:00:37. > :00:46.Good morning, welcome. 2014 is barely under way, and the
:00:47. > :00:50.coalition is fighting over cuts. Nick Legg says Tory plans to balance
:00:51. > :00:54.the books would hit the poorest hardest. He will not say what he
:00:55. > :00:58.will cut. That is the top story. Chris Grayling called for a
:00:59. > :01:03.completely new deal with Europe as he battles will rings from the
:01:04. > :01:08.European Court of Human Rights. He joins me.
:01:09. > :01:09.Labour promises to shift house-building up a gear, but how
:01:10. > :01:19.will they get a In the South: Are we spending enough
:01:20. > :01:21.on flood defences to stop a repetition of scenes like these, and
:01:22. > :01:22.will council`tax payers be serious. Have cuts left to the
:01:23. > :01:38.service being overstretched? With me for the duration, a top trio
:01:39. > :01:42.of political pundits, Helen Lewis, Jan and Ganesh and Nick Watt. They
:01:43. > :01:50.will be tweeting faster than France or long scoots through Paris. Nick
:01:51. > :01:54.Clegg sticks to his New Year resolution to sock it to the Tories,
:01:55. > :01:59.the is how he described Tory plans for another 12 billion of cuts on
:02:00. > :02:04.welfare after the next election You cannot say, as the Conservatives
:02:05. > :02:06.are, that we are all in it together and then say that the welfare will
:02:07. > :02:11.not make any additional contributions from their taxes if
:02:12. > :02:14.there is a Conservative government after 2015 in the ongoing effort to
:02:15. > :02:22.balance the books. We are not even going to ask that very wealthy
:02:23. > :02:27.people who have retired who have benefits, paid for by the
:02:28. > :02:31.hard-pressed taxpayers, will make a sacrifice. The Conservatives appear
:02:32. > :02:36.to be saying only the working age pork will be asked to make
:02:37. > :02:39.additional sacrifices to fill the remaining buckle in the public
:02:40. > :02:45.finances. Nick Legg eating up on the Tories
:02:46. > :02:51.a, happens almost every day. I understand it is called aggressive
:02:52. > :02:58.differentiation. Will it work for them? It has not for the past two
:02:59. > :03:02.years. This began around the time of the AV referendum campaign, that is
:03:03. > :03:07.what poisoned the relations between the parties. They have been trying
:03:08. > :03:13.to differentiation since then, they are still at barely 10% in the
:03:14. > :03:18.polls, Nick Clegg's personal ratings are horrendous, so I doubt they will
:03:19. > :03:22.do much before the next election. It is interesting it has been combined
:03:23. > :03:27.with aggressive flirtation with Ed Balls and the Labour Party. There
:03:28. > :03:32.was always going to be some sort of rapprochement between them and the
:03:33. > :03:36.Labour Party, it is in the Labour Party's interests, and it is intent
:03:37. > :03:41.macro's interests, not to be defined as somebody who can only do deals
:03:42. > :03:45.with the centre-right. A colleague of yours, Helen, told me there was
:03:46. > :03:51.more talk behind closed doors in the Labour Party high command, they have
:03:52. > :03:54.to think about winning the election in terms of being the largest party,
:03:55. > :03:59.but not necessarily an overall majority. There is a feeling it was
:04:00. > :04:03.foolish before the last election not to have any thought about what a
:04:04. > :04:08.coalition might be, but the language has changed. Ed Miliband had said, I
:04:09. > :04:16.cannot deal with this man, but now, I have to be prismatic, it is about
:04:17. > :04:19.principles. Even Ed Balls. Nick Clegg had specifically said that Ed
:04:20. > :04:24.Balls was the man in politics that he hated. He said that was just a
:04:25. > :04:30.joke. Of course, it is about principles, not people! When Ed
:04:31. > :04:35.Balls said those nice things about Nick Clegg, he said, I understood
:04:36. > :04:40.the need to get a credible deficit reduction programme, although he
:04:41. > :04:43.said Nick Clegg went too far. The thing about Nick Clegg, he feels
:04:44. > :04:49.liberated, he bears the wounds from the early days of the coalition and
:04:50. > :04:54.maybe those winds will haunt him all the way to the general election But
:04:55. > :04:58.he feels liberated, he says, we will be the restraining influence on both
:04:59. > :05:03.the Conservatives, who cannot insure that the recovery is fair, and the
:05:04. > :05:05.Labour Party, that do not have economic red ability. He feels
:05:06. > :05:11.relaxed, and that is why he is attacking the Tories and appearing
:05:12. > :05:18.pretty relaxed. He could also be falling into a trap. The Tories
:05:19. > :05:23.think what they suggesting on welfare cuts is possible. The more
:05:24. > :05:28.he attacks it, the more Tories will say, if you gave us an overall
:05:29. > :05:32.majority, he is the one it. He keeps taking these ostensibly on popular
:05:33. > :05:36.positions and it only makes sense when you talk to them behind the
:05:37. > :05:41.scenes, they are going after a tiny slice of the electorate, 20%, who
:05:42. > :05:47.are open to the idea of voting Lib Dem, and their views are a bit more
:05:48. > :05:53.left liberal than the bulk of the public. There is a perverse logic in
:05:54. > :06:00.them aggressively targeting that section of voters. In the end, ten
:06:01. > :06:05.macro's problem, if you do not like what this coalition has been doing,
:06:06. > :06:09.you will not vote for somebody who was part of it, you will vote for
:06:10. > :06:16.the Labour Party. The Tories are too nasty, Labour are to spendthrift,
:06:17. > :06:20.Lib Dem, a quarter of their vote has gone to Labour, and that is what
:06:21. > :06:27.could hand the largest party to Labour. That small number of voters,
:06:28. > :06:31.soft Tory voters, the problem for the Liberal Democrats is, if you
:06:32. > :06:35.fight, as they did, three general elections to the left of the Labour
:06:36. > :06:38.Party, and at the end of the third, you find yourself in Colour Vision
:06:39. > :06:45.with the Conservatives, you have a problem.
:06:46. > :06:52.Chris Grayling is a busy man, he has had to deal with aid riot at HM
:06:53. > :06:53.Prison Oakwood, barristers on strike and unhappy probation officers
:06:54. > :07:11.taking industrial action. Prison works. It ensures that we are
:07:12. > :07:20.protected from murderers, muggers and rapists. It makes many who are
:07:21. > :07:26.tempted to commit crime think twice. Traditional Tory policy on criminal
:07:27. > :07:30.justice and prisons has been tough talking and tough dealing. Not only
:07:31. > :07:35.have they tended to think what they are offering is right, but have had
:07:36. > :07:38.the feeling, you thinking what they thinking. But nearly two decades
:07:39. > :07:45.after Michael Howard's message, his party, in Colour Vision government,
:07:46. > :07:49.is finding prison has to work like everything else within today's
:07:50. > :07:53.financial realities. The Justice Secretary for two years after the
:07:54. > :08:00.election had previous in this field. Ken Clarke. Early on, he signalled a
:08:01. > :08:06.change of direction. Just binding up more and more people for longer
:08:07. > :08:15.without actively seeking to change them is, in my opinion, what you
:08:16. > :08:19.would expect of Victorian England. The key to keeping people out of
:08:20. > :08:25.prison now, it seems, is giving them in a job, on release. Ironically,
:08:26. > :08:30.Ken Clarke was released from his job 15 months ago and replaced by Chris
:08:31. > :08:36.Grayling. But here, within HM Prison Liverpool, Timpson has been working
:08:37. > :08:40.since 2009 with chosen offenders to offer training and the chance of a
:08:41. > :08:45.job. Before you ask, they do not teach them keep cutting in a
:08:46. > :08:48.category B prison. The Academy is deliberately meant to look like a
:08:49. > :08:54.company store, not a prison. It helps. You forget where you are at
:08:55. > :08:59.times, it feels weird, going back to a wing at the end of the day. It is
:09:00. > :09:06.different. A different atmosphere. That is why people like it. Timpson
:09:07. > :09:10.have six academies in prisons, training prisoners inside, and
:09:11. > :09:15.outside they offer jobs to ex-offenders, who make up 8% of
:09:16. > :09:20.their staff. It has been hard work persuading some governors that such
:09:21. > :09:24.cooperation can work. I have seen a dramatic change positively, working
:09:25. > :09:32.with prisoners, particularly in the last five years. They understand now
:09:33. > :09:36.what business's expectation is. Timpson do not just employ
:09:37. > :09:41.offenders, but as one ex-prisoner released in February and now
:09:42. > :09:47.managing his own store says, the point is many others will not employ
:09:48. > :09:51.offenders at all. From what I have experienced, on one hand, you have
:09:52. > :09:55.somebody with a criminal conviction, on the other, somebody who does not
:09:56. > :10:00.have one, so it is a case of favouring those who have a clean
:10:01. > :10:05.record. Anybody with a criminal conviction is passed to one side and
:10:06. > :10:09.overlooked. That, amongst myriad other changes to prison and how we
:10:10. > :10:14.deal with prisoners, is on the desk of the man at the top. Ever since
:10:15. > :10:18.Chris Grayling became Secretary of State for Justice, he has wanted to
:10:19. > :10:22.signal a change of direction of policy, and he is in a hurry to make
:10:23. > :10:26.radical reforms across the board, from size and types of prisons to
:10:27. > :10:29.probation services, reoffending rates, legal aid services, and there
:10:30. > :10:33.has been opposition to that from groups who do not agree with him.
:10:34. > :10:37.But what might actually shackle him is none of that. It is the fact that
:10:38. > :10:42.he is in government with a party that does not always agree with him,
:10:43. > :10:44.he has to abide by the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights,
:10:45. > :10:51.and in those famous words, there is no money left. We would like to go
:10:52. > :10:56.further and faster. I would like him too, but we are where we are. If the
:10:57. > :10:59.Liberal Democrats want to be wiped out at the next election based on
:11:00. > :11:04.what they believe, that is fair enough. We accept there has to be
:11:05. > :11:13.savings, but there are areas where we feel that there is ideological
:11:14. > :11:17.driven policy-making going on, and privatising may not save any money
:11:18. > :11:23.at all, and so does not make any sense. The question is, we'll all of
:11:24. > :11:35.that means some of Chris Grayling's reforms need closer inspection?
:11:36. > :11:43.Chris Grayling joins me now. Welcome. We have a lot to cover If
:11:44. > :11:48.you get your way, your own personal way, will be next Tory manifesto
:11:49. > :11:51.promise to withdraw from the European Convention of human
:11:52. > :11:58.rights? It will contain a promise for radical changes. We have to
:11:59. > :12:05.curtail the role of the European court here, replace our human rights
:12:06. > :12:09.act from the late 1990s, make our Supreme Court our Supreme Court
:12:10. > :12:12.they can be no question of decisions over riding it elsewhere, and we
:12:13. > :12:18.have to have a situation where our laws contain a balance of rights and
:12:19. > :12:21.responsibilities. People talk about knowing their rights, but they do
:12:22. > :12:28.not accept they have responsible it is. This is what you said last
:12:29. > :12:37.September, I want to see our Supreme Court being supreme again... That is
:12:38. > :12:41.clear, but let's be honest, the Supreme Court cannot be supreme as
:12:42. > :12:44.long as its decisions can be referred to the European Court in
:12:45. > :12:52.Strasbourg. There is clearly an issue, that was raised recency -
:12:53. > :12:54.recently. We have been working on a detailed reform plan, we will
:12:55. > :12:59.publish that in the not too distant future. What we will set out is a
:13:00. > :13:04.direction of travel for a new Conservative government that will
:13:05. > :13:07.mean wholesale change in this area. You already tried to reform the
:13:08. > :13:14.European Court, who had this declaration in 2012, do you accept
:13:15. > :13:19.that the reform is off the table? There is still a process of reform,
:13:20. > :13:22.but it is not going fast enough and not delivering the kind of change we
:13:23. > :13:25.need. That is why we will bring forward a package that for the
:13:26. > :13:30.different from that and will set a different direction of travel. We
:13:31. > :13:35.are clear across the coalition, we have a different view from our
:13:36. > :13:42.colleagues. You cannot be half pregnant on this, either our
:13:43. > :13:46.decisions from our Supreme Court are subject to the European Cup or not,
:13:47. > :13:50.in which case, we are not part of the European court. I hope you will
:13:51. > :13:53.see from our proposals we have come up with a sensible strategy that
:13:54. > :13:59.deals with this issue once and for all. Can we be part of the
:14:00. > :14:04.Strasbourg court and yet our Supreme Court be supreme? That is by point,
:14:05. > :14:09.we have to curtail the role of the court in the UK. I am clear that is
:14:10. > :14:15.what we will seek to do. It is what we will do for this country. But
:14:16. > :14:19.how? I am not going to announce the package of policies today, but we
:14:20. > :14:22.will go into the next election with a clear strategy that will curtail
:14:23. > :14:29.the role of the European Court of Human Rights in the UK. The
:14:30. > :14:34.decisions have to be taken in Parliament in this country. Are you
:14:35. > :14:35.sure that you have got your own side on this? Look at what the Attorney
:14:36. > :15:01.General says. I would be asking Strasberg a
:15:02. > :15:07.different question to that. If the best in class, he is saying is
:15:08. > :15:11.enough is enough, actually somebody in Strasberg should be asking if
:15:12. > :15:16.this has gone the way it should have done. I would love to see wholesale
:15:17. > :15:19.reform in the court tomorrow, I m not sure it is going to happen which
:15:20. > :15:27.is why we are going to the election with a clear plan for this country.
:15:28. > :15:31.Would you want that to be a red line in any coalition agreement? My
:15:32. > :15:37.mission is to win the next election with a majority. But you have to say
:15:38. > :15:42.where your red lines would be. We have been very clear it is an area
:15:43. > :15:47.where we don't agree as parties but in my view the public in this
:15:48. > :15:51.country are overwhelmingly behind the Conservative party. 95
:15:52. > :15:56.Conservative MPs have written to the Prime Minister, demanding he gives
:15:57. > :16:00.the House of Commons the authority to veto any aspect of European Union
:16:01. > :16:06.law. Are you one of the people who wanted to sign that letter but you
:16:07. > :16:11.couldn't because you are minister? I haven't been asked to sign the
:16:12. > :16:23.letter. We need a red card system for European law. I'm not convinced
:16:24. > :16:28.my colleagues... I don't think it is realistic to have a situation where
:16:29. > :16:32.one parliament can veto laws across the European Union. I understand the
:16:33. > :16:39.concerns of my colleagues, but when we set out to renegotiate our
:16:40. > :16:42.membership, we have got to deliver renegotiation and deliver a system
:16:43. > :16:45.which is viable, and I'm not convinced we can have a situation
:16:46. > :16:51.where one Parliament can prevent laws across the whole European
:16:52. > :17:00.Union. So you wouldn't have signed this letter? I'm not sure it is the
:17:01. > :17:04.right approach. I support the system I just talked about. Iain Duncan
:17:05. > :17:08.Smith has suggested EU migrants coming to work in this country
:17:09. > :17:15.should have to wait for two years before they qualify for welfare
:17:16. > :17:20.benefits, do you agree? Yes, I think there should be an assumption that
:17:21. > :17:24.before you can move from one country to another, before you can start to
:17:25. > :17:30.take back from that country's social welfare system, you should have made
:17:31. > :17:33.a contribution to it. I spent two and a half years working in Brussels
:17:34. > :17:38.trying to get the European Commission to accept the need for
:17:39. > :17:42.change. There is a groundswell of opinion out there which is behind
:17:43. > :17:46.Iain Duncan Smith in what he is saying. I think we should push for a
:17:47. > :17:51.clear system that says people should be able to move from one country to
:17:52. > :17:59.get a job, but to move to another country to live off the state is not
:18:00. > :18:05.acceptable. You are planning a new 2000 capacity mega prison and other
:18:06. > :18:10.smaller presence which will be run by private firms. After what has
:18:11. > :18:15.happened with G4S, why would you do that? No decision has been made
:18:16. > :18:23.about whether it will be public or private. What do you think it will
:18:24. > :18:28.be? I'm not sure yet. There is no clear correlation over public and
:18:29. > :18:34.private prisons and whether there are problems or otherwise. Oakwood
:18:35. > :18:37.is in its early stages, it has had teething problems at the start, but
:18:38. > :18:45.the rate of disturbance there is only typical for an average prison
:18:46. > :18:50.of its category. If you take an example of Parc prison in Wales a
:18:51. > :18:56.big private run prison, run by G4S, when it was first launched under the
:18:57. > :19:01.last government it had teething problems of the same kind as Oakwood
:19:02. > :19:06.and is now regarded as one of the best performing prisons. Why would
:19:07. > :19:12.you give it to a private company then? We have only just got planning
:19:13. > :19:18.permission for the so we will not be thinking about this for another few
:19:19. > :19:24.years. Some of the companies who run prisons are under investigation with
:19:25. > :19:29.dreadful track records. In the case of G4S, what we have experienced is
:19:30. > :19:33.acceptable and they have not been able to go ahead with a number of
:19:34. > :19:40.contracts they might have otherwise got. They are having to prove to the
:19:41. > :19:44.Government they are fit to win contracts from the Government again.
:19:45. > :19:49.They are having to pay compensation to the Government and the taxpayer.
:19:50. > :19:56.What has happened is unacceptable. So why would you give them a 20 0
:19:57. > :20:07.capacity mega prison? Or anyone like them? It cannot be said that every
:20:08. > :20:10.private company is bad. In addition to problems at Oakwood, you are
:20:11. > :20:15.quite unique now in your position that you have managed to get the
:20:16. > :20:22.barristers out on strike the first time since history began. What
:20:23. > :20:27.happens if the bar refuses to do work at your new rates of legal aid
:20:28. > :20:32.and the courts grind to a halt? I don't believe that will happen. When
:20:33. > :20:37.the barristers came out on strike, three quarters of Crown Courts were
:20:38. > :20:42.operating normally, 95% of magistrates courts were operating
:20:43. > :20:46.normally. We are having to take difficult decisions across
:20:47. > :20:50.government, I have no desire to cut back lately but we are spending over
:20:51. > :20:55.?2 billion on legal aid at the moment at a time when budgets are
:20:56. > :21:02.becoming tougher. You issued misleading figures about criminal
:21:03. > :21:08.barristers, you said that 25% of them earn over ?100,000 per year but
:21:09. > :21:14.that is their turnover, including VAT. 33% of that money goes on their
:21:15. > :21:19.expenses, they have to pay for their own pensions and insurance. People
:21:20. > :21:26.are not getting wealthy out of doing this work. I don't publish figures,
:21:27. > :21:30.our statisticians do, with caveats in place explaining the situation.
:21:31. > :21:35.Where you have high-cost cases, where we have taken the most
:21:36. > :21:39.difficult decisions, we have tried hard in taking difficult decisions
:21:40. > :21:50.to focus the impact higher up the income scale. But do you accept
:21:51. > :21:55.their take-home pay is not 100, 00? I accept they have to take out other
:21:56. > :21:58.costs, although some things like travelling to the court, you and I
:21:59. > :22:10.and everyone else has to pay for travelling to work. That is net of
:22:11. > :22:16.VAT. We have had a variety of figures published, some are and some
:22:17. > :22:23.are not. Let's be clear, the gross figures for fees from legal payments
:22:24. > :22:29.include 20% VAT. On a week when even a cabinet minister can be fitted up
:22:30. > :22:35.by the police, don't we all need well-financed legal aid? There is no
:22:36. > :22:39.chance that as a result well-financed legal aid? There is no
:22:40. > :22:51.changes people will end up in court unable to defend themselves. We have
:22:52. > :22:56.said in exceptional circumstances, if you haven't got any money to pay,
:22:57. > :23:00.we will support you, but there is no question of anyone ended up in
:23:01. > :23:06.court, facing a criminal charge where they haven't got a lawyer to
:23:07. > :23:10.defend them. Let's look at how so many dangerous criminals have
:23:11. > :23:16.managed to avoid jail. Here are the figures for 2012. Half the people
:23:17. > :23:28.for sexual assault found guilty not jailed. I thought you were meant to
:23:29. > :23:33.be tough on crime? Those figures predate my time, but since 2010 the
:23:34. > :23:39.number of those people going to jail has been increasing steadily. If you
:23:40. > :23:43.put the figures for 2010 on there, you would see a significant change.
:23:44. > :23:49.We will never be in a position where everybody who commits violence will
:23:50. > :23:52.end up in jail. The courts will often decided to his more
:23:53. > :23:57.appropriate to give a community sentence, but the trend is towards
:23:58. > :24:02.longer sentences and more people going to jail. That maybe but it is
:24:03. > :24:09.even quite hard to get sent to jail if you do these things a lot, again
:24:10. > :24:14.and again. In 2012 one criminal avoided being sent to jail despite
:24:15. > :24:23.having more than 300 offences to his name. 36,000 avoided going to jail
:24:24. > :24:27.despite 15 previous offences. That is why we are taking steps to
:24:28. > :24:34.toughen up the system. Last autumn we scrapped repeat cautions. You
:24:35. > :24:39.could find people getting dozens. As of last autumn, we have scrapped
:24:40. > :24:44.repeat cautions. If you commit the same offence twice within a two year
:24:45. > :24:50.period you will go to court. You still might end up not going to
:24:51. > :24:57.jail. More and more people are going to jail. I cannot just magic another
:24:58. > :25:03.34,000 prison places. You haven t got room to put bad people in jail?
:25:04. > :25:08.The courts will take the decisions, and it is for them to take the
:25:09. > :25:14.decisions and not me, that two men in a bar fight do not merit a jail
:25:15. > :25:20.sentence. These figures contain a huge amount of offences from the
:25:21. > :25:24.most minor of offences to the most despicable. Something is wrong if
:25:25. > :25:29.you can commit 300 offences and still not end up in jail. That's
:25:30. > :25:37.right, and we are taking steps so this cannot happen any more. Nick
:25:38. > :25:44.Clegg said this morning you are going to make 12 billion of welfare
:25:45. > :25:49.cuts on the back of this, he is right, isn't he? People on the
:25:50. > :25:58.lowest incomes are often not paying tax at all, the rich... But these
:25:59. > :26:03.cuts will fall disproportionately on average earners, correct? Let's look
:26:04. > :26:11.at the proposal to limit housing benefit for under 25s. Until today,
:26:12. > :26:16.after people have left school or college, the live for a time with
:26:17. > :26:20.their parents. For some, that is not possible and we will have to take
:26:21. > :26:24.that into account, but we have said there is a strong case for saying
:26:25. > :26:30.you will not get housing benefit until you are some years down the
:26:31. > :26:32.road and have properly established yourselves in work. And by
:26:33. > :26:41.definition these people are on lower than average salaries. Give me a
:26:42. > :26:46.case in which those on the higher tax band will contribute to the
:26:47. > :26:51.cuts. We have already put in place tax changes so that the highest tax
:26:52. > :26:59.rate is already higher than it was in every year of the last
:27:00. > :27:05.government. The amount of tax.. There is no more expected of the
:27:06. > :27:08.rich. We will clearly look at future policy and work out how best to
:27:09. > :27:13.distribute the tax burden in this country and it is not for me to
:27:14. > :27:19.second-guess George Osborne's future plans, but we need to look at for
:27:20. > :27:26.example housing benefit for the under 25s. Is it right for those who
:27:27. > :27:31.are not working for the state to provide accommodation for them?
:27:32. > :27:34.Thank you for being with us. All three major parties at
:27:35. > :27:36.Westminster agree there's an urgent need to build more homes for
:27:37. > :27:40.Britain's growing population. But how they get built, and where, looks
:27:41. > :27:42.set to become a major battle ground in the run-up to the next general
:27:43. > :27:44.election. Although 16% more house-builds were
:27:45. > :27:48.started in 2012/13 than the previous year, the number actually completed
:27:49. > :27:55.fell by 8% - the lowest level in peacetime since 1920. The Office for
:27:56. > :27:58.National Statistics estimates that between now and 2021 we should
:27:59. > :28:05.expect 220,000 new households to be created every year. At his party's
:28:06. > :28:12.conference last autumn, Ed Miliband promised a Labour government would
:28:13. > :28:17.massively increase house-building. I will have a clear aim but by the end
:28:18. > :28:22.of the parliament, Britain will be building 200,000 homes per year
:28:23. > :28:26.more than at any time for a generation. That is how we make
:28:27. > :28:29.Britain better than this. The Labour leader also says he'd give urban
:28:30. > :28:32.councils a "right to grow" so rural neighbours can't block expansion and
:28:33. > :28:37.force developers with unused land to use it or lose it. The Government
:28:38. > :28:40.has been pursuing its own ideas including loan guarantees for
:28:41. > :28:44.developers and a new homes bonus to boost new house-building. But David
:28:45. > :28:47.Cameron could have trouble keeping his supporters on side - this week
:28:48. > :28:49.the senior backbencher Nadhim Zahawi criticised planning reforms for
:28:50. > :28:56.causing "physical harm" to the countryside. Nick Clegg meanwhile
:28:57. > :29:11.prefers a radical solution - brand new garden cities in the south east
:29:12. > :29:13.of England. In a speech tomorrow, Labour's shadow housing minister
:29:14. > :29:16.Emma Reynolds will give more details of how Labour would boost
:29:17. > :29:21.house-building, and she joins me now. It is not the politicians to
:29:22. > :29:26.blame, it is the lack of house-builders? We want a vibrant
:29:27. > :29:31.building industry, and at the moment that industry is dominated by big
:29:32. > :29:34.house-builders. I want to see a more diverse and competitive industry,
:29:35. > :29:42.where self build plays a greater role. In France over 60% of new
:29:43. > :29:48.homes are built by self builders, but small builders build more homes
:29:49. > :29:52.as well. 25 years ago they were building two thirds of new homes,
:29:53. > :29:56.now they are not building even a third of new homes. That's because
:29:57. > :29:59.land policies have been so restrictive that it is only the big
:30:00. > :30:04.companies who can afford to buy the land, so little land is being
:30:05. > :30:08.released for house building. I agree, there are some fundamental
:30:09. > :30:12.structural problems with the land market and that is why we have said
:30:13. > :30:16.there doesn't just need to be tinkering around the edges, there
:30:17. > :30:21.needs to be real reforms to make sure that small builders and self
:30:22. > :30:26.build and custom-built have access to land. They are saying they have
:30:27. > :30:32.problems with access to land and finance. At the end of the day it
:30:33. > :30:38.will not be self, small builders who reach your target, it will be big
:30:39. > :30:42.builders. I think it is pretty shameful that in Western Europe the
:30:43. > :30:50.new houses built in the UK are smaller than our neighbours. But
:30:51. > :30:54.isn't not the land problem? France is 2.8 times bigger in land mass and
:30:55. > :31:03.we are and that is not a problem for them. There is a perception we are
:31:04. > :31:08.going to build on the countryside, but not even 10% is on the
:31:09. > :31:16.countryside. There is enough for us to have our golf courses. There is
:31:17. > :31:21.enough other land for us to build on that is not golf courses. The
:31:22. > :31:25.planning minister has said he wants to build our National Parks, I am
:31:26. > :31:31.not suggesting that. The single biggest land border is the public
:31:32. > :31:35.sector. It is not. There are great opportunities for releasing public
:31:36. > :31:40.land, that is why I have been asking the government, they say they are
:31:41. > :31:44.going to release and of public land for tens of thousands of new homes
:31:45. > :31:49.to be built, but they say they are not monitoring how many houses are
:31:50. > :31:56.being built on the site. When your leader says to landowners, housing
:31:57. > :32:02.development owners, either use the land or lose it, in what way will
:32:03. > :32:07.they lose it? Will you confiscated? This is about strengthening the hand
:32:08. > :32:11.of local authorities, and they say to us that in some cases,
:32:12. > :32:15.house-builders are sitting on land. In those cases, we would give the
:32:16. > :32:22.power to local authorities to escalate fees. This would be the
:32:23. > :32:26.compulsory purchase orders, a matter of last resort, and you would hope
:32:27. > :32:34.that by strengthening the hand of local authorities, you could get the
:32:35. > :32:40.house-builders to start building the homes that people want. Would you
:32:41. > :32:45.compulsory purchase it? We would give the local authority as a last
:32:46. > :32:49.resort, after escalating the fees, the possibility and flexible it is
:32:50. > :32:52.to use the compulsory purchase orders to sell the land on to a
:32:53. > :32:57.house builder who wants to build houses that we need. Can you name
:32:58. > :33:00.one report that has come back in recent years that shows that
:33:01. > :33:05.hoarding of land by house-builders is a major problem? The IMF, the
:33:06. > :33:08.Conservative mayor of London and the Local Government Association are
:33:09. > :33:12.telling us that there is a problem with land hoarding. Therefore, we
:33:13. > :33:17.have said, where there is land with planning permission, and if plots
:33:18. > :33:23.are being sat on... Boris Johnson says there are 180,000 plots in
:33:24. > :33:30.London being sat on. We need to make sure the house-builders are building
:33:31. > :33:33.the homes that young families need. They get planning permission and
:33:34. > :33:37.sell it on to the developer. There is a whole degree of complicity but
:33:38. > :33:42.there is another problem before that. That is around transparency
:33:43. > :33:46.about land options. There is agricultural land that
:33:47. > :33:53.house-builders have land options on, and we do not know where that is.
:33:54. > :33:59.Where there is a need for housing, and the biggest demand is in the
:34:00. > :34:04.south-east of England, that is where many local authorities are most
:34:05. > :34:07.reluctant to do it, will you in central government take powers to
:34:08. > :34:15.force these authorities to give it? We have talked about the right to
:34:16. > :34:22.grow, we were in Stevenage recently. What we have said is we
:34:23. > :34:25.want to strengthen the hand of local authorities like Stevenage so they
:34:26. > :34:31.are not blocked every step of the way. They need 16,000 new homes but
:34:32. > :34:35.they do not have the land supply. What about the authorities that do
:34:36. > :34:39.not want to do it? They should be forced to sit down and agree with
:34:40. > :34:43.the neighbouring authority. In Stevenage, it is estimated at
:34:44. > :34:46.?500,000 has been spent on legal fees because North Hertfordshire is
:34:47. > :34:53.blocking Stevenage every step of the way. Michael Lyons says the national
:34:54. > :35:00.interest will have to take President over local interest. Voice cannot
:35:01. > :35:05.mean a veto. The local community in Stevenage is crying out for new
:35:06. > :35:09.homes. Do you agree? There has to be land available for new homes to be
:35:10. > :35:14.built, and in areas like Oxford, Luton and Stevenage... Do you agree
:35:15. > :35:36.with Michael Lyons? The national interest does have to be served,
:35:37. > :35:42.will put the five new towns? We have asked him to look at how we can
:35:43. > :35:47.incentivise local authorities to come forward with sites for new
:35:48. > :35:52.towns. You cannot tell us where they are going to be? I cannot. We will
:35:53. > :35:58.have to wait for him. When you look at the historic figures overall, not
:35:59. > :36:01.at the moment, Private Housing building is only just beginning to
:36:02. > :36:04.recover, but it has been pretty steady for a while. The big
:36:05. > :36:09.difference between house-building now and in the past, since Mrs
:36:10. > :36:12.Thatcher came to power a and including the Tony Blair government,
:36:13. > :36:17.we did not build council houses. Almost none. Will the next Labour
:36:18. > :36:24.government embark on a major council has programme? We inherited housing
:36:25. > :36:30.stock back in 1997... This is important. Will the next Labour
:36:31. > :36:34.government embark on a major council has programme? We have called on
:36:35. > :36:38.this government to bring forward investment in social housing. We
:36:39. > :36:43.want to see an investment programme in social housing, I cannot give you
:36:44. > :36:48.the figures now. We are 18 months away from the election. Will the
:36:49. > :36:53.next Labour government embark on a major council house Northern
:36:54. > :36:56.programme? I want to see a council house building programme, because
:36:57. > :37:05.there is a big shortage of council homes. That is a guess? Yes. We got
:37:06. > :37:12.there in the end. -- that is a yes? We will be talking to Patrick homes
:37:13. > :37:15.in the West Midlands in a moment. You are watching the Sunday
:37:16. > :37:20.Politics. Coming up in just over 20 minutes, I will look at the week
:37:21. > :37:27.ahead with our political panel and Jacob
:37:28. > :37:32.Welcome to Sunday Politics South. My name's Peter Henley. On today's show
:37:33. > :37:37.it's been water, water everywhere this week. But why do so many places
:37:38. > :37:40.keep on flooding? Is the Environment Agency getting the funds it needs
:37:41. > :37:44.for flood prevention, and are councils being properly compensated
:37:45. > :37:48.for clearing up the aftermath? More on that in a moment. First, let's
:37:49. > :37:50.meet our two guests of the day. Rowenna Davis is Labour's 2015
:37:51. > :37:54.parliamentary candidate for Southampton Itchen. Chris Chope is
:37:55. > :38:05.the Conservative MP for Christchurch. You were campaigning
:38:06. > :38:13.on rail fares this week, Rowenna Davis, saying it costs ?5,000 a
:38:14. > :38:19.season ticket, do you say the increase is unreasonable? The price
:38:20. > :38:25.is already too high for people in Southampton and the South East.
:38:26. > :38:31.?5,200 to go to London for an annual ticket. What it means to many people
:38:32. > :38:35.we spoke to is they cannot afford to continue working in the capital or
:38:36. > :38:38.not looking for jobs there in the first place, which is bad for the
:38:39. > :38:42.economy because people cannot take the work that is there and it is bad
:38:43. > :38:48.for individual suffering already with the high cost of living. The
:38:49. > :38:52.coalition have realised this is a problem because they capped
:38:53. > :38:57.increases? They capped some of them so they would not go up as much as
:38:58. > :39:03.otherwise would have been. It is holding the economy back, huge fare
:39:04. > :39:08.rises? Who else will pay? We need to invest in the railway. People look
:39:09. > :39:14.at the improvements between Southampton and London, they are
:39:15. > :39:18.amazing, compared to when I went to Parkway station. It is an enormous
:39:19. > :39:22.station with massive investment and likewise the rolling stock. The
:39:23. > :39:31.question is, who will pay for it? The people he use the railways were
:39:32. > :39:36.smacked the people who are not? 1990, when Chris Chope was transport
:39:37. > :39:39.Minister, John Prescott grumbled in the House of Commons that the cost
:39:40. > :39:48.of a standard return ticket from London to Brighton had gone from 565
:39:49. > :39:58.up to ?16 20 in 1990, compared to the first in 1978. ?16 20 in 1990.
:39:59. > :40:04.It must be about ?30 now. But, for 20p more, you can get the off`peak
:40:05. > :40:09.return which is ?16 40. Flexible fares? If we talk about the problem
:40:10. > :40:14.of people not being able to work, those off`peak tickets are not
:40:15. > :40:19.available to those working. We were told that privatisation would bring
:40:20. > :40:23.prices down and they never have. And we still have companies making
:40:24. > :40:28.millions and expecting to make more profits this year if you look at the
:40:29. > :40:31.South West trains report. That is unacceptable when people are
:40:32. > :40:36.suffering and the economy is suffering. Why should commuters pay
:40:37. > :40:44.for this only? We all want good railways. Likewise, why should we
:40:45. > :40:50.pay for the roads? Why should it just be rail users who are
:40:51. > :40:54.privileged. You may be forgiven this week to feel it has been chucking it
:40:55. > :40:59.down for 40 days and 40 nights already. It has seemed like an
:41:00. > :41:02.endless cycle of high winds, high tides and rising floodwaters. And as
:41:03. > :41:06.our Oxford political reporter Helen Catt now reports, there's hardly a
:41:07. > :41:12.place in our region that has escaped a soaking.
:41:13. > :41:19.It started with high winds and waves battering our stretch of the coast.
:41:20. > :41:24.In Dorset, this home Park was evacuated for the second time in a
:41:25. > :41:29.fortnight and the residents' plight was mentioned in the House of
:41:30. > :41:33.Commons by a Bournemouth MP. Given the changing weather patterns, what
:41:34. > :41:40.more could be done in the long term towards improved river and sea
:41:41. > :41:44.defences? As my honourable friend knows in Bournemouth and Dorset we
:41:45. > :41:51.had 290 homes flooded. I agree with him that the worst `` the work of
:41:52. > :41:54.the emergency services and Environment Agency has been
:41:55. > :41:59.excellent. Local authorities have had good plans and put them into
:42:00. > :42:03.place competently, but not every local authority does as well and
:42:04. > :42:08.lessons will be learned. In Christchurch, it was a similar
:42:09. > :42:12.story. The properties may become impossible to live in. People might
:42:13. > :42:17.be thrown out of their homes. Many of the residents are elderly. It
:42:18. > :42:22.might fall to the local council to house these people, maybe at
:42:23. > :42:27.considerable cost. Inland, the rain kept falling and the water kept
:42:28. > :42:32.rising, and even getting to the shops was a major effort. The
:42:33. > :42:36.majority of houses on this stretch of the River Thames are adapted to
:42:37. > :42:40.cope with something like these conditions, they are raised on
:42:41. > :42:46.stilts. For those that are not, this is a disaster. Just getting in and
:42:47. > :42:51.out. The currents are pulling along the road and getting dangerous you
:42:52. > :42:56.feel that you will get swept over. In Purley near Reading there was
:42:57. > :43:00.anger as residents used paddle power to get around. Promised work on
:43:01. > :43:06.flood defences which they say could have saved houses has not been done.
:43:07. > :43:12.It is precarious, but it seems to be levelling out. We have been worried.
:43:13. > :43:17.How about getting to school? This is the first day trying to get them
:43:18. > :43:21.out. We did not have the boat before. As the week closed, concern
:43:22. > :43:29.was on the River Thames South of Oxford, where two people died. Seven
:43:30. > :43:33.days of alerts, warnings and severe warnings have left councils, the
:43:34. > :43:36.Environment Agency and home owners contemplating the cost of that
:43:37. > :43:40.water. Joining me now is a member of the
:43:41. > :43:50.Loddon Valley Residents' Association. Long Valley is working.
:43:51. > :43:58.How has it been? It has been terrible, but we were fortunate ``
:43:59. > :44:02.Lord and Valley. It is not as bad as 2007, but it has been hairy for
:44:03. > :44:09.people over the Christmas period with people woken up at 5:30am, with
:44:10. > :44:13.a warning saying water was coming there day and spending Christmas Day
:44:14. > :44:21.worrying about whether the house would remain dry. The report from
:44:22. > :44:27.2007 when we had a lot of flooding, it said warnings were important,
:44:28. > :44:29.have they been better? In principle, warnings are fantastic because it
:44:30. > :44:35.allows people to protect their property. Not once the warnings have
:44:36. > :44:40.happened and the floodwaters have abated, you have people who have
:44:41. > :44:47.their lives decimated, trying to put it back together. So having the
:44:48. > :44:53.upfront stuff is fantastic, it is what happens afterwards that is the
:44:54. > :44:57.problem, having things in place which might prevent flooding in
:44:58. > :45:00.future, maintenance, those things. We heard about people getting
:45:01. > :45:06.together to get diggers to clear culverts. Is it self`help that is
:45:07. > :45:12.important in this situation, with help from the experts, or are there
:45:13. > :45:17.people who cannot do things? It is a mix. We have a group in Swallowfield
:45:18. > :45:23.who are fantastic in doing self`help. It is not always the
:45:24. > :45:28.case, and not always safe to do that. Often, it is expertise.
:45:29. > :45:35.Self`help might be putting up a barrier, but where does the water go
:45:36. > :45:40.if you do? You could cause problems downstream. And it is so
:45:41. > :45:45.unpredictable. The experts look at it and you do not know if your
:45:46. > :45:50.individual house you may have bought recently is liable or not, do you
:45:51. > :45:55.think we need more information? Or do you just accept the rain will
:45:56. > :45:59.fall where it falls? We need to have the flood assets, more preparation,
:46:00. > :46:06.ditches, culverts, they have to be cleared. You have to make sure the
:46:07. > :46:10.river is maintained. You do not want points along the river occurring and
:46:11. > :46:17.spilling out the water. The key is preparation. What is your feeling
:46:18. > :46:24.about Environment Agency cuts? The cuts are worrying. I have had phone
:46:25. > :46:27.calls and conversations with residents who are worried. Going
:46:28. > :46:31.back to the river and the idea it has to be maintained to make sure it
:46:32. > :46:36.does not choke up and cause flooding, will the cuts impact
:46:37. > :46:40.that? Think of cuts with local authorities, who have to maintain
:46:41. > :46:44.flood assets, the being prepared type of thing which we are worrying
:46:45. > :46:53.about going. If you think further afield, you have hard engineering.
:46:54. > :46:57.Morpeth. The big capital investments. You will maintain that
:46:58. > :47:06.after the Environment Agency cuts? Thanks very much. Although heavy
:47:07. > :47:09.floods seem to be almost an annual event now, they are hardly something
:47:10. > :47:12.that anyone can budget for. So who exactly pays for the clear up?
:47:13. > :47:17.Here's Helen again. Local authorities often pick up the
:47:18. > :47:21.bill for dealing with this kind of unexpected event. There is a
:47:22. > :47:27.government programme to provide compensation that says that once a
:47:28. > :47:30.local authority has spent 0.2% of its annual budget on eligible
:47:31. > :47:35.mopping up arrangements, it will be reimbursed from central government.
:47:36. > :47:41.The government even has a table for how much authorities have dispensed
:47:42. > :47:45.before they trigger the grant, so in Bournemouth, if the council spends
:47:46. > :47:50.just over 400,000, it can claim of the extra and in West Berkshire it
:47:51. > :47:55.is the same. In Wiltshire, with the flooding around Salisbury, it is
:47:56. > :48:00.just over 1 million. Oxfordshire County Council, it is almost 1.5
:48:01. > :48:05.million. It is not all good news, the government only hands over 85%
:48:06. > :48:14.of what they say is eligible, so councils might have to dip into
:48:15. > :48:17.reserves kept for a rainy day. And thanks to all South Today
:48:18. > :48:20.viewers who provided those amazing photos. Joining us from our Oxford
:48:21. > :48:23.studio is Rodney Rose, who's the deputy leader of Oxfordshire County
:48:24. > :48:27.Council. Facing quite a clear`up bill from the looks of it. Are you
:48:28. > :48:30.going to have to pay for it out of that rainy`day money you have saved?
:48:31. > :48:34.We certainly are, the formula is totally unfair to big county council
:48:35. > :48:40.'s like us. It will not give you enough money? It will not give us
:48:41. > :48:46.any money, it did not in 2007, anyway. We have to get above the 1.5
:48:47. > :48:51.million which is extra spend on the emergency before we can claim. Do
:48:52. > :48:56.you feel it is a lottery because of the size of the authority, when
:48:57. > :49:01.others get help? The bigger problem is it is based on the revenue budget
:49:02. > :49:08.of the local authority. We have so many extra miles of river and road,
:49:09. > :49:12.but also we have bills such as 34 million for school transport, adult
:49:13. > :49:18.services and the children's budget, which create a cut`off point for
:49:19. > :49:21.this scheme. So you feel it is unfair in that some get help and you
:49:22. > :49:31.will not, but what would be a better way of doing it? I think it's
:49:32. > :49:37.somehow relates back to the number of people employed in the highways
:49:38. > :49:40.and local fire service, which in Oxfordshire is county council run,
:49:41. > :49:46.it should not relate to other budgets we are involved in. And
:49:47. > :49:50.places, such as Oxfordshire, which is more susceptible with the Thames
:49:51. > :49:54.Valley, to having these problems where other authorities might not
:49:55. > :49:58.have these issues? We have a longer length of the River Thames. We have
:49:59. > :50:04.3000 miles of roads which have problems with flooding and that adds
:50:05. > :50:07.to the cost. Coastal communities, Christchurch, Chris Chope, facing
:50:08. > :50:14.more problems with the high tides this time. Do you think there should
:50:15. > :50:18.be a better way of ensuring central government supports individual
:50:19. > :50:23.authorities? Nobody has found a better way than the formula. Which
:50:24. > :50:28.Rodney Rose says does not work. It might not work for him because he
:50:29. > :50:32.does not benefit, but it is an insurance policy with the government
:50:33. > :50:36.saying the national taxpayer will intervene if your losses are more
:50:37. > :50:42.than a particular percentage of the budget. If I have an insurance
:50:43. > :50:47.policy, I know what I will get for the premium. It is not quite the
:50:48. > :50:53.same, but there is no certainty. He knows that his outgoings will not be
:50:54. > :50:59.sufficient to qualify for the formula money, which shows that the
:51:00. > :51:05.costs in Oxfordshire as a percentage of the budget will be below the
:51:06. > :51:12.threshold. That seems, to me, a perfectly reasonable way of having a
:51:13. > :51:15.policy sharing expense sharing between national taxpayers and local
:51:16. > :51:24.taxpayers. That is what the formula was designed to achieve. Do you
:51:25. > :51:28.think it is working? Know, and it does not deal with preventative work
:51:29. > :51:32.the local authorities have to do `` no. It is about clearing up the mess
:51:33. > :51:36.and national government has an incentive to get involved if a local
:51:37. > :51:41.region is effective because press attention is there and they need to
:51:42. > :51:45.be seen to be doing something. But more dangerously, they are removing
:51:46. > :51:49.the preventative work and we know about the cuts to the Environment
:51:50. > :51:55.Agency and job cuts, and that is doing damage to particular areas. If
:51:56. > :51:59.I take Southhampton, it would be fantastic if we could develop the
:52:00. > :52:04.west side of the river itching, which is honourable to flooding, but
:52:05. > :52:09.we cannot do it because the money for flood defences has not been put
:52:10. > :52:12.in place and as a result the investment and insurance costs are
:52:13. > :52:17.too high for businesses and local people lose out on jobs and homes.
:52:18. > :52:21.Are there things you would like to do in Oxfordshire that you do not
:52:22. > :52:28.get money for? More important is stopping gridlock in the city, when
:52:29. > :52:33.roots in our blocked due to flooding, which leaves me trying to
:52:34. > :52:37.find 120 million, one scheme in mind, and I do not know with deficit
:52:38. > :52:43.reduction where the money is coming from. For the tax payer, it makes
:52:44. > :52:47.economic sense to put this investment in, because there are not
:52:48. > :52:53.the costs of the community has to bear? Yes I would not like to think
:52:54. > :52:57.of the economic cost to Oxford city in the past days. That is something
:52:58. > :53:03.we have to face and we have to raise that money, and at the moment, and I
:53:04. > :53:13.certainly support deficit reduction, but we have to keep those aspects of
:53:14. > :53:17.public spending going. And you can see more on how the floods have hit
:53:18. > :53:20.the South in tomorrow night's Inside Out on BBC One at 7:30pm, including
:53:21. > :53:24.Jon Cuthill making milk deliveries in a kayak to cut off households.
:53:25. > :53:28.The Prime Minister began the New Year with a trip to the South Coast.
:53:29. > :53:31.He came to promote the Help To Buy scheme, but his visit included a
:53:32. > :53:33.photocall that some felt had rather backfired.
:53:34. > :53:38.Sharon was the 30`year`old single mother chosen for David Cameron to
:53:39. > :53:44.visit. Just before Christmas she exchanged contracts on a ?135,000
:53:45. > :53:48.two`bedroom flat in Southhampton. We are not helping people to buy homes
:53:49. > :53:53.they cannot afford, we help people who do not have wealthy parents that
:53:54. > :53:57.cannot get a big deposit together, and we are helping them to realise
:53:58. > :54:02.their dreams, which is good for them and the economy. I would not have
:54:03. > :54:09.been able to afford childcare and to save at the same time, so it has
:54:10. > :54:14.helps me to get onto the ladder. Sharon's two`year`old was on hand as
:54:15. > :54:20.David Cameron had a tour, standard publicity stuff, even the pose with
:54:21. > :54:24.a cup of tea. But press coverage and online comments made huge play of
:54:25. > :54:29.personal details picked up from Sharon's Twitter account, that she
:54:30. > :54:33.had bought a BMW convertible and was sales director of the estate agency
:54:34. > :54:40.that sold the flat. It became a witchhunt. People were
:54:41. > :54:44.saying this is an estate agent, why does she deserve... She has a flash
:54:45. > :54:51.car, why do she have help from the scheme? I do not want to continue
:54:52. > :54:55.the victimisation of her and it really was, I think she has recently
:54:56. > :54:59.divorced and has gone through a lot and seems to work hard, and she was
:55:00. > :55:05.not deserving of that criticism because she was picking up on the
:55:06. > :55:09.policy available to her, she was not breaking rules. There might be a
:55:10. > :55:15.deeper question about the nature of the policy and who it is open to,
:55:16. > :55:21.but that is the government's responsibility. Do you think she
:55:22. > :55:25.should get help with her mortgage? I am saying nobody should blame her
:55:26. > :55:31.for applying for a benefit open to her. She did not break any rules.
:55:32. > :55:36.What I have concerns about is the policy itself, and why it is open to
:55:37. > :55:42.those people. We know it is open to buying houses up to ?600,000 in
:55:43. > :55:46.value, a huge amount. In Southhampton we have a waiting list
:55:47. > :55:55.of 14,004 council homes and it will never be open to those people to
:55:56. > :55:58.apply this scheme. It does nothing to solve the problem of a shortage
:55:59. > :56:05.of houses. If you want to tackle this, look at supply. Why does
:56:06. > :56:11.taxpayers' money goes to help people with decent incomes, rather than
:56:12. > :56:15.those suffering without appropriate housing? I would like to see a
:56:16. > :56:21.system that gets the housing market moving, which means reducing the tax
:56:22. > :56:27.on transactions. That is why I think it is better to invest in reducing
:56:28. > :56:35.stamp duty on all house purchases and sales in the lower range. Less
:56:36. > :56:40.than 600,000, presumably? That would help everybody and get the market
:56:41. > :56:45.moving. The trouble with this policy is that it picks a few winners and a
:56:46. > :56:51.lot of other people do not benefit. I have argued that levels of stamp
:56:52. > :56:54.duty are too high on relatively modest house purchase transactions
:56:55. > :56:59.and reducing that would be a better thing. Do you agree we need to get
:57:00. > :57:06.the market moving, not just those at the bottom, but to get confidence?
:57:07. > :57:12.This policy artificially inflate house prices and gives us another
:57:13. > :57:18.bubble when prices rose by 11% in Southhampton already, and it does
:57:19. > :57:22.not deal with supply. People build more houses. Prices are rising
:57:23. > :57:27.massively already. It only helps a small proportion of people. Do you
:57:28. > :57:33.think we will have a housing bubble? I hope we do not. There is a
:57:34. > :57:36.danger but I think the Chancellor is watching that. Now our regular
:57:37. > :57:52.round`up of the political week in the South in 60 seconds.
:57:53. > :57:58.Diving in the deep end. Portsmouth MP's political opponents thought she
:57:59. > :58:01.was in hot water after signing up for a reality TV programme splash.
:58:02. > :58:09.She said she gave the ?10,000 fee to charity. I work hard for Portsmouth,
:58:10. > :58:12.like me or loathe me. Too much water was the excuse of Gatwick for
:58:13. > :58:17.cancelling flights on Christmas Eve, telling MPs that flooding led
:58:18. > :58:21.to power cuts and police were called to call order. The chief constable
:58:22. > :58:26.of the Thames Valley said they were not fiddling crime figures. We need
:58:27. > :58:31.the public to trust the police to tell the truth. Criminal lawyers in
:58:32. > :58:38.Oxford protested about plans to cut legal aid, with fees potentially
:58:39. > :58:43.being cut by 30%. The unions at Bournemouth University are insulted
:58:44. > :58:50.by a 19% increase in the Vice Chancellor's salary when staff who
:58:51. > :58:55.are teachers were offered a 1% rise. A variation on who is getting an
:58:56. > :58:59.increase in salary and most people are not. Lawyers getting less money,
:59:00. > :59:05.the legal aid budget, does that concern you? It is a serious
:59:06. > :59:09.concern. There are so many people who do not have access to justice
:59:10. > :59:15.because they feel they cannot afford it. The system must be based on the
:59:16. > :59:19.righteousness of your case and not power and I am worried that is no
:59:20. > :59:23.longer going to be happening. But when money is tight, surely saving
:59:24. > :59:28.money given to lawyers has to be a good thing? You have to make a
:59:29. > :59:32.distinction between legal aid lawyers who work for little money
:59:33. > :59:36.and lawyers who work in other sectors. To cut those who are giving
:59:37. > :59:44.up time for legal aid cases is criminal. You are a barrister. Have
:59:45. > :59:52.people always complained about the money available on legal aid? A cut
:59:53. > :59:59.of 30% seems huge. There is an issue about the quality of the advocacy.
:00:00. > :00:03.We have two encourage good quality advocates to litigate on behalf of
:00:04. > :00:07.the people. If we cut it too much, we might end up with inferior
:00:08. > :00:12.quality advocates which will have a knock`on effect in taking longer in
:00:13. > :00:18.court and be counter`productive, so I am sympathetic with the case. It
:00:19. > :00:19.is fantastic, he disagrees with the Conservative party on so much!
:00:20. > :00:25.That's the Sunday will not be revoked. And I wouldn't
:00:26. > :00:35.want it to go. Thank you, back to Andrew.
:00:36. > :00:40.Can David Cameron get his way on EU migration? Will he ever be able to
:00:41. > :00:49.satisfy his backbenchers on Europe? Is Ed Miliband trying to change the
:00:50. > :00:54.tone of PMQ 's? More questions for the week ahead.
:00:55. > :01:00.We are joined by Jacob Rees Mogg from his constituency in Somerset.
:01:01. > :01:06.Welcome to the programme. You one of the 95 Tory backbenchers who signed
:01:07. > :01:10.this letter? Suddenly. Laws should be made by our democratically
:01:11. > :01:18.elected representatives, not from Brussels. How could Europe work with
:01:19. > :01:28.a pick and mix in which each national parliament can decide what
:01:29. > :01:32.Brussels can be in charge of? The European Union is a supernatural
:01:33. > :01:34.body that is there for the cooperation amongst member states to
:01:35. > :01:41.do things that they jointly want to do. It ought not be there to force
:01:42. > :01:44.-- to enforce uniform rules on countries that do not want to
:01:45. > :01:50.participate. It is the vision of Europe that people joined when we
:01:51. > :01:55.signed up to it and came in in 973. It has accreted powers to itself
:01:56. > :02:00.without having the support of the public of the member states. This is
:02:01. > :02:05.just a way of preparing the ground for you to get out of Europe
:02:06. > :02:09.altogether, isn't it? I do not big so. There is a role for an
:02:10. > :02:12.organisation that does some coordination and that has trade
:02:13. > :02:19.agreements within it, I do not think there is a role for a federal state.
:02:20. > :02:23.Europe seems to be dominating the. I remember your leader telling you not
:02:24. > :02:27.to bang on about Europe, your backbench colleagues seem to have
:02:28. > :02:35.ignored that. Would you like to restrict the flow of EU migrants to
:02:36. > :02:39.come to work in this country? Yes. I think we should have control of our
:02:40. > :02:44.own borders, so we can decide who we want to admit for the whole world.
:02:45. > :02:49.What we have at the moment is a restrictive control of people coming
:02:50. > :02:52.from anywhere other than the EU There is a big decrease in the
:02:53. > :02:57.number of New Zealanders who came in the last quarter for which figures
:02:58. > :03:02.are available, but a huge increase in people coming from the continent.
:03:03. > :03:05.Does it really make sense to stop our second cousins coming so that we
:03:06. > :03:11.can allow people freely to come from the continent? I do not think so, we
:03:12. > :03:15.need to have domestic control of our borders in the interests of the
:03:16. > :03:18.United Kingdom. There are still lots more people coming from the rest of
:03:19. > :03:27.the world than from the European Union. That has been changing. But
:03:28. > :03:30.there are still more. A lot more. The permanent residence coming from
:03:31. > :03:37.the European Union are extremely high. In the period when the Labour
:03:38. > :03:42.Party was in charge, we had to put 5 million people coming here, of whom
:03:43. > :03:50.about 1 billion were from Poland. -- we had 2.5 million people coming
:03:51. > :03:54.here. We have no control over them. Like the clock behind you, you are
:03:55. > :03:58.behind the times on these figures. I have stopped the clock for your
:03:59. > :04:05.benefit, because it was going to chime otherwise! I thought that
:04:06. > :04:15.might be distracting! Only a Tory backbencher could stop a clock!
:04:16. > :04:20.Helen, when you at this up, it is preparing to get out, is it not We
:04:21. > :04:24.have had this one bill about a referendum that seems to have tied
:04:25. > :04:31.us up in knots for months on end. If Parliament could scrutinise every
:04:32. > :04:35.piece of EU legislation, we would never get anything else done. It
:04:36. > :04:40.would be incredible. Even Chris Grayling said earlier that you can
:04:41. > :04:46.not have a national veto on anything that the EU proposes. I am surprised
:04:47. > :04:50.that Jacob Rees Mogg is talking about dismantling one of Margaret
:04:51. > :04:56.Thatcher's most important legacies, the creation of the single market,
:04:57. > :04:59.and the person sent there to dream it up under Margaret Thatcher said
:05:00. > :05:03.the only way you can run this sensibly is by not having national
:05:04. > :05:07.vetoes, because if you have that, guess what will happen? The French
:05:08. > :05:12.will impose lots of protectionist measures. It was Margaret
:05:13. > :05:15.Thatcher's idea that national parliaments should never veto. How
:05:16. > :05:27.could you fly in the face of the lady? Even the great lady makes
:05:28. > :05:30.mistakes. Excuse me, Jacob Rees Mogg says even Margaret Thatcher makes
:05:31. > :05:36.mistakes! No wonder the clock has stopped! Even be near divine
:05:37. > :05:45.Margaret made a mistake! But on the single market, it has been used as
:05:46. > :05:48.an excuse for massive origination of domestic affairs. We should be
:05:49. > :05:52.interested in free trade in Europe and allowing people to export and
:05:53. > :05:57.import freely, not to have uniform regulations, as per the single
:05:58. > :06:02.market, because what that allows is thought unelected bureaucrats to
:06:03. > :06:06.determine the regular vision. We want the British people to decide
:06:07. > :06:10.the rules for themselves. If this makes the single market not work,
:06:11. > :06:16.that is not the problem, because we can still have free trade, which is
:06:17. > :06:22.more important. If David Cameron is watching this, I am sure he is, it
:06:23. > :06:27.will be nice for you to come on and give us an interview, he must be
:06:28. > :06:32.worried. He is beginning to think, I am losing control. It is a clever
:06:33. > :06:39.letter, the tone is ingratiating and pleasant, every time, you have stood
:06:40. > :06:42.up to Brussels, you have achieved something, but the content is
:06:43. > :06:47.dramatic. If you want Parliament to have a veto, you want to leave the
:06:48. > :06:52.EU, because the definition is accepting the primacy of European
:06:53. > :06:56.law. The MPs should be clear about that. It is almost a year since the
:06:57. > :07:01.Europe speech in which David Cameron committed to the referendum. The
:07:02. > :07:06.political objective was to put that issue to bed until the next
:07:07. > :07:11.election. It has failed. David Cameron is going to have to pull off
:07:12. > :07:14.a major miracle in any renegotiations to satisfy all of
:07:15. > :07:22.this. Yes, it makes me think how much luckier he has been in
:07:23. > :07:24.coalition with the Liberal Democrats, because there is a bit of
:07:25. > :07:29.the Tory party that is irreconcilable to what he wants to
:07:30. > :07:33.do. The Conservative MPs are making these demands just as David Cameron
:07:34. > :07:38.is seeing the debate goes his way in Europe. Angela Merkel has looked
:07:39. > :07:43.over the cliff and said, do I want the UK out? No, they are a
:07:44. > :07:48.counterbalance to France. France one the UK to leave, but they do not,
:07:49. > :07:54.because they do not want to lose the only realistic military power Tom
:07:55. > :07:59.other than themselves. Just when the debate is going David Cameron's way,
:08:00. > :08:05.Jacob Rees Mogg would take us out. Let me move on to another subject.
:08:06. > :08:10.That is nonsense. The debate is not beginning to go David Cameron's way.
:08:11. > :08:14.We are having before us on Monday a bill about European citizenship and
:08:15. > :08:21.spending British taxpayers money so that Europe can go and say we are
:08:22. > :08:26.all EU citizens, but we signed up to being a part of a multinational
:08:27. > :08:29.organisation. The spin that it is going the way of the leader of a
:08:30. > :08:34.political party is one that has been used before, it was said of John
:08:35. > :08:39.Major, it was untrue then and it is now. It is, for the continuing
:08:40. > :08:49.deeper integration of the European Union. I want to ask a quick
:08:50. > :08:51.question. Chris Grayling said to us that the Tories would devise a way
:08:52. > :08:56.in which the British Supreme Court would be supreme in the proper
:08:57. > :08:59.meaning of that, but we could still be within the European Court of
:09:00. > :09:07.Human Rights. Can that circle be squared? I have no idea, the Lord
:09:08. > :09:12.Chancellor is an able man, and I am sure he is good at squaring circles.
:09:13. > :09:22.I am not worried about whether we remain in the convention or not PMQ
:09:23. > :09:28.'s, we saw a bit about this week, Paul Gorgons had died, so the house
:09:29. > :09:31.was more subdued, but he wants a more subdued and serious prime
:09:32. > :09:37.ministers questions. Let's remind ourselves what it was like until
:09:38. > :09:40.now. What is clear is that he is
:09:41. > :09:45.floundering around and he has no answer to the Labour Party's energy
:09:46. > :09:49.price freeze. The difference is John Major is a good man, the Right
:09:50. > :09:55.Honourable gentleman is acting like a conman. Across the medical
:09:56. > :10:00.profession, they say there is a crisis in accident and emergency,
:10:01. > :10:05.and we have a Prime Minister saying, crisis, what crisis? How out of
:10:06. > :10:10.touch can hate the? You do not need it to be Christmas to know when you
:10:11. > :10:18.are sitting next to a turkey. It is not a bad line. Is Ed Miliband
:10:19. > :10:23.trying to change the tone of prime ministers questions? Is he right to
:10:24. > :10:25.do so? The important point is this was a special prime ministers
:10:26. > :10:32.questions, because everybody was really sad and by the death of Paul
:10:33. > :10:37.Goggins and in the country, the legacy of the floods. That was the
:10:38. > :10:41.first question that Ed Miliband asked about, so that cast a pall
:10:42. > :10:46.over proceedings. When it suits him, Ed Miliband would like to take a
:10:47. > :10:50.more statesman-like stance, but will it last? That is how David Cameron
:10:51. > :10:54.started. His first prime ministers questions, he said to Tony Blair, I
:10:55. > :11:01.would like to support you on education, and he did in a vote
:11:02. > :11:04.which meant Tony Blair could see off a naughty operation from Gordon
:11:05. > :11:10.Brown. But it did not last, they are parties with different visions.
:11:11. > :11:17.Jacob Rees Mogg, would you like to see it more subdued? I like a bit of
:11:18. > :11:21.Punch and Judy. You need to have fierce debate and people putting
:11:22. > :11:26.their views passionately, it is excellent. I am not good at it, I
:11:27. > :11:30.sit there quite quietly, but it is great fun, very exciting, and it is
:11:31. > :11:37.the most watched bit of the House of Commons each week. If it got as dull
:11:38. > :11:43.as ditchwater, nobody would pay attention. Three cheers for Punch
:11:44. > :11:47.and Judy. Ed Miliband is going to make a major speech on the economy
:11:48. > :11:51.this week. You can now define the general approach. We had it from
:11:52. > :11:59.Emma Reynolds, we have seen it over energy prices, this market is bust,
:12:00. > :12:03.the market is not working properly, and that will therefore justify
:12:04. > :12:10.substantial government intervention. Intervention which does not
:12:11. > :12:11.necessarily cost money. It is the deletion and reorganising
:12:12. > :12:15.industries. It constitutes an answer to the question which has been
:12:16. > :12:18.hounding him, what is the point of the Labour Party when there is no
:12:19. > :12:23.money left? He says, you do not spend a huge amount fiscally, but
:12:24. > :12:27.you arrange markets to achieve socially just outcomes without
:12:28. > :12:32.expenditure. It is quite serious stance. I am not sure it will
:12:33. > :12:38.survive the rigours of an election campaign, but it is an answer. Is
:12:39. > :12:42.that an approach, to use broken markets, to justify substantial
:12:43. > :12:47.state intervention? Yes, and the other big plank is infrastructure
:12:48. > :12:50.spending. The Lib Dems would not be against capital investment for info
:12:51. > :12:55.structure will stop Emma Reynolds talking about house-building, the
:12:56. > :13:00.idea of pumping money into the economy through infrastructure is
:13:01. > :13:04.something that the Labour Party will look at. Jacob Rees Mogg, you once
:13:05. > :13:10.thought Somerset should have its own time zone, and today, you have
:13:11. > :13:18.delivered on that promise! Live on the Sunday Politics! I try to
:13:19. > :13:21.deliver on my promises! That is all for today, the Daily
:13:22. > :13:27.Politics is on BBC Two every day this week, just before lunch. I
:13:28. > :13:32.aren't back next Sunday here on BBC One at 11am. -- I am back. If it is
:13:33. > :13:38.Sunday, it is the Sunday Politics.