12/02/2012 Sunday Politics South

Under in the south: Well a government's new police and crime

commission has really make policing more accountable to local voters?

Apology for the loss of subtitles for 1696 seconds

Or will it just the expense of jobs Hi, I'm Peter Henley. Coming up in

the south: So who do you want running the police?

This month, the government has been trumpeting -- triumph in their

scheme for electing police crime commission us who they say will be

more accountable. But will it really put more bobbies on the

beat? To discuss all that I'm this -- I'm joined by the Conservative

MP for Winchester and the Labour MEP for the south-east of England.

And somebody with motorists interest. Yes, campaigning against

any changes to laws he might make scooter and motorcycle riders more

difficult to enjoy. Let's have a look at this clipped and see if you

It was a tough day! It was a cold day. His guinea easily be accused

of doing a stunt. I actually said something nice about the Big issue,

people with the Big issue in Southampton came back and said

would you like to come and Senate, be a guest seller for a morning. --

and sell it? It was really interesting. Fascinating seeing all

the different ways people will avoid you. Some people pretended

they were on their phones. And your constituency has the squeezed

middle. Harriet Harman said people who are financially squeezed in the

region like ours with high housing costs or high cost-of-living are

particularly disadvantaged. Yes, those who are in the lower part of

the bracket that are aspiring to better jobs are finding it really

difficult to make ends meet. I think the south-east is the richest

part of the United Kingdom but suffers from needing to attract

people to come down here. And it was completely ignored when Labour

was in of first. Everything went to the middle and then all. That's not

true. People got family credit, we went to Brown areas with housing

bills because quite often we found Conservative areas would not allow

building in particular areas. And when we need houses, we need

services, because we need people to be populated in that area. Labour

is worried about this week middle in this part of the world.

course. Politicians don't sit in Westminster unaware of this. We go

to supermarkets as well, you know. It cost us a fortune as well. We

are well aware of the high cost of living right now and the cost of

inflation. And you are cutting benefits. Well, we are reforming

benefits, yes. We are putting a cap on benefits. I would defend at all

away. But I would say, at the end of the day, what we have to make

sure we do is keep costs down in this country. If we lose control of

public finances and interest rates go up in this country, Citizens'

Advice Bureau was saying the other day that even a 1% rise in interest

rates would have a devastating impact on family finances because

of what it would do to mortgages. Young families, like mine, who are

finding it hard to make ends meet the Munch -- each month, the last

thing we need is interest rates to go up. So don't underestimate the

importance of a government that has a grip on finances. We will talk

more about this in due course. Now, if you are a football supporter,

and probably even if you are not, you will have been following the

extraordinary roller-coaster that has been Portsmouth's financial and

ownership issues over the last couple of years. The latest twist

is that the club has been issued a winding-up petition on account of

an unpaid tax bill. But is relying on businessman with deep pockets,

or sometimes not so deep pockets - the best way to finance our top

clubs? Joining me now is Steve Tovey from the Grand Prix

Supporters Trust. This is a net excellent example of the way

financial instability is affecting the game. What should be done about

it? I think governments should be introduced nationwide. And that

would stop certain sorts of people from investing in certain ways?

wouldn't stop it, but it would give the fans own interest and a legal

right to have a say in their community club and the way in which

it is run it they don't actually own it out right. And you would

still like to see a fan on the board? What difference would that

make? It would give the man in the street a voice through his local

trust and a feeling of belonging to the community that his club is the

centre of. Because everyone who is a member of a supporters trust has

a vote for the people who are elected and those people are then

answerable and accountable so you get transparency from the port

right the way through to the man in the street. -- from the board.

current debacle is to do with the Inland Revenue. Do you think they

are being too tough, or is it just that there one of the creditors and

they have acted in this way? It is the top of the iceberg, in effect.

The club's problems are deep-seated and way beyond just the Inland

Revenue. Part of the football governance bill was to actually do

away with it the creditors with the football club preferential

creditors. The fact that football clubs can get by not paying revenue

in the first place - it is all part and parcel of that and bringing it

into the 21st century. In Europe, the Parliament is talking about the

democratic role of fans been something that could be encouraged.

Are you in favour of that? Is a mass membership organisations,

sometimes bigger than political parties in some countries. So these

people have a crucial interesting what happens in that club. So

giving him some idea about what direction that club is moving in

would be essential. I'm in favour of a change in economic ownership

of the clubs. It would be nice to see it happen across the unit --

across the European Union as well. You could do that if they were

agreement in clubs to allow something of a mutual agreement co-

operative. It would be an opportunity for Portsmouth to get

away from some of its current miseries. Did you had fans on the

board, they would have divided loyalties, wouldn't they? On the

one hand having to take commercial decisions, and on the other, having

to answer to the other fans. They can argue the case that is being

put forward and proposed. They would have a vote just like anybody

who disagrees on any family business board or anything. I don't

think it would be divided loyalties. Steve, you are naturally against

regulation I would have thought. Is this one area where we need more

regulation? Potentially, yes. The whole point about there being a fit

and proper persons test for people who run football clubs, which is

administered by the Football Association, which has hardly

covered itself in glory this week, that is clearly not working. You

cannot blame the supporters, because when somebody comes along

and promises lots of things, you cannot blame the fans for being

excited. But clearly something has gone wrong on that fit and proper

persons test. This week, a report was released and there was a debate

in Westminster about this. They were talking about the creditors

list and turning it on its head, because at the moment all big boys

get paid and all local suppliers, the charities, people who rely on a

will or club in a city like Portsmouth, they miss out. It is

desperately unfair. I should declare that I am a Spurs fan! We

have something in common with Portsmouth. Just one last thought,

wouldn't it will be a bit slow moving if you had fans

democratically running clubs? In the end, the quick moving teams

will be the one who get the right players. A know, but fans will make

sure it is the right people running the club at the end of the day.

They can own it, but the actual management at board level would be

no different. It's just that the fans would feel that they were one

accountable and to not down in millions of pounds three years

later. This is much more common in other parts of the world. In

Germany, much more common than it is here. This week, the Chief

Constable of Dorset was warning that cuts to the police budget

would have an impact on frontline services. But come November, that

sort of public statement will no longer be his responsibility.

Instead, it will be down to the police and crime commissioner, or

PCC, for door set. This is a new, elected post that the government

reckons will increase local accountability. But, as our home

affairs correspondent reports, not everyone is quite so convinced.

For decades, police officers had served the public and answered to a

chief constable. And the Chief Constable is kept in check by a

board of councillors and independent members who decide when

and how the money should be spent. But that is about to change. The

government has come up with a new system similar to America's each

force will have one directly elected police commissioner. They

went control police operations, but they will control the forces -- the

4th's multi-million-pound budget. It creates a visible link between

the elected officer and the people and means that people are put in

the driving seat. They will have a real say in policing and crime for

the first time. Nick Herbert's visit here in Portsmouth is part of

a nationwide tour to promote police and crime commission has. His

argument is that having one person voted in by the public means that

if the public don't like what they're getting in terms of

policing, they know who to blame and to devote out next time. Barry

was the co-author of a key policy report which recommended direct

elections as a way of improving police accountability. But he is

not convinced that the government has got it right. I think most

members of the public are utterly unaware of what is going on and the

kind of change which is going to take place. Not that they knew much

about police authorities, but I suspect they know even less about

police and crime commission has. said it could be tough to attract

the calibre of candidates needed, and even then the job could be too

much for one person. There is this mechanism which I think really

needed to be piloted. It needed to be tested. As it is, now, it is a

kind of gigantic leap into the dark. He is not the only one with

concerns. Jack Dee is chair of Hampshire Police Authority, which

will be abolished when the commissioner takes over in November.

Whichever way you look at this, it will criticise policing. Whoever

gets elected, they will have got elected on a political mandate.

Police and crime at panels will be set up, one for each council, to

keep check on the parishioner -- the commissioner. But some people

are not convinced. The majority of members on our PCC will be

Conservative members as well. So if you have a Conservative

commissioner, the people who are holding them to account will be

their conservative colleagues. Not necessarily how you would want it

to be. Despite reservations, the council has put a name forward for

the position. She is one of a handful who have expressed an

interest, including several Conservatives. But how well they

capture the public interest? It is a challenge, but it is all about

talking about priorities and hopefully chiming with people who

agree with me that the most important thing about policing is

catching criminals and it did -- and deterring crime. It will be key

for me to engage the public between now and November, to make sure that

all members of the public know just what they are getting. So far, no

Liberal Democrats have said they are standing in Hampshire, but some

have strong views. One person, probably from a rural area who has

no idea what actually happens in areas like Southampton and

Portsmouth, places that have high crime and big urban populations,

they will have no idea what is going on. Very few people have come

forward in the country to say they are interested in doing it. It is a

non up job. So the role is a divided opinion. But the law has

been passed, so in November, everybody will be asked for the

person -- to vote for the person they want to set police priorities

in their neighbourhood. So Labour is against it but they

will be putting up a candidate. What do you think about this,

Peter? In it seems to be more about political control and

responsibility. People will be more worried about the money that is not

been spent on police forces than actually trying to make it can --

time to make it accountable. It is a bit like a disguise of what is

really going on. 8,000 police officers have already lost their

jobs, it is predicted that by the end of this Parliament, twice as

many will have gone. We should not just be adding more bills to this

type of service by creating these positions when we had so much --

when we have so much to lose. a cover up? No, I do think it is

about accountability, though. I make no bones about it, I am not

the greatest fan of this policy, but I think it is worth exploring.

I have lived in America and seen how it works over there. I think

the challenge is about who will do this. Again there should be the

fullest possible mandate. I don't see why it has to always be the

reserve of political parties. I would love to see independent

candidates come forward for the job. What you're saying is... I mean,

the elections are in November and we still don't know what the

expenses are, how people will advertise this. This is turning

into a mess. I don't think it's turning into a mess. The debate was

clearly had in the House, the opposition had a chance. That two

coalition parties came together and this went through in the House with

clear support. I don't think it has been organised very well, no, but

at the end of the day whoever gets this job, that is the key thing.

The person who gets the job in Hampshire will have to be one

almighty diplomat, because you have to do politics with the small

letter P. You have to be a super efficient crime officer. It should

be decommissioned, this idea! get our regular wind-up of that

The annual scramble for beach huts began. Paul council caused a storm

with plans to cut their ten-year waiting list by evicting long-term

tenants. H S two is heading for judicial

review after a county councils joined legal forces with 16 other

authorities on the route. The Health Secretary knew where he

was going in Winchester, putting a brave face on NHS reform and

striding ahead. Or perhaps a swift move to the left! He couldn't put a

foot wrong with a hospital medical director. Cold rocks is David

Cameron's brother-in-law. The PM to a question from Portsmouth's penny

mordant you had looked a lot of stamps to help a cancer patient.

And finally it seems a baby boom has swept Hampshire. The council

says classrooms are run all the wrong places.

And if you spotted Steve underneath the clock, you were there behind

penny in the House of Commons! To help Bill, Labour seems to be

making progress on it. -- The health bill. The yes, most of the

medical profession has said this is an unnecessary bureaucratic burden

on the NHS which you read set at a time of coming to power -- which

you said when you came to power that you would not do. Already, 500

will have lost their jobs. Will it go through, Steve? Yes. I noticed

last week, the Faculty of Public Health came out and said we should

not go ahead with the bill. They said it would increase disparity

and inequalities. For the first time, on the face of the bill, it

actually gives the Health Secretary a statutory obligation to reduce

health inequality in the country. We are reducing committees, that

will reduce bureaucracy. We are not against targets, what we are

against is centrally set targets. I'm afraid that's where we have to