23/06/2013 Sunday Politics South

services? With one elected commissioner running fire, police

Apology for the loss of subtitles for 2112 seconds

and ambulance. The controversial Ism' Peter Henley. Are magistrates

being too lenient with benefit fraudsters? More on that shortly.

First, let's meet the two politicians who will be with us,

Peter Lamb is the leader of the Labour Group on crawly Council. A

lot of departments settling bit by bit. This is the settlement we

should not have had. We know that the Chancellor has had to look

further out. Economic growth started along the bottom and looking more

healthy, but there is more savings to be found. Everyone knows that the

country was overspent and there will be more savings to be found.

These already nasty cuts? necessarily. There is lots of work

to be done. You can't do all these things instantaneous. I don't think

they have to be nasty. Would we like to be doing them? No. But there is

no question the country knows and understands that we have to spend

less as a Government. We cannot carry on borrowing the way we are.

The deficit is down, but not far enough.

Peter, why do you think the cuts are happening? Well, it is as you said

earlier, these aren't the cults that should have had to happen. The plan

was to reduce the deficit and growth will kick off in the private sector

and we will deal with it and it hasn't worked. If you take the

depand out of the system, less people are willing to spend. We

should be trying to get more people into work.

60,000 jobs lost in the public sector, but 1. 2 million made in the

public sector. That sounds like a success.

You have people going down to lower paid work. You can talk about jobs

all you like, there is less money going into the pocket of the

taxpayer. You are saying you would rather have people unemployed than

in work. It is getting people into reasonable paid work. You have got

to invest and we are not seeing that.

You are involved in things in crawly Council. If it was a 10% Local

Government cut, the sort of things that would have to go are going to

be the really nasty cuts, aren't they? This year we are looking at a

�2 million cut. We have had to deal with the cuts over the last three

years. When Cameron's Government came in, they said time and time

again Local Government is the most efficient part of Government. Those

speeches are still on their website. They believe it. Why is it we have

had to take the brunt of the cuts if the same department they believe to

be the most efficient? 30% has gone and you can see the state of the

roads and the state of the hedgerows. We have never seen more

pressure than before and we are having to save more money. If you

are going to say there is efficiencies to be made somewhere,

look at the departments which are less efficient because Local

Government isn't it. Local Government is efficient? A quarter

of all public spending, you cannot reduce the deficit down so we have a

balance of payments that is right and proper if you don't cut across

the piece. With a quarter of all spending going on Local Government,

more has to be done. Hampshire County Council, I am sure there are

fantastic offices and great politicians making things happen,

but in Hampshire they started the cuts early. They knew they were

going to happen. They started taking a out layers of management. We don't

have potholes in Hampshire. Our verges are cut. And they think they

can do more and I really applaud that.

If anyone comes across a pothole they know who to talk to! We have

the largest percentage reduction in that time.

We will be giving out George's number for the pot shoals shortly!

-- pot shoals holes -- potholes short shortly! This exercise

involving Hampshire fire and ambulance this week demonstrated the

amount of co-operation that's going on. Paramedics and firefighters with

search and rescue skills working together at a scenario involving the

rescue of casualties from an explosion in a block of flats. The

minister got an enthusiastic response. When I spoke to the former

detective, he was clear he didn't want to take responsibility for the

other services. When I first joined the police

force, they were talking about doing this. Why don't you have one role

room? One head quarters and run training room? It all makes sense to

embed emergency services into one organisation, but it isn't for a PCC

role. Why is that? You are the person who

is the new thing, the accountable thing? I think there should be on

aect elected official in charge -- an elected official in charge, but

these things take time after the next election expand the EPCC role

and let the electorate speak. Don't give me two extra jobs that the

electorate didn't ask me to do. On the fireside they say, " We are

better than these new commissioners coming in." Ing a matter of time

until fire authorities go. We all know that. The PCCs are in place and

police authorities have gone, fire authorities are going to go too.

Let's have a more visible, accountable person running the Fire

Service. I'm surprised it hasn't happened before. It makes sense to

have run Gaddafi earnance regime with one person above it in --

governance regime with one person above it in charge.

Strong words there from the police and crime commissioner. The fire

authorities in general are on the way out? I don't see that. I am sure

the fire authorities could be more efficient and some are run by

counties. Some are run by fire authorities, but I don't think

that's the issue here. The issue here is whether or not you can merge

the governance and the rest of fire, police and ambulance and I don't

think that's practical and I don't think it will give up the savings

that some people think it would. The savings could be found in back

office and procurement and training and things like that, but you would

say that some of that is happening. Where would you draw the line in

going further and affecting the operation operational, doing the

same job, two different hats? is more that can be done. We are

sharing procurement, HR, occupational health with the

Hampshire Police. We are doing that. Sew we've started early. We started

making our savings early. We are efficient and we have driven out the

inefficiencies and we continue to do that and there is more that can be

done and sharing premises is one way and we are doing that in Southampton

with the police and we could work closely with the Ambulance Service.

We are co respooned respooneding -- co reds sponding. So that's

happening. That could go further. A full merger pf police, fire and

ambulance is impractical. About What about a vehicle going to

a road traffic accident with people from all three services? I will give

you a example of how that would work. You have a road traffic

collision and you send the Fire Service to cut someone from their

car. There is a casualty. The casualty needs to be evacuated and

you need to look after the traffic and the congestion that's caused by

an accident. You are going to need another vehicle. You couldn't, I

think, in reality. He says it happens in France.

isn't another country that has police and fire merged in the

developed world. There isn't another one. There isn't an example he can

cite. There are in some other places and that's because of security

issues, but there are no other police and fire that's merged across

other countries. Your fire authority needs to be more

efficient. There are fewer fires than there used to be and it is

about prevention? It is. And that's what we are spending most of our

time doing. We are trying to prevent ins stances in the first place and

putting sprinklers into new buildings and student accommodation

and the rest and that means we don't have to respond the way we used to.

#40e % less response than -- 40% less response than ten years ago.

There is an issue about what the cost of the fire service is when

response is lower, but you have to take into account the amount of

resource put into prevention, it is not you don't respond as much as you

used to. That could be something done by

local councils, but it can, keeping these silos... Why would that be

cheaper? If the councils suggested you put spripg -- sprinklers into

buildings? If you are doing the same thing and there is duplication, it

needs to be driven out. If there are ways you can work closely together,

that needs to be done, but taking a it from one and giving to another

doesn't make a saving. Isn't the Fire Service one of those

last areas of inefficiency? It is separate, unions, who seem to have a

great deal of strength? We just don't need it? I think probably

that's a rather unfair characterisation. I may well need a

Fire Service at some stage. If you look at the success of the Fire

Service over ten years, driving downturn outs. Something is going

right. Telling people how to prez vent fires, going into schools --

prevent fires, going into schools with proper teachers, is somehow on

the edge. This is the stuff that stops fires happening. I really

don't think they are poor value for money. They have stopped fires

happening. That isn't to say that I don't agree that there is costs that

can be driven out. Across the developed world, you will not find

police, fire and ambulance merged together. In the Third World, you

might. Not in the developed world. In many places, you will find the

Ambulance Service and the Fire Service merged specifically. So that

nearly all firefighters have paramedic qualification and then

there is, think, in the long-term something to consider about whether

we could do something with those servicesle. Do I think the Fire

Service is inefficient? Well, the record suggests not.

Peter Lamb, it is about saving money here and is this the area they

should be looking for savings? in terms of merging departments,

that's something to look into and there are back office efficiencies

you can come up with. The idea of hand this over to the police and

crime commissioners, this is out to lunch.

They are the ones pressing for this. The public gave them the support of

85% of them staying at home on election day last November. It is

hardly as they they have got a strong mandate for their existing

role never mind taking a on roles they are unqualified for. No one

wants to see the ambulance and the Fire Service relegated to second

class roles in the emergency services.

Is that going to stop the thing happening? What, stop the merger

going ahead? Yes. There is no merger going ahead. I

was sitting behind him and the record may prove me wrong. He said

the idea was being considered and one of those supposed floated in the

Sunday papers was PCCs? Well, it was floated in the Sunday papers, but

there is no such consideration going on in the Home Office which are

responsible for the three services. Not before the election then?

is some reason to do so, I don't think you will see testimony

tomorrow. P -- I don't think you will see it tomorrow.

It seems to be a little way off. Now, it is high on the Government

and tabloids agenda, benefit fraud is a complex and growing problem. It

is hard to detect and hard to prove and local authorities say that even

when they take people to court, magistrates don't take the problem

Year-on-year, local authorities budgets are being trimmed back.

Benefit fraud is something this serious about -- something they are

serious about tackling. Some say they are fighting a court system

unsympathetic to their flight and the numbers are staggering. The

country loses millions, hundreds of millions, even billions of pounds to

benefit fraudsters. Last year, we lost �5 billion to them. At west

Berkshire Council, they hand out �51 million of council and housing

benefit. And every year of that amount of money, �1 million is taken

by the benefit from youed fraudsters. The numbers involved are

huge, just how huge, we may never know. People who carry out benefit

fraud think it is a victimless crime. It comes as no surprise that

West Berkshire Council doesn't see it this way.

People look at this as if it is the council's money, it is the people's

money. We can't spend that money because we have been defrauded.

Alan Law is the councillor who over's benefit payments. He is clear

what he would do with the money that's being stolen from local

taxpayers? I would employ 30 careers and 30 classroom assistants and

probably repair all the potholes in West Berkshire.

Benefits are there to help support the people that need them. It is

cheating everybody. It is disgusting. I'm anti-it.

Anybody that steals money should pay the penalties.

But who decides what the penalties should be? The more serious cases

end up in the crown court. Berkshire Council investigated 300 people they

suspected of benefit fraud. They took legal against 65, but only one

ended up at Reading Crown Court. She was given a 14 month prison

sentence. She had nearly �120,000. That's like an interest free loan.

Normal working people have to go to the bank if they want a loan and

they have to pay interest. Tracey Pembroke lived here and for

eight years she claimed she was a single-parent living on her own. She

lied. She was married and had a bank account. There were two particular

debits from the bank account that mounted to �7,000 and we found later

debits from her account that were made from the Maldives, that's

�7,000 that went on a nice holiday at the Maldives.

The council says the jailing of Tracey Pembroke was a rare victory.

It thinks benefit fraudsters get an easy ride at the Magistrates' Court.

They hear a hard luck story and sentence accordingly.

Most get away withes 10,000 or 20,000 or 30,000 of taxpayers money

before they are stopped. Most people I have seen have not been ripping it

off in order to enjoy a lavish lifestyle. They have been committing

fraud in order to get by. Often, it will be a single mum with children.

If you are punishing the children as well that might cause you to reflect

on whether a suspended sentence wouldn't be a better option than

immediate custody? Magistrates can use their discretion, but...

Magistrates and judges use sentence g sentencing guidelines. They tell

us how serious an offence sr. And we sentence according to guidelines.

Clearly, if they are working within guidelines and they are not applying

strict enough sentences, I think the guidelines are wrong.

Do we think the guidelines are the sentencing or are we sending a bad

message here about benefit fraud? mean certainly we have to ensure

that the people, the right people are getting benefits if they need

benefits. Is that why you think the courts are more lenient? They hear a

hard luck story? My experience of magistrates they take their role

seriously and will keep to the guidelines sitting in front of them,

but we have to put it in the context of the Benefit Bill. 99. 3% of

people on benefit are not on fraud. The public believes it is close to

27%. 300 cases investigated and only one prosecuted. He people report any

number of things. You have got to look at the facts. It can't be based

on assumptions and the more and more we talk about something which

affects 07. 7%, we are taking a it -- 0. 7%, we are taking a it out of

context. The guidelines need to be looked at.

George, the Chancellor needs every penny. It seems that through the G8,

there is more squeeze going on. But there is a lot of companies getting

away without paying their taxes? Taxes. Why talk about benefit

cheats? People who want to get on get offended by people they see free

loading the system. Richard makes the point that the numbers who are

prosecuted are small in terms of the benefit bill. We shouldn't push this

out of proportion. On the corporate taxation side. It is a difficult

balancing ac, isn't it? I have sympathy with the position that says

that companies that use what we create as a Government and as a

society as a public good should use to pay the public good, ie a market,

people who are educated and buy things. At the same time, the

companies will say, " We abide by the rules you set." It will bring

more in cracking down on the companies? It is between 30 and 40

times month than the level of fraud in the system and you have got to

invest in that. In 60 seconds, the round-up of the

week. Plans to restrict free travel to

school in Oxfordshire brought an angry from parents and teachers.

They had not mapped through what the impact might be in terms of losing

children. In Reading a housebuilder's plans

for an empty school site surprised parents trying to develop a

secondary free school. A joint bid for UK City of Culture hit the

buffers. It won't end our ambition of working with Portsmouth. Soldiers

were discovering if they had a job this week as the Army announced 4500

redundancies. There has been a big increase in the number of workers

coming from Bournemouth to Spain. National insurance applications up

from 90 to 580 in six years. A push to find jobs for young people in

Swindon suggested they set-up their own business. They say under 25s

make ideal entrepreneurs, because they understand new tech and they

are fearless and used to having no money.

I will ask you Peter, do you think when you are younger, you are better

off setting up a business? At the moment, there is a lot of people who

have little to lose from setting up a business. Because they haven't got

a job anywhere else? But they are the group least likely to get

additional funding. A lot of new businesses fail. So you are asking

young people to jeopardise a lot early on in their lives.

And they are fearless. What would you say? It is a fantastic learning

curve. Setting up business is one of the hardest things to do. And having

that on your CV, failed or not is an attractive thing on a CV.. People

are finding it difficult to get money from the banks? I opened a

company today. There is signs of that funding beginning to unlock.

Beginning to unlock. Are there signs of the private sector providing the

jobs that people need? Not at the moment. We are making steps to try

and ensure we can bring in the additional investments necessary to

bring in the new jobs, but for a lot of young people there is not a lot

of hope out there. Right. That's ending our discussion

where we started. Thank you. That's the Sunday Politics in the