ludford is next. Your choice is simple. If you think

Britain is better off in Europe vote for the Liberal Democrats. The

Lib Dems are the only party of Ian, fighting to keep Britain in Europe

and in work. There is nothing patriotic about UKIP's desire to

pull-out. That is playing Russian roulette with Britain's economy and

jobs. The Conservatives are flirting with exit and Labour lacks the

courage to speak up. Thought Liberal Democrat on May the 22nd to say in

Europe for jobs and security. Sarah Ludford. Next, Richard Howitt from

Labour. The European elections are about who represents you. They are

not a referendum on a referendum. Labour MEPs believe in putting jobs

and growth first. A guarantee to help young people into work,

reforming energy markets so that bills are brought down for good

Labour believes in reform in Europe, but within. It is David Cameron who

is risking your job and Britain s prosperity because of divisions in

his own party. Labour MEPs put British interests first. Our fourth

opening statement from Patrick O'Flynn. The EU is old hat. It is a

declining regional trade bloc in an era of global trade. It is a

20th-century political project designed to prevent conflict in

Europe that is now reawakening old hostilities. It is an attempt to

force on the European people European this as their primary

collective identity. It has hollowed out British democracy and now we do

not even control our own borders. That is why you should vote UKIP.

That is the opening statements. Let's get on with the debate. Why

should people vote in the selections? If you vote UKIP, we can

deliver an earthquake that will rock the foundations of British politics

and the European political class. We can send a signal to Europe that

Britain has had enough, that Britain wants to retain its nation state

status and regain political power and the ability to forge trading

deals across the world. Britain leading Europe to freedom twice in

the last century through bloodshed. We feel that a UKIP win in those

elections could help Britain set an example to lead European nation

states back to free assembly again. Syed Kamall, isn't it the case that

many Tory voters will vote you clip to keep you honest, to keep your

feet to the fire? Whatever you think of the European Parliament or the

EU, the fact is that the European Parliament as equal power with the

28 governments of the EU. When David Cameron delivered the first cut to

the EU budget, the first ever cut, he needed a strong team of

Conservative MEPs working alongside him. But many of your supporters

will vote for UKIP for the reasons I gave. Many will vote Liberal

Democrat. Not very many. Many of our supporters will vote for us because

we are the only party trying to change the EU and offer reform. We

have offered renegotiation and a referendum. And how would you vote

in such a referendum? We have no idea whether he would vote yes or

no. Let him answer. I will answer that question. If the EU continues

on this road, towards a United States of Europe, and if there was

no change at the time of the referendum, then I would probably

vote to leave. You have no confidence in David Cameron? We

Javier Culson opportunity to read negotiate our relationship with

Europe and the Conservatives are at the forefront of that agenda. David

Cameron have not given a list of demands. He said that if things do

not change, he will probably vote to leave, is that right? If at the time

of the referendum, things had not changed, I would vote to leave and

we have a golden opportunity to perform the agenda. Richard, the

last time the British people had a say on this was over 40 years ago.

Under a Labour government. Which was deeply divided on the issue. And

that was a say on the common market. Today's EU is a very different

animal from the common market. Why can we not, under another Labour

government, have another vote? First of all, we want it to be more than a

free trading area. We make no apologies about that. But in the

elections because this is half of Britain's exports and investment. If

you care about your job and business, you cannot hear from the

party of government that they probably want you to leave because

the CBI, the engineering employees in Federation and the chimp of

commerce, 80% of them say it is necessary to stay in. So why not

give us a vote? When David Cameron says he wants to repatriate social

powers, he means takeaway maternity rights and holidays. If the case is

so strong, why not give us an in-out vote? David Miliband has said that

there will be a referendum if there was a proposal to change powers Why

wait? This is based on a series of reforms. Labour has a set of

reforms. David Cameron is silent about what they would be. That is

because he knows that if he put them forward, they would either be

unsatisfactory to his Eurosceptic backbenchers and he would be out of

a job, or they would be unacceptable to European leaders. Why is your

leader missing in action? Ed Miliband is unable to say even the

positive things that you are saying. He has run away from the argument.

He actually said there would not be a referendum in his time.

For a conservative to say they will have a referendum but not give the

reforms, it is a mistake. Nick Clegg gave Nigel Farage a huge opportunity

in that debate. He said that the Eurosceptic view was to leave

Britain like Billy no mates. I can say that he is the best qualified

person to say that. Sarah Ludford, you have said that lots of people

are going to vote Lib Dem but that is not what the polls are saying.

You are 7% in two polls this morning. Eclectic's decision to

champion Europe has been a disaster for you. You face wet out. We swayed

a lot of people our way with Nick Clegg's debate. Where is the

evidence? We are the only party that is completely united, saying that we

are wanting to stay in. It is essential because formally and jobs

are supported by our trade with the EU. Linked to the EU. We are finding

a lot of moderate conservative voters are actually fed up with the

Tories being split and divided all over the place. Syed Kamall saying

that we might vote in rout. -- in or out. We are consistent. A poll in

London showed that 18% would vote for us. I am delighted about that.

London is not the whole country it may surprise you. We need to move on

to immigration, an important issue. We are a member of the EU and the

rules say that with a few caveats, our fellow EU citizens are free to

come here if they want. Why can we not just accept that? Britain has a

proud record when it comes to immigration. We have been open to

people across the world for centuries. But we welcome people who

come to our country to contribute to pay taxes and two wards are a

society positively. But there are three real concerns that we have to

address. The first one is numbers, and secondly people who may come

here not to work but for benefits, and thirdly, getting a hang of the

numbers. I think it is shameful that only this week the office for

National said that they did not collect sufficient figures under a

Labour government. 350,000 extra people came in and they did not

count the numbers. That is the size of a city like Cardiff. That is

shameful. 350,000 came from all over the place. Do you accept the free

movement of peoples within the EU? I accept and am open to people who

want to come here and contribute. In the same way... Do you accept the

free movement of peoples within the EU? In our manifesto, we have said

it is an issue for reform. We have to make sure that people are coming

here to work and contribute positively, not simply to come here

and take advantage of the system. I will tell you what else is

shameful. What is shameful is David Cameron making a pledge to the

British people on an issue that they really care about, to bring net

immigration down to the tens of thousands a year, having no means of

fulfilling that pledge. And we see now it is back up to 212,000 a year

because we have no volume control and no quality control from

immigration from our neighbours And that is a disgrace. How could UKIP

address that issue? Because we would leave the EU. How? Tell me how. You

do not have a single member of Parliament. He will not get a single

member of Parliament. How are you... ? TUC are hoping to get an

MEP. What do you say? -- he is here today hoping to get an MEP. All of

-- almost 2 million Brits live and work in the rest of the EU. Is that

worth having? The majority are wealthy, retired people. Why do not

object to bilateral agreements with countries with similar living

standards to us. France, the Netherlands, that works fine. But

these three people want Turkey to join the EU, 75 Na Li and people

running our country, only 10% of which... Syed Kamall is Michael year

to say whether they are in favour of free movement for work, not for

benefits... That is what I'm saying. You said you were unable to

be clear. That leaves 2 million British people absolutely unsure as

to whether they would have a right to continue to live in other

countries. It is a two-way street. You are putting those people in a

state of uncertainty. EU migrants have been good for the British

economy and contribute far more than they take out in services and

benefits. One in seven businesses were founded in -- by migrants. And

they cannot just turn up and claim benefits. The coalition government

has legislated to make sure that they cannot claim for three months.

They will not be able to claim for more than six months. Richard

Howitt, Jack Straw said it was A spectacular mistake for Labour to

allow EU migrants from Poland and Hungary to work in the UK from

2004." Why should we trust a party that makes spectacular mistakes and

hasn't apologised for it? We accept it is a mistake and I apologise We

make a firm commitment for new EU states we will put down transitional

controls. When I listen to the Conservatives and UKIP trying to

re-write history, saying immigration was out of control, uncontrolled,

open door, we hear it over and over again. It is not true. Anyone who

was around at the time... Come on, Richard. Hold on, you undercounted

by 350,000. You were letting 2 million in over the years, an

under-counted by 350,000 people you didn't know came in. You should have

tightened the benefit rules. The Conservative MEP today has, in four

years in government in Britain, is trying it blame the previous Labour

Government over the fact they won't count people in or people out.

Yvette Cooper - it is not easy for people to come to the country and

benefits are changing, changing the habitual residence test and we are

going to say that migrants can't come and claim child benefit if

their children are outside the country. Labour a has shown they

have listened to concerns but we say it is a stronger, better, country

because it is diverse and multicultural snoo.d this is fantasy

politics from all the Peters. They are committed to a system with no

volume control and no quality control. You talk about benefits as

if it is only out of work benefits. In work benefits cost a lot of money

for the British taxpayer. Big businesses bring in minimum wage

workers. It is ?5,000 per perschool place What are you going to do? Have

all the pensioners come back to Britain? How will will you fund the

health care? Do you really think Spain and pour tu ghal their current

situation, are going to turn their backs on British property owners

with wealth? -- Portugal. They might not wanting pensioners to use their

health service. Pensioners often come back to Britain to use the

health service. You have shown it represents wealthy people's

interests. A second Conservative Party. Hang on a minute... Blue

collar wages were down. They want it character for the National Health

Service, have cuts that go farther and comprehensive education. This is

a debate on the wider politics between Conservatives and UKIP and

Labour will... You can't both talk time. UKIP - they haven't thought it

through, thousand they will have trade access in the EU, hasn't

thought how they will have trade deals that the Liberal Democrats

support, like with the United States: Would you have a cap on

non-EU immigrants? We are not in favour of a cap. No cap on either.

No. Well it is a target. It is a moving feast, as it were. Would you

have a limit on non-EU limits? We have limits on quality. We have

people who are skilled migrants coming in. Lip its? . By quality,

not by quantity. -- Limits. How do you do that? We need to move

on to foreign affairs. Should we pool more sovereignty to

give the European Union more clout in foreign and defence matters? I'm

Labour's defence and foreign affairs spokesperson. No we don't need to

pull more powers into Europe. As we undertake this live debate there are

guns being fired in Ukraine as we speak. Europe is facing, for the

first time, since the end of the Second World War, Armies crossing

national borders and floatening peace. Doesn't it -- threatening

peace. Doesn't it need to come together of the We don't need more

powers. We need political will. With Vladimir Putin, in my view, he has

-- we have fallen short in the sanctions. But it is Europe, not

Britain. Remember Putin calling Britain little England a small

island with no influence. Labour doesn't agree with that. But if

that's the mindset that allows someone like Vladimir Putin to send

troops across borders threatening peace, it is worrying. And when we

have, in UKIP a party that say they admire Putin and support his

policies, that is no recipe for how Europe should be wrong. I was

waiting for that. Let me ask him. We don't admire Putin as a leader. .

Oh. No we don't. What Nigel Farage said, was he admired him as a

political operator. Testifies Franklin D Roosevelt who said a good

foreign policy was speaking softly but carrying a big stick. The EU

shouts its mouthed off while carrying a matchstick. It is fantasy

that you wiebl it stand up to Putin over the Ukraine. -- that you would

be able to stand up. Do you admire what Putin is doing in the Ukraine?

No. What matters in foreign policy is the outcould. We have a terrible

outcome in the Ukraine, like Syria, and Georgia... What would UKIP do?

What u skip would do, would be to keep our people safe -- UKIP.

How? And not commit our Foreign Office and troops Foreign wars.

Patrick O'Flynn. You brought up this issue of foreign wars. Now Nigel

Farage said in previous debates that Britain should leave the EU because,

"We have had enough of endless foreign wars." Which wars has the EU

taken us into? The EU has ban very important factor in the push towards

trying to get military intervention in Syria, for example. What wars has

the etch U taken us into it -- EU. Fortunately the EU doesn't have its

own army yet. It has wanted to sign up to an expansionist agenda. Did it

want Iraq? No, that was Labour. UKIP opposed Iraq, so did most of the

mainline Europeans. Germany was against Syria and Libya. No EU

policy. We had an Anglo French deal on Syria. A by lateral deal. A

European dimension. No, buy lateral. We have a European Union that wants

to expand ever-more into other people's spheres of influence. If we

are going to stand up to what Putin is do, which obviously Nigel Farage

has no intentions of doing, you have to get your act together on economic

sanctions and diplomatic force and in trade matters, in supporting

eastern European countries. Sayeria, who and whose army? And NATO and

working transatlanticically, is important through NATO. I will come

to you in a moment. Nick Clegg said that the idea of an EU Army was "A

dangerous fantasy that is simply not true ""Why then, are we already

working on etch U-owned and controlled drones -- EU-owned and

the President of the European Parliament has said that the

majority of MEPs want the EU to have "deployable troops." He is not

speaking for me or Liberal Democrats. The EU does not and will

not have an army. Our defence is mainly shaped through NATO. He is

President of the Parliament What we must do is to get equipment which

can operate together. We waste an awful lot of our spending in Europe

because we duplicate equipment. We don't get the bang for our bucks

that we should. It is a useful role for the EU, to get equipment working

together. That doesn't make sense. You say military equipment, a NATO

job. No, the EU, there is a kind of dimension of the EU members of NATO,

in working together on a common quument o o so they can talk to each

other -- on common equipment, so they can talk to each other. The EU

has a role but not an army. So a European defence agency, that helps

our defence industries and those jobs are extremely important and

would be threatened if the Conservatives and UKIP took us out

of Europe but it is 100 years since the start of the fist world war

Remember that Europe was set up to try to get a secure peace within

Europe T succeeded. Now look on Ukraine but also on the southern

borders to the Arab Spring countries in North Africa. It is more

important than ever that we work to keep keep peace and stability on our

borders. Can I say to Syed and the Conservative MEPs. You talk about

the three Rs, I have a fourth, retreat. If you take us out of the

European Union, it will be the worse retreat by Britain since Gallipoli.

Let him answer If he wants answers -- the British Parliament is the

right place with a British Foreign Secretary to decide our foreign

policy. You say that, but can I quote David Cameron, this is germain

to what you are saying, David Cameron said "There is no doubt that

we are more powerful than Washington, Beijing and Delhi,

because we are a powerful player in the European Union." Do you agree?

He is saying that there are times when it comes to international

foreign affairs when you have to cooperate with partners. Often they

are EU partners but often they are not. The problem we have...

Washington have made it very clear that it wants Britain to talk

through Brussels. No, not at all. Talk through the French and

Italians, come on, wake up? Through the EU collective. I'm vice chair of

the EU delegation. I hear it from the American counterparts. They want

the EU to get itself together and not least on Ukraine. Why should our

sovereignty be at the behest of .. ? I want to hear from Syed calm

amplgts the British Parliament is the right place to decide our

foreign poll sinchts sometimes we work with our European partners

sometimes we work with our non-European partners. It is our

choice to pull sovereign trito work together. G, we move on to our foirt

area. We hear a lot in this country about MPs expenses. Snted the real

scan dalt MEPs gravy train. -- isn't the real scandal, the MEPs gravy

train? You all have your snouts The trough? I don't think so. There is

transpancy. The way we use our expenses is online and anyone can

ask to examine those. We have actually voted to reform MEPs'

allowances. We regularly vote but unfortunately the majority in

Parliament don't. Have you voted to cut them? Yes. By how much? About

5%. A 5% We hoped to have economies I never fly except across the

Atlantic. Difficult to do it any other way. I didn't swim.

But we voted for economy flutes We voted for European Parliament policy

of transparency which other groups haven't. UKIP don't turn up to vote.

They don't earn their salaries. Dhoent do anything. They should hand

their salaries and allowances back. You can't ause UKIP of being on the

gravy train and the other that we don't claim our attendance allowance

because our MEPs are not there. Your attendance allowance is if you are

there, you are saying we don't turn up You are in the building and claim

the allowances. You are not an MEP, UKIP are so ashamed of what their

MEPs have done in Brussels, they didn't field a sitting MEP for

today's debate. I think each party decides who it wishes to field. I

have the honour of being the UKIP representative. I would say by going

in the past few weeks, xeeming to me saying - we are sick of the others.

-- people saying to me. : We are quite excited. Can I ask Patrick

O'Flynn. He says he touched a chord and his party is strong in the polls

today, between 18% and 20%. Haven't you also struck a chord with hip

crasscy. Two of your MEPs were jailed for expenses and benefits'

fraud. Two more asked to pay back ?37,000 for using European funds.

Nigel Farage has boosted about getting ?2 million in expenses and

he went on to employ his wife as a secretarial allowance after telling

other members not to People who do wrong and break the law, go to ja. I

have no time. -- go to jail. People who spend money they are not

entitled to should pay it back and that's right. But what UKIP does and

the good UKIP MEPs do, is use the allowances they are given to pursue

the political agenda they put up when elected which is to get Britain

out of this superstate. Instead of using it for parliamentary work

Very interesting. Richard Howitt. We were the first British political

party to have independent audits of our MEPs' expenses, from 1990, way

before the expenses crisis blew up. The Maria Miller scandal has of

course hit David Cameron and the Conservative Party hard as it should

do. But you are right, even in my own region you have UKIP candidates

and councillors who have been charged with fraudulently filling

out election papers and other shot lifting. Another independent inquiry

found he made racist comments. We had a European candidate last week

in Hertfordshire who got a parking ticket from the police and called

the police fascists. These people aren't here.

I'll let you have a quick reply We can bring up parochial cases. Let

him answer. Not so long ago a Liberal Democrat councillor was sent

down for firebombing, I don't say they are a bunch of arsonists, but

now I think, Nick Clegg might have burnt some cactuses, once. I'm glad

you pronounced that word carefully. Syed Kemal, the EU's auditors, they

are strongly critical of the EU s financials saying "Errors permist in

all main spending areas", the financials are poorly managed. It is

a shambles And that's something that all parties agree on. As we agree on

expenses, the British parties are at the forefront of transpancy. Every

year when we vote for the discharge of the budget, the Conservatives

also vote for it but we don't get enough MEPs from other countries to

investigate in favour. The Liberal Democrats have put forward to make

each Finance Minister, George Osborne and his counterpart to sign

a declaration to say all EU money is properly spent in my country.

Funnily enough they don't want to do that but I look forward to you

confirming that George Osborne will sign it. All the time we hear it is

about the money we pay in, about ?150 per family per year. What about

the money that comes back? ?1. billion that comes to Britain's

regions because of being in Europe. I myself helped to negotiate a fund

to help Britain's food banks to ensure so. Poorest and most

destitute people... Isn't it our money that went there first. Can I

tell you the Conservative-led Government have blocked us from

claiming that money. If you want to have the clearest choice at these

European elections, it is between... Tell us why. It affects our rebate.

Tony Blair gave away our rebate He is quite right. Lib Dems fought to

make sure that we apply for money to help with flooding. That is what the

Tories were blocking. If you want the clearest example at the European

elections, the Conservative Party and MEPs blocked the cap on bankers

bonuses, and then blocked a Labour victory to get money for free

banks. We need to move on to the future. It is important and people

are watching. The EU's Justice Minister says that we need to build

a United States of Europe with the commission as its government. Is she

right? Not at all. But the future, if we take the next ten years,

thinks about climate change and the fact that we are not going to hit of

the two degrees target. Europe has led and needs to lead towards

getting a new sustainable world. It is the political will to use these

powers, so she is wrong. It is about the threats from abroad. Labour

reforms like getting a commissioner for growth and rebalancing the

budget, reforming the common agricultural policy, all of those

things will need to happen to make Europe more democratic and open. But

against the rise of Brazil and China... We do not need more

treaties and powers. We need more action with more Labour MEPs. Sarah

Ludford, you would sign up to that? No. Unless they do not think that

should concentrate on institutional matters. What we need to do is

concentrate on making Europe progrowth and competitive and create

more jobs in a competitive world. We need more trade deals to open up our

exports, we need to streamline the EU. We need less red tape and

Liberal Democrats have done a lot on that. We need better scrutiny of EU

legislation at West Munster because the national parties... More powers

or less for the EU government? In some areas, I would like to see it

slimmed down. Including, I am not sure whether the EU should be

funding food banks. I think that is a national responsibility. Dearie

me. The EU have to concentrate on the economy and climate change. This

is the coalition talking. If we want to fritter away political capital on

things which are interfering in national matters, then we do not

have the support to tackle those big challenges. Would you still want to

join the Euro one-day? Now is not a good idea. We wanted the Eurozone to

still be sound, which is why... Did not ask you that. Do you want to

join the Euro one-day? If it is a success and it did the economy. Now

is not the time but in principle, the idea of a single currency has

advantages. That was a yes. We are not ruling it out for ever but not

in the foreseeable future. It is not on the horizon. What would our

relationship be with Europe in the future if UKIP got its way and we

left? We would be trading partners with Europe and we would seek

partnership in specific serious. I'd tell you what, can I just say...

Would we be Norway? We would be stronger than Norway because we are

the biggest export market in the Eurozone. We can negotiate a bespoke

trading agreement reflecting our enormous importance. Not on

services, which make up 80% of the economy. We are the biggest export

market in the Eurozone. Our biggest exports are services and they would

have to agree to free trade and services. They still have not. Can I

read you something? Let me read you something. There would be a free

trade agreement in place the day after our exit. Germany would demand

no less. Who said that? Not somebody from UKIP, but Digby Jones. Mr

business. He is talking about goods, not services. Norway has that

and they have no say. You would have to accept the EU rules without any

say. No MEPs are commissioners. Let me give you another. Enough. One is

enough. Syed Kamall, is it not looking forward pretty much Mission:

Impossible for Mr Cameron to get anything like the repatriations of

powers that would satisfy your irreconcilables? My father was a bus

driver in the 50s and one of the reasons I am here today is because

he told me that you can achieve anything if you work hard. He said

to me, do not listen to the doubters. When people tell you that

something cannot be done, it is a sign of their limitations, not

yours. They said that we could not pull Britain out of the bailout

mechanism but we did it. He said we could not be to a -- veto European

treaty and we did that. They said we would never cut the budget and we

did that. The first ever. But overall, we are paying more into the

European budget. And they are not sticking to it. More, not less. They

say that we cannot achieve reform but we have achieved reform and we

are at the forefront of that. Science's father came to Britain

because Britain was open and looking outward. What the Conservatives now

have, with leaderless Cameron, is an inward looking attitude. They are

allowing the rise of UKIP. They are putting so much at risk. People

should vote Labour. We are going to have to stop now. No point talking

because we are about to finish. I think you all for a spirited debate.

I'm sure Nigel Fries and Mr Clegg will have learned a lot about how to

debate. -- Nigel Farage. It's just gone 3pm, and you're

watching the Sunday Politics. We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland who

leave us now for Sunday Politics Scotland. Coming up here in twenty

minutes, Scotland. Coming up here in twenty

Hello, I'm Lucie Fisher. Coling up on the Sunday Politics in the

south`west. The row about the cost of a new

nuclear power station at Hinkley Point.

And for the next 20 minutes, I'm joined by the Labour peer Ann

Mallalieu, and the Lib Dem LP Adrian Sanders. Welcome both of yot to the

programme. Let's start with the state of the

roads. This week it was revdaled the region's councils are shellhng out

nearly ?1 million a year in compensation to people injured

because of potholes. A BBC freedom of information request showdd that

Torbay had had to pay out ?400, 00 in the last four years. Adrhen, that

is unsustainable, isn't it? There is no real answer to this. Shotld it

have been 800,000, 100,000, it reflects injuries that people

suffered who, quite rightly, sued for compensation. Can counchls do

more to reduce their chances of being taken to court? Yes, they can,

if they have the resources. If they have the money. They have an amount

of money available for this, but it doesn't go anywhere near covering

the cost of filling on all the holes. The local government

authority says the 200 millhon offered is a drop in the ocdan

compared with costs which they say are ?10 billion. That is thdir

answer. And I do think we whll see a proper answer to this until we have

better times and there is more money available. What do you think, Ann

Mallalieu? Should more be done about this? In an ideal world but I agree

there is in the money to do it as one would like. What does strprise

me is the degree all lack of prioritisation. I can understand if

there is a problem, they should go down and deal with that immddiately,

but a number of our roads and motorways, used by hundreds of

thousands of people are disgraceful. They should be put right at the

earliest possible opportunity. Well, stay with us because we havd plenty

more to discuss. Labour announced this week ht would

bring back a minister for the south`west as part of plans to

devolve more power to the rdgions plans. Ed Miliband is promising more

jobs and better wages. But one of the region's business leaders is

warning the Labour plan could mean Bristol gets the lion's share of

future investment. Tamsin Mdlville reports.

Being a peninsula has always been a challenge when it comes to

attracting investment. But this winter's weather made the south`west

feel especially vulnerable. The recent floods and storms just show

how interconnected we are as a peninsula and how we must work

together better. And the big investments that we have sedn in the

recent years, like the Wave Hub or Eden, or the Combined Universities

in Cornwall, none of those would ever get started now under the local

enterprise partnership regile. One of the first things the coalition

did was scrap the big regional development agencies and replace

them with 39 local enterprise partnerships to be the drivdrs for

economic growth. Nigel Costley thinks the focus is now too narrow.

They need to work together. And pack much more of a punch in Whitehall,

and they need to involve more people. This month, LEPs unveiled

plans for a share of a ?2 bhllion pot of government money to help grow

economies. Cornwall's local enterprise partnership wants to

build on the county's natur`l assets like this to create jobs, ilprove

infrastructure, and encourage housing. Joe says he is one of the

lucky ones. Happy in one of around 15 jobs created at this news cycle

trail at Lanhydrock. There's a lot of people out there looking for

them, but there's not that luch opportunity, whether it's someone

like myself, who isn't really that educated, or whether it is someone

who's got a degree or whatever it is. Whatever category you w`nt to

put it in, there's not a lot out there. The LEP wants to cre`te

thousands more jobs. One pl`n is to link with other bike trails and make

nearby Bodmin Cornwall's cycling town. But it's not all about bikes.

There's also hopes for improving the A30 and key roads around major

towns. And investing in rail and bus project. Those involved inshst their

strategy is right. It's abott looking at working with the private

sector for higher value jobs. Because absolutely our prim`ry aim

that is shared by all partndrs is how we increase salary levels in

Cornwall. Labour was putting wages at the heart of its proposals to

devolve more power to the rdgions this week. I want to explain why the

cost of living crisis is such a huge challenge. I want to say whx it s

happening. I want to explain why this government's approach hs

inadequate. A Labour governlent would encourage plans that cross

local government boundaries and double the amount of cash h`nded

down from Whitehall. But business leaders in Cornwall are cautious

about any moves back towards anything like the old regional

development agencies, or RD@s. What I thought in the latter days of

SWRDA became lost was what were the battles and who were they most

fighting for? And what people in Cornwall don't want is for ht to

become Bristol`centric when it doesn't have much relevance to us.

And I believe the LEP has h`d more relevance. Labour has also said it

would reinstate a minister for the south`west as a voice to boost the

economy. But others say this is simply reinventing the wheel.

Ann Mallalieu, a minister from the south`west, it sounds good, but so

did localism. Can we expect to see any real change? We've got to

because people are thoroughly fed up with the whole world revolvhng

around London. And places ehther north or south`west feeling very

isolated and left out. I thhnk there is a pot of money there which could

be filtered down and a lot of it, a lot more should come down to the

south`west, and the pot, and this is in my view, is a massive mistake

that is about to be made with HS2. If you want to create local jobs and

pull things out of the centre, you want to give people in thosd regions

the money they know what nedds doing. Before we come back to that,

HS2, we have encouraging figures from the IMF this week. Britain s

economy is going to grow more than any other economy in the G7,

overshadowing Ed Miliband's point. I think it has. It has got to be

sustainable. We are by no mdans out of the woods so far. There `re some

very unpleasant rumblings coming out of the east. And I think we have to

look at what we do with the money we can generate now in the futtre. For

too long, decisions both governments have made, the last one and this

present one, they've made vdry short`term decisions resulthng from

pressure of immediate media interest. I think it is important

that both parties look at areas of the country which haven't h`d a fair

shake of the dice. And the south`west undoubtedly is rhght I

hope my party, the Labour P`rty will see that it may not have many

MPs down here, but it has a lot of people who are sympathetic to many

of the things they want to do. And we need some investment. Thd growth

figures do indeed look good but there is this big divide between

London and the regions. What is the government going to do about that? I

think the MEPs have only re`lly been in existence for four years. And the

Devon and Somerset one has only got its act together in the last two

years, because it was delaydd because Cornwall wanted to go it

alone. We have to give them time to prove themselves. In theory, the

idea you can bring together unions, business, at a more localisdd level

to set local priorities, is a good one. The fundamental issue hs the

have a system where people bid for money, which is what we do have

right now, or do you have the Ed right now, or do you have the Ed

Miliband one, where you havd the money but not necessarily to every

part. It is to sided by London, not by a bidding process. The south`west

TUC is saying that big investments would not have got off the ground,

so this system isn't working. Business leaders say that if there

is a pot, it might go to Brhstol. I think the point here is what Ed

Miliband is saying, which is he wants to give it to large areas and

cities. There are not a lot of cities in the south`west. Btt there

are a lot of cities in the North of England. I can't see that doing what

Ann Mallalieu wants to do which is rectify the fact that the south`west

has been missed out. Ed Milhband was saying that ?2 billion will not be

enough, how much would be enough? A bigger slice of the money that is

about to be wasted. And I go back to HS2. A bigger slice of that, spread

around the country so that jobs are created not just along the places

along the line, and we don't just create a funnel back to London,

which is what I think will happen. I entirely agree but the problem is we

do have a large number of L`bour MPs in the North of England who are all

in favour of this, and a large number of Tory MPs in the South and

East of England who are also in favour of this. It's trying to get

the voice of the local people through. East Anglia, north of

Scotland and the south`west. Looking at the figures for Torbay, xour

constituency has the same GDP per head as Poland. There are not enough

jobs and London has five tiles that GDP per head. Surely the government

should be doing something drastically more? A minister for the

south`west, someone who can bring money down. A minister might be very

helpful. But, then again, it depends whether they have any real

influence. We are doing quite well intensive getting more monex. There

is the broadband money, the bypass, and the money hasn't been spent

That was the same under the last government. It's only now that it is

being recognised in getting some funding. If you look at it, we are

London centric. The new buzzword, there is more distortion now than in

the past. And certainly since the beginning of the recession. That is

true. But we are in austere times, there's not enough money to go

around, and yet we're getting lots more money funnelling into South

Devon. ?101 million for the bypass. I will have to stop you there. We do

have to move on. We can comd back to it.

On Thursday, the Green Partx staged an anti`nuclear protest at Hinkley

Point in Somerset. The plans for a new power station there got

government approval last ye`r, but the building works are being held up

by concerns about how much taxpayers' money is going in to the

project. This week the European Commission began investigathng the

price deal between the government and EDF Energy. John Henderson

reports. Protesting against the power. Green

Party activists at Hinkley Point in Somerset. It is the site for a new

nuclear power station. Given approval last year, it is expected

to generate 7% of the country's electricity supplied by 2024. At ?16

billion it's costly and controversial. The UK government

guaranteed power prices frol the plant for 35 years. Prices that are

almost twice the current wholesale cost of electricity. This is an

inappropriate use of state `id. The government came to power saxing it

would only promote nuclear hf it could be done with no public

subsidy. And, yet, it is perfectly clear there is a massive public

subsidy going into new nucldar at Hinkley. The debate at Hinkley isn't

the only time the region has seen protests over nuclear power. People

in towns and villages have taken to the streets. In the early 80s,

protesters were out in forcd when the central electricity gendrating

board was looking for a possible nuclear power station in Cornwall.

In the end, the site wasn't viable. But the protests led to the

country's first commercial wind farm. They were going to put a

nuclear power station in Cornwall. My wife was very much against it

indeed. I always say you can't say you can't have something. You can

only say what you want instdad. So it was blowing an absolute gale at

the time. She said, can't you do it from wind? I said, I'll find out.

And I found out. The wind f`rm here has recently been upgraded to

produce power for 7,000 homds. Hinkley C will power nearly six

million homes. It would takd 35 wind farms like this to match the

power output of Hinkley C. But nuclear comes with risks. Chernobyl

and Fukushima are examples of the dangers. Despite this, some in

Cornwall say if it was a choice between wind and nuclear, it would

be the latter. One nuclear power station compared with the ntmber of

turbines going up across Cornwall is no comparison. When it comes to

nuclear policy, all three Westminster parties are in favour.

The Lib Dems signing up in ` dramatic U`turn last year.

Yesterday, I did say I changed my mind. I've been changing it over the

last few years primarily because of the threat of climate changd. Back

at Hinkley, with contracts `lready signed, the Greens may have to

resign themselves to a new reactor. But, for them, nuclear is still a

disaster waiting to happen. Joining us to discuss this, we have

Windy Miller from the Green Party. Welcome. Your party would lhke to

see an end to nuclear energx. Where is the 20% that nuclear energy

provides going to come from? Indeed, the main point is that nucldar power

is unnecessary, it is an economic and unsafe. So, for instancd, we

could save 35% of our energx use if we put measures in for energy

efficiency, and, yet, what we had last year was the Energy Secretary

at European level arguing against energy efficiency measures. Energy

efficiency measures like wh`t? Through installation, through mainly

also decentralise sources of power, so, we lose a massive amount through

the idea of a national power grid, whereas it has been shown in Germany

how many community energy sxstems can produce energy without losing it

through the transmission. And it also benefits the local comlunity.

Germany is an interesting example because they have invested, since

Fukushima, heavily in renew`bles, 25% now. But prices of electricity

have gone through the roof `nd manufacturers might leave and go to

Eastern Europe. They are looking at coal`fired power stations again

Indeed, you can say it will be a transition. The thing to be`r in

mind, we might have been lucky at Hinckley. We were not so lucky in

1957, the year I was born, or channel ball, or Fukushima. It is an

ongoing disaster there which is going to cost as much as thd total

cost of building or nuclear power stations to date. And they cannot

even get near the nuclear rdactor. I use still hopeful that Hinckley

although the deal has been signed, are you hopeful you can stop it I

think as the truth comes out about the terrible cost and burden that

nuclear power can give to a country, let alone causing birth defdcts and

stillbirths, as ensuring noble. . I am going to stop you. Adrian

Sanders, the Lib Dems have done a U`turn. They were in the sale

position as Wendy and the Green Party a year ago, and suddenly last

year, they changed their mind. Certainly, in coalition, we have

signed up to Hinckley. Personally, I am very much with Wendy on this

issue in that if Germany can phase out all its nuclear power stations

by 2022, I don't see any re`son why we can't. We can do far mord... I

think there is another side to this. We can do far more in terms of

recycling, far more in terms of hybrid energy. But your party has

changed its mind and has signed up. The Parliamentary party in coalition

hands. The party itself in terms of its policy`making has not changed

its mind. That is the worry. Are you worried you will lose votes because

of this? In coalition, you have to find a compromise to get sole of

your policies through, and sometimes you have to play loot some of your

policies as well. People will judge the balance as to how well we have

done. Ann Mallalieu, you ard signed up to nuclear with Labour, how does

this sit with Ed Miliband's promise with freezing prices for fudl and

energy? This will be very expensive and we've promised to doubld the

price per unit so it is profitable for EDF. I've got concerns `bout the

price, first of all. I think everybody has. I've got concerns

about safety, which have bedn expressed already, but I want the

lights to stay on. And if wd do not have a mix of ways of providing us

with the end`mac `` with thd enormous amount of energy wd need,

those lights will not stay on and some of us can remember when we have

a three day week, and spells when the electricity was cut. Th`t is

nothing compared to what wotld happen if we didn't go ahead now and

produced truly efficient me`ns of production for the future. We have

been delaying for far too long. Labour was responsible for that Of

course it was. I come on and say my party has made mistakes every time!

My party is quite different than the party members and individual MPs and

those in government. Yukon to get away from the fact that the Lib Dems

in coalition have jettisoned quite a number of what seemed to me to be

firm tenets of their belief. We are 57 MPs in coalition with 300

Tories. That is what happens. You are quite happy to take the jobs,

yet you're not happy with the policies. We have improved hncome

tax, we have managed to help lower paid people, we have expanddd..

Just to jump in, the coalithon agreement gave your party and opt

out. You didn't have to takd it It AV didn't have to join at all. It is

a scare tactic to say keep the lights on. It really is. We can do

wave power, hydroelectric, solar, wind. Why didn't you take the opt

out? You would have to ask Dd Miliband. He worked with his Tory

colleagues who are less keen on green taxes. So Ed Davey is

responsible? At the end of the day, he will take the rap.

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

Crime figures show domestic violence has risen by almost 20% in Devon and

Cornwall but the Police Comlissioner said he didn't fully understand why.

Neither my office, nor the police, nor Her Majesty's Inspector of

Constabulary, do at the momdnt understand the increase in rapes and

sexual crimes. Residents at Feniton claimed a

victory for people power as plans for more than 200 new homes were

turned down by a planning inspector. The fight against the closure of

Great Torrington Hospital continued. A parish poll saw over 1,000 people

voting to reopen it. The 24/7 care you get in our cottage hosphtal

can't be replicated anywherd else. Exeter's new incinerator took in its

first rubbish. And graffiti legalised in West Dorset. It's

endorsed. It's legal. And it's backed by council members.

So, let's look at housing. Ht is incredible, isn't it? The t`lk for

more housing, and developments like that have still been turned down by

the planning expect it. I think people want to see thriving

communities, and they realise they need more houses. Equally, they

don't want to see places sw`mped and consumed, and that seemed to me to

be a sensible solution by the planning inspector. I hope there

will be more developer 's allowed, developer 's that do not sw`mp

towns. We get too hung up on a numbers game on the number of

houses. We ought to be talkhng about the type of housing that medts local

need. You might be able to do that with fewer houses being built than

sometimes imposing it. That'll have to be topic of discussion.

That's the Sunday Politics hn risk. We have run out of time. --

particular candidates. Back to you, Andrew.

The sun's out, Ed Balls has run the London Marathon, and MPs leave

Westminster for their Easter break. Let's discuss what's coming up in

the Week Ahead. We will get more of what we have

just seen. Let's look back on the debate. What did we learn from the

argument is? That it is going to bore and irritate whole lot of

people, this election campaign. Four parties shouting at each other about

things that most people do not know much about. They know very little

about how the European Parliament works, what an MEP is supposed to

do. A lot of heat and not a lot of light. I've updated well, all of

them, but the net effect is not going to encourage people to go out

and vote and not many do. One thing that struck me was that on Europe,

the Labour and Lib Dem positions are not that far apart. They are pretty

much the same. And yet the knocks lots of each other. I suppose they

feel that they had to do that because that is the format. I'd

agree with Polly. Their word UKIP and the Tories to attack two we try

to make it exciting, and we know the issues are important. But people out

there have not heard of these individuals. It is not very

exciting. That is worrying because these are huge national questions

for us. We need to find a way of making it more fun. People may not

know these MEPs, they may not know the detail of the debate, but it is

an issue on which people have strong opinions. It is a visceral thing for

many people. Especially on the immigration issue. The debate took

off and became more vociferous at that point. To a large extent, you

wonder whether not only this European election but the eventual

referendum will be a referendum on the issue of immigration and free

movement. If we did not learn much from the argument, the thing we did

learn is that the structure of these televised debate influences the

outcome. One of the reasons that Nigel Farage did well in the debate

is that in a two-man debate, each man has as good a chance as the

other. If it is four people, one man can be ganged up on. Patrick O'Flynn

did well for a man who is not an elected politician yet. At times, 40

came under attack and did not hold the line as well as you would

expect. Does that create a perverse incentive for the main parties to

agree to a four way debate before the general election? I do not think

the David Cameron has nearly as much to worry about from a televised

debate in the run-up to the elections than his spin doctors

believe. When you put him up against Ed Miliband, and we have not

actually seen Ed Miliband in that format, I think he will come off all

right. This is an election which the polls would have us believe that the

battle for first place is between UKIP and labour. It certainly is.

Obviously, it is neck and neck and we will not know until we are

closer. And it matters a lot to both of them. If Mr Miliband does not

come first, that is not good news for the main opposition at this

stage. Except to some extent all of the people will put it to one side

and say that this is a bizarre election. A plague on both your

houses, let's vote UKIP. It is not clear how much that translates into

the next election. It is not too disastrous for Labour. It would be

better if they came first. If Mr Miliband comes first, not a problem,

but it becomes second and UKIP soars away, what are the consequences I

think there is a widespread expectation already at Westminster

that UKIP is very likely to come first. If Ed Miliband fails to come

first, there will not be a great deal of shock in the West Mr

village. Else think what is remarkable about Ed Miliband is that

despite consistently poor personal leadership approval ratings, the

overall Labour poll is consistently very high. We have seen that budget

blip, it seems to have taken us back to where we were before. Leadership

is not everything. Mrs Thatcher was miles behind James Callaghan but in

the end, it was the party politics that mattered more. If Mr Cameron

comes third and the Tories come third, maybe a poor third, is it

headless chicken time on the Tory backbenchers? It has often been said

that the Tory Party has two modes, complacency and panic. You will see

them shift into panic mode. By June, I think. Many of the stories in the

sun will be about David Cameron s personal leadership and his grip on

the party. There will be pressure on conference by the time that comes

around. It is a natural consequence of being the incumbent party. The

Lib Dems are 7% in two of the polls today. It was widely thought that in

the first and second debates, Nigel Farage won both. In retrospect, was

the challenge strategy a disaster for Mr Clegg? I do not think it was

because he had nothing to lose. But he is lower in the polls than when

he started. He has not lost a great deal. The polls were quite often

that low. I think it was a good thing to do. It raised his profile.

It made him the leading party in. That may be a difficult place to

be. That is how you end up with 7% in the polls. The reason he is

fighting with Labour is that he knows very well that all he has to

do is to get his votes back that have gone to Labour and labour have

to fight hard to make sure that they do not go back. Every party looks to

where it is going to get it support. If it is a wipe-out for the

Lib Dems, and they lose all their MEPs, not saying that is going to

happen but you could not rule it out for, are we back in Nick Clegg

leadership crisis territory? One of the astonishing things about this

Parliament is the relative absence of leadership speculation about Nick

Clegg will stop at the first couple of years, his position seems

tricky, but maybe that is because Chris Hughton is gone and he was the

only plausible candidate. This cable is not getting any younger, to put

it delicately. That was not delegate at all! And we have reached a

desperate stage where Danny Alexander is talked about as a

candidate. That was not delegate either! Maybe he is holding onto

power the lack of alternatives. If they ended up with no MEPs at all,

and a less than double digits score... With Danny Alexander, it is

clear that Scotland, one way or another, will be moving further

away. You could not have the leader of a national party be a Scot. But

he does not have the following in the party. I'm glad you're liberal

attitudes to immigration extends to me. I would not have been here for

43 years. There will be leadership talk after that holes. It has been

bubbling in the background, but you have to talk to the grass roots

activists. -- after the polls. The grass roots activists are

despairing. If things are bad, they lose their network of activists who

they need to fight the next election. I think you mean, not that

you could have a Scot, but that it would be more difficult to have a

Scot from a Scottish constituency. Absolutely. I think a Scottish

constituency, so many things will be different. Or to hold the great

offices of state. Let's come onto the Crown Prosecution Service is. It

is an English institution. Where does the CPS and after losing yet

another high-profile case come this time Nigel Evans? They had nine

counts against him and they did not win on one. It is obviously very

embarrassing. They will have a bit of explain to do but I guess the

threshold for bringing these cases is high. There has to be considered

at least a 50-50 chance of actually winning the case. We do not know

what went on behind the scenes when they weighed up whether to bring the

case. Nigel Evans makes an interesting point about whether it

is legitimate to bundle together a number of stand-alone relatively

weak accusations, and when you put them together to militantly, the CPS

uses that to make a case. Is that a legitimate thing to do? He was a

high-profile figure, not just because he was a Tory MP. He was the

deputy speaker of the House. And yet the CPS are certainly the police, to

begin with they did not have that many people to testify against him.

And then they trawled for more. You wonder if they would have done that

if it was not for the fact that he was a public figure. The trouble is,

they are dammed if they do and dammed if they do not. Particularly

with politicians and the reputation they have these days, if there is

any suggestion that they let somebody off because they are a

high-profile politician, and they are saying that about Cyril Smith,

that is the accusation. A strange story. Most unlikely and very

bizarre. But that is the accusation. If there is any with of that, I can

see why the CPS says, we better let the courts try this one. Also, they

are in trouble overrated cases because their success rate on

bringing people to court for rape is so thin. When it looked as if his

accusers were not really accusing him, it looks quite weak. You cannot

help but feeling that they are falling over backwards now in

high-profile cases because of their abject and total failure over Jimmy

Savile. I think this is exactly the kind of case that happens when you

are trying to make a point or redeem a reputation or change a culture.

All of these big things. As opposed to what criminal justice is supposed

to be about, which is specific crimes and specific evidence

matching those crimes. The CPS has no copper a fleet joined in this

list of public and situations that has taken a fall over the past five

or six years. We have had Parliament, the newspapers, the

police will stop I think this is as bad a humiliation as any of those

because it is Innocent people suffering. You are the most recent,

being a lobby correspondent in Westminster, and we now see on

Channel 4 News that basically, Westminster is twinned with Sodom

and Gomorrah. Yes. I know. Is this true? It is all rather the red. I do

not move in those circles. And you were in the lobby at one stage? Not

that long ago. Is it right. Is it right to be twinned with Sodom and

Gomorrah? I'll ask him for his opinion. Being technically a member

of the lobby, I can observe some of this stuff. And what surprises me is

that journalists, when the complain about Sodom and Gomorrah, write

themselves out of it. It is as if it is just MPs. We are unalloyed and

unvarnished. Actually, the fact is it has always been a bit like Sodom

and tomorrow. Of course it has. Think about how we have had wave

after wave of stories and scandals. But less of it recently. It was I

think that attitudes have slightly changed. I'll also think that if you

get 650 people in any organisation and you put that much scrutiny on

them, you will find an awful lot going on in most people's officers

of a scurrilous nature. Even in the BBC

In 2013, the public voted for a portrait of

At times he's interesting, at times he's very funny,

My life is a very happy life and I'm a very happy person.

Will you feel nervous when this is unveiled?

I suppose being the centre of attention but for ever.