09/02/2014 Sunday Politics West Midlands

morning, folks, welcome to the Sunday Politics. Rising flood water,

a battered coastline, the winter storms forced the Government to take

control. Is it hanging the Environment Agency out to dry?

Embarrassment for the Government is the Immigration Minister resigns

after he discovered he was employing a cleaner with no right to work here

for seven years. Ed Miliband promised an end to what he called

the machine politics of union fixes in the Labour Party,

Coming up in the Midlands... Yet more council spending cuts will be

decided this week, could domestic violence helpline is be scaled

In London after two days of disruption in the capital the Mayor

Boris Johnson will be talking to ask about strife on the Underground All

of that and after a week of very public coalition spats can David

Cameron and Nick Clegg keep the coalition show on the road? Two

senior party figures will go head to head. And with me, Helen Lewis, Nick

Watt and Iain Martin who would not know they Somerset Levels from their

Norfolk Broads, but that will not stop them tweeting their thoughts.

We start with the strange Case of the Immigration Minister, his

cleaner and some lost documents Yesterday Mark Harper tendered his

resignation, telling the media he had discovered the cleaner who

worked for him for seven years did not have the right to work in the

UK. The Communities Secretary Eric Pickles said he had done the

honourable thing. I was sad to see him go, he was a strong minister.

Had he been a member of the public he would not have done anything

wrong, but he set himself a very high standard and he felt that

standard and honourably stood down. This would seem like a good

resignation, maybe unlike the Baroness Scotland one years ago on a

similar issue, but have we been told the full story? We wait to see that.

Labour have picked up saying he is an honourable man, that the reason

why he resigned is these very owners checks that landlords and employers

will have to perform on employees over their documentation. The most

interesting line is that, we do not require them to be experts or spot

anything other than an obvious forgery. The suggestion that there

is the document he was presented with originality, which he lost was

on home office paper and was perhaps not entirely accurate. That is the

embarrassment. He is the minister putting through a bill that will

demand tougher checks on people and he himself did not do enough checks

to discover she was illegal. There is an odd bit where he involves the

home office later to check her out as well. He writes a resignation

letter and he has to hold himself to pay higher standard. He has done the

David Laws approach to this, resign quickly and he can come back. David

Cameron wants him to return swiftly to the frontbenchers. He is a state

school educated lad. He is the kind of Tory that the Tories are in short

supply of. He is a rising star. I would caution on this idea that it

is customary that whenever anyone resigns, it is always thought they

will come straight back into office. If only the outside world worked

like that. It is not, in a company if the HR person resigns, he is such

a great chap he will be back next week. There is a silver lining for

David Cameron is he has been able to move Harriet Bond up as he moves

everyone up. But nobody will see her in the whips office because she is

not allowed to appear on television. And if you three want to resign Do

not hate you are coming back next week. But we will do it with honour.

It has been a hellish week for residents of coastal areas with more

storms bringing more flooding and after Prince Charles visited the

Somerset Levels on Tuesday the Government has been keen to show it

has got a grip on the situation at last.

For last weekend's Sunday Politics I made the watery journey to the

village of Muchelney, cut off for a whole month. Now everyone has been

dropping in. First it was Prince Charles on a park bench pulled by a

tractor. He waded into the row about how the floods have been handled.

Next it was the chair of the Environment Agency, Lord Smith, who

faced angry residents. Sought the river is out. That is precisely what

we are going to do. Where he faced, a resident, he did not need that

many. David Cameron went for a look as well and gave the region what it

wanted, more pumps, more money and in the long-term the return of

dredging. There are lessons to learn. The pause in bridging that

took place from the late 1990s was wrong and we need to get dredging

again. When the water levels come down and it is safe to dredge, we

will dredging to make sure these rivers and stitches can carry a

better capacity. The Environment Secretary Owen Paterson has not been

seen again because he is recovering from emergency eye surgery. In the

meantime the floodwaters rose ever higher. Some residents were told to

evacuate. In Devon the railway was washed away by the waves leaving a

big gap in the network. Look at the weather this weekend. If you can

believe it, the storms keep rolling in. What is the long-term solution

for flood prone areas of the country? I am joined from Oxford by

the editor of The Ecologist magazine, Oliver Tickell, and by

local MP Tessa Munt. Tessa, let me come to you first. What do you now

want the Government to do? I want it to make sure it does exactly as it

promises and delivers what every farmer and landowner around here

knows should have been done for years. First, to solve the problems

we have right now, but to make sure there is money in the bank for us to

carry on doing the maintenance that is necessary. Was it a mistake not

to do the dredging? When the waters start to subside does dredging

become a key part of this? Yes, of course. It is something the farmers

have been asking for four years When you wander along a footpath by

a river and you see trees growing and there is 60% of the capacity

only because there is silt, it needs to have a pretty dramatic action

right now and then we need to make sure the maintenance is ongoing

Oliver Tickell, was it a mistake to stop the dredging? If the dredging

had happened, the land would not be covered in water for so long?

Clearly it is necessary to do at least some dredging on these rivers

and in particular because these rivers are well above ground level.

They are carrying water that comes down off the hills well above the

level of the flood plain on the Somerset Levels. They naturally tend

to silt up. But the key thing is that is only a small part of the

overall solution. What we need is a catchment wide approach to improve

infiltration upstream and you also need to manage the flood plain on

the levels and upstream so as to have active flood plain that can

store water. This idea it is just about dredging is erroneous.

Dredging is a part of it, but it is a catchment wide solution. Dredging

is only a small part of the solution he says. Yes, of course it is. But

look here. With the farmer is locally, the landowners, they know

this land will carry water for a few weeks of the year, that is not a

problem. But this water has to be taken away and there is a very good

system of drainage and it works perfectly well. In my area there are

serious problems because the dredging has not taken place. There

are lunatic regulations around were when they do do some of dredging,

the Environment Agency is asked to take it away because it is

considered toxic waste. This is barmy. We need to take the stuff out

of the rivers and build the banks up so we create protection in the

future. We have to make sure the dredging is done but make sure the

drainage works well and we have pumps in places and we have

floodgates put onto the rivers. We need to make sure repairs are done

more quickly. All right, let me go back to Oliver Tickell. Is it not

the case a lot of people on your side of the argument would like to

see lands like the Somerset Levels return to natural habitat? Looe I

would like a degree of that, but that does not mean the whole place

needs to turn into wilderness so it will remain agricultural landscape.

Everybody, all the interested parties who signed up to a document

called vision 2034 the Somerset Levels envisages most of the area of

the Somerset Levels being turned over to extensive grassland and that

is what it is best suited for. Let me put that to Tessa Munt. Have you

signed up to this where you will end up with extensive grassland? I have

seen it, but grass does not grow if water is sitting on this land for

weeks and weeks. What you have to remember is a lot of the levels are

managed very carefully and they are conservation land and that means

cattle are allowed to go out at certain times of the year and in

certain numbers. It is well managed. Do you accept it should return to

grassland? Grassland, fine, but you cannot call land grassland in the

flipping water is on it so long that nothing grows. It is no good at

doing that. You have got to make sure it is managed properly.

Drainage has been taking place on this land for centuries. It is the

case the system is there, but it needs to be maintained properly and

we have to have fewer ridiculous regulations that stop action. Last

year the flooding minister agreed dredging should take place and

everything stopped. Now we have got the promise from the Prime Minister

and I thank Prince Charles for that. Is it not time to let the local

people run their land rather than being told what to do by the

Environment Agency, central Government and the European Union?

The internal drainage boards have considerable power in all of this.

They wanted to dredge and they were not allowed to. The farmers want to

dredge that is what is going to happen, but they have signed up to a

comprehensive vision of catchment management and of environmental

improvement turning the Somerset Levels into a world-class haven for

wildlife. It is not much good if your house is underwater. The

farmers themselves, the RSPB, the drainage boards, they have all

signed up to this. The real question now is how do we implement that

vision? You give the money to the drainage boards. At the moment they

pay 27% of their money and have been doing so for years and years and

this is farmers' money and it has been going to the drainage boards

and they pay the Environment Agency who are meant to be dredging and

that has not happened. We have to leave it there. We have run out of

time. Last week saw the Labour Party

adopts an historic change with its relationship with the unions.

Changes to the rules that propelled Ed Miliband to the top. Ed Miliband

was elected Labour leader in 20 0 by the electoral college system which

gives unions, party members and MPs one third of votes each. This would

be changed into a simpler one member, one vote system. A union

member would have to become an affiliated member of the party. They

would have to opt in and pay ?3 a year. But the unions would have 50%

of the vote at the conference and around one third of the seats on the

National executive committee. The proposals are a financial gamble as

well. It is estimated the party could face a drop in funding of up

to ?5 million a year when the changes are fully implemented in

five years. The leader of the Unite trade union has welcomed the report

saying it is music to his ears. The package will be voted on at a

special one of conference in March. And the Shadow Business Secretary

Chuka Umunna joins me now for the Sunday Interview. Welcome back. In

what way will the unions have less power and influence in the Labour

Party? This is about ensuring individual trade union members have

a direct relationship with the Labour Party. At the moment the

monies that come to us are decided at a top level, the general

secretaries determine this, whether the individual members want us to be

in receipt of those monies or not so we are going to change that so that

affiliation fees follow the consent of individual members. Secondly we

want to make sure the individual trade union members, people who

teach our children, power via - fantastic British businesses, we

want them to make an active choice, and we are also recognising that in

this day and age not everybody wants to become a member of a political

party. We haven't got much time The unions still have 50% of the vote at

Labour conferences, there will be the single most important vote, more

member -- union members will vote than nonunion members, their power

has not diminished at all, has it? In relation to the other parts of

the group of people who will be voting in a future leadership

contest, we are seeking to move towards more of a one member, one

vote process. At the moment we have the absurd situation where I, as a

member of Parliament, my vote will count for 1000. MPs are losing. .

They still have a lot of power. I am a member of the GMB union and the

Unite union, also a member of the Fabians as well so I get free votes

on top of my vote as a member of Parliament. We are moving to a

system where I will have one vote and that is an important part of

this. You asked how many people would be casting their votes. The

old system, up to 2.8 million ballot papers were sent out with prepaid

envelopes for people to return their papers were sent out with prepaid

turnout. The idea that you are going to see a big change... Even if

your individual party members. In one vital way, your purse strings,

your individual party members. In the unions will be more powerful

than ever because at the moment they have to hand over 8 million to

than ever because at the moment they fraction of that now. They will get

to keep that money, but then come the election you go to them and give

them a lot of money -- and they will have you then. They won't have us,

as you put it! The idea that individual trade union members don't

have their own view, their own voice, and just do what their

general secretaries do is absurd. They will make their own decision,

and we want them to make that and not have their leadership decide

that for them. Let me go to the money. The Labour Party manifesto

will be reflecting the interests of Britain, and the idea that somehow

people can say we are not going to give you this money unless you do

this or that, we will give you a policy agenda which is appropriate

for the British people, regardless of what implications that may have

financially. They will have more seats than anybody else in the NEC

and they will hold the purse strings. They will be the

determining factor. They won't be. Unite is advocating a 70% rate of

income tax, there is no way we will have that in our manifesto. Unite is

advocating taking back contracts and no compensation basis, we would not

-- there is no way we would do that. How many chief executives of the

FTSE 100 are backing Labour? We have lots of chief executives backing

Labour. I don't know the exact number. Ed Miliband has just placed

an important business person in the House of Lords, the former chief

executive of the ITV, Bill Grimsey. How many? You can only name one

Bill Grimsey, there is also John Mills. Anyone who is currently

chairman of the chief executive With the greatest respect, you are

talking about less than half the percent of business leaders in our

country, we have almost 5 million businesses, not all FTSE 100

businesses, not all listed, and we are trying to get people from across

the country of all different shapes and sizes. Let's widen it to the

FTSE 250. That is 250 out of 5 million companies. The largest ones,

they make the profits and provide the jobs. Two thirds of private

sector jobs in this country come from small and medium-sized

businesses, and small and medium-sized businesses are an

important part of a large companies supply chains. So you cannot name a

single chairman from the FTSE 2 0, correct? I don't know all the

chairman. Are you going to fight the next election without a single boss

of a FTSE 250 company? I have named some important business people, but

the most important thing is that we are not coming out with a manifesto

for particular interests, but for broader interest. Let me show you,

Digby Jones says Labour's policy is, "if it creates wealth, let's kick

it" . Another quote, that it borders on predatory taxation. They think

you are anti-business. I don't agree with them. One of the interesting

things about Sir Stuart's comments on the predatory taxation and I

think he was referring to the 5 p rate of tax is that he made some

comments arguing against the reduction of the top rate of tax

from 50p. He is saying something different now. Digby of course has

his own opinions, he has never been a member of the Labour Party. Let me

come onto this business of the top rate of tax, do you accept or don't

you that there is a point when higher rates of income tax become

counter-productive? Ultimately you want to have the lowest tax rates

possible. Do you accept there is a certain level you actually get less

money? I think ultimately there is a level beyond you could go which

would be counter-productive, for example the 75% rate of tax I

mentioned earlier, being advocated by Unite in France. Most French

higher earners will pay less tax than under your plans. I beg your

pardon, with the 50p? Under your proposals, people here will pay more

tax than French higher earners. If you are asking if in terms of the

level, you asked the question and I answered it, do I think if you reach

a level beyond which the tax burden becomes counter-productive, can I

give you a number what that would be, I cannot but let me explain -

the reason we have sought to increase its two 50p is that we can

get in revenue to reduce the deficit. In an ideal world you

wouldn't need a 50p rate of tax which is why during our time in

office we didn't have one, because we didn't have those issues. Sure,

though you cannot tell me how much the 50p will raise. In the three

years of operation we think it raised ?10 billion. You think. That

was based on extrapolation from the British library. It is at least

possible I would suggest, for the sake of argument, that when you

promise to take over half people's income, which is what you will do if

you get your way, the richest 1 currently account for 70 5% of all

tax revenues. -- 75%. Is it not a danger that if you take more out of

them, they will just go? I don't think so, we are talking about the

top 1% here. If you look at the directors of sub 5 million turnover

companies, the average managing director of that gets around

?87,000. Let me narrow it down to something else. Let's take the .1%

of top taxpayers, down to fewer than 30,000 people. They account for over

14% of all of the income tax revenues. Only 29,000 people. If

they go because you are going to take over half their income, you

have lost a huge chunk of your tax base. They could easily go, at

tipping point they could go. What we are advocating here is not

controversial. Those with the broadest shoulders, it is not

unreasonable to ask them to share the heavier burden. Can you name one

other major economy that subscribes to this? Across Europe, for example

in Sweden they have higher tax rates than us. Can you name one major

economy? I couldn't pluck one out of the air, I can see where you are

coming from, I don't agree with it. I think most people subscribe to the

fact that those with wider shoulders should carry the heavy a burden We

have run out of time but thank you for being here.

Over the past week it seems that Nick Clegg has activated a new Lib

Dem strategy - 'Get Gove'. After a very public spat over who should

head up the schools inspection service Ofsted, Lib Dem sources have

continued to needle away at the Education Secretary. And other

senior Lib Dems have also taken aim at their coalition partners. Here's

Giles Dilnot. It's unlikely the polite welcome of these school

children to Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg and his party colleague

schools minister David Laws would be so forthcoming right now from the

man in charge of schools Conservative Michael Gove. Mr Laws

is said to have been furious with The Education secretary over the

decision to remove Sally Morgan as chair of Ofsted. But those who know

the inner working of the Lib Dems say that's just understandable. When

you have the department not being consulted, it would be possible for

him to not publicly comment. The remarkable thing would be if he

hadn't said anything at all. We should be careful to understand this

is not always part of a preplanned decision. There is a growing sense

that inside Number Ten this is a concerted Lib Dem strategy, we also

understand there is no love lost between Nick Clegg and Michael Gove

to say the least, and a growing frustration that if the Lib Dems

think such so-called yellow and blue attacks can help them with the

election, they can also damage the long-term prospects of the Coalition

post 2015. One spat does not a divorce make but perhaps even more

significant has been Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander s

recent newspaper interview firmly spiking any room for George Osborne

to manoeuvre on lowering the highest income tax rate to 40p. All this

builds on the inclusion in Government at the reshuffle of

people like Norman Baker at the Home Office and Simon Hughes at Justice

people who are happier to publically express doubt on Conservative

policy, unlike say Jeremy Browne who was removed and who has made plain

his views on Coalition. It is difficult for us to demonstrate that

we are more socialist than an Ed Miliband Labour led party. Even if

we did wish to demonstrate it, doing it in coalition with the

Conservatives would be harder still. Nonetheless a differentiation

strategy was always likely as 2 15 approached, so is there evidence it

works? Or of the work we publish shows the Lib Dems have a huge

problem in terms of their distinctiveness, so attacking their

coalition partners or the Labour Party is helpful in showing what

they are against, but there are bigger problem is showing what they

are for. And one Conservative MP with access to Number Ten as part of

the PM's policy board says yellow on blue attacks are misplaced and

irresponsible. At this stage when all the hard work is being done and

the country is back on its feet the Lib Dems are choosing the time to

step away from the coalition. That is your position, but do you suspect

coming up to the next election we will see more of this? I think the

Lib Dems are about as hard to pin down as a weasel in Vaseline. And

with the public's view of politicians right now, and wants to

be seen as slicker than a well oiled weasel? And we have Lib Dem peer

Matthew Oakeshott and senior Conservative backbencher Bernard

Jenkin. Matthew, the Lib Dems are now picking fights with the Tories

on a range of issues, some of them trivial. Is this a Pirelli used to

Lib Dem withdrawal from the coalition? I do not know, I am not

privy to Nick Clegg's in strategy. Some of us have been independent for

some time. I resigned over treatment of the banks. That is now being

sorted out. But what is significant is we have seen a string of attacks,

almost an enemy within strategy When you have Nick Clegg, David Laws

and Danny Alexander, the three key people closest to the Conservatives,

when you see all of them attacking, and this morning Nick Clegg has had

a go at the Conservatives over drug policy. There is a string of

policies where something is going on. It is difficult to do an enemy

within strategy. I believe as many Lib Dems do that we should withdraw

from the coalition six months to one year before the election so we can

put our positive policies across rather than having this tricky

strategy of trying to do it from within. Why does David Cameron need

the Lib Dems? He probably does not. The country generally favoured the

coalition to start with. Voters like to see politicians are working

together and far more of that goes on in Westminster then we see. Most

of my committee reports are unanimous reports from all parties.

Why does he need them? I do not think he does. You would be happy to

see the Lib Dems go? I would always be happy to see a single minority

Government because it would be easier for legislation. The

legislation you could not get through would not get through

whether we were in coalition or not. The 40p tax rate, there

probably is not a majority in the House of Commons at the moment,

despite what Nick Clegg originally said. It does not make much

difference. What makes a difference from the perspective of the

committee I chair is historically we have had single party Government

that have collective responsibility and clarity. The reason that is

important is because nothing gets done if everybody is at sixes and

sevens in the Government. Everything stops, there is paralysis as the row

goes on. Civil servants do not know who they are working for. If it

carries on getting fractures, there is a bigger argument to get out If

it continues at this level of intensity of the enemy within

strategy as you have described it, can the coalition survived another

16 months of this? It is also a question should they. I never

thought I would say this, I agree with Bernard. Interestingly earlier

Chuka Umunna missed the point talking about business support.

Business is worried about this anti-European rhetoric and that is a

deep split between the Liberal Democrats and the UKIP wing of the

Tory party. That is really damaging and that is something we need to

make our own case separately on Do you get fed up when you hear

constant Lib Dem attacks on you What makes me fed up is my own party

cannot respond in kind because we are in coalition. I would love to

have this much more open debate I would like to see my own party

leader, for example as he did in the House of Commons, it was the Liberal

Democrats who blocked the referendum on the house of lords and if we want

to get this bill through it should be a Government bill. We know we can

get it through the Commons, but we need to get the Liberals out of the

Government so they stop blocking the Government putting forward a

referendum bill. And put millions of jobs at risk? I am not going down

the European road today. It strikes me that given that the attacks from

the Lib Dems are now coming from the left attacking the Tories, is this a

representative of the failure of Nick Clegg's strategy to rebuild a

centrist Liberal party and he now accepts the only way he can save as

many seats as he can do is to get the disillusioned left Lib Dem

voters to come back to the fold The site is we have lost over half our

vote at the last election and at the moment there is no sign in the polls

of it coming back and we are getting very close to the next election. I

welcome it if Nick Clegg is starting to address that problem, but talking

about the centre is not the answer. Most Liberal Democrat voters at the

last election are radical, progressive people who want to see a

much fairer Britain and a much less divided society and we must make

sure we maximise our vote from there. We know what both of you

want, but what do you think will happen? Do you think this coalition

will survive all the way to the election or will it break up

beforehand? I think it will break up beforehand. Our long-term economic

plan is working. The further changes in policies we want to implement to

sustain that plan are being held back by the Liberal Democrats. When

will they break up? It has lasted longer than I thought it would, but

it must break up at least six months before the election. Do you think it

will survive or not? The coalition has delivered a great deal in many

ways, but it is running out of steam. It depends what happens in

the May elections. If the Liberal Democrats do not do better than we

have done in the last three, there will be very strong pressure from

the inside. You both agree. Television history has been made.

You are watching the Sunday Politics. Coming up: I will be

looking Hello once again from the Midlands,

I'm Patrick Burns. We are in exalted company today from Government and

opposition front bench is, both our guests enjoyed five figure

majorities in constituencies where they don't count their votes, they

weigh them. Jeremy Wright, Conservative MP for Kenilworth and

Southam, he is the justice minister in the Government, Ms `` Minister

for prisons. John Spellar Labour MP for Warley, a warm welcome to you

both. And that's not all. John Spellar was also a transport

minister under Tony Blair wind speed cameras were first introduced. Now

they could be extended to our major motorways as well, but we have them

already where there are variable speed limit and roadworks but they

are set to be piloted on selected motorways including the M6,

routinely enforcing the 70 mph limit. What's more, these so`called

stealth cameras could be a very inconspicuous shade of grey. Who was

it who fought long and hard to stop the original cameras being painted

grey? Let's just say the eventual colour was known at the time as

"Spellar Yellar" ! Why does it matter most John? If people are

driving lawfully, it does not matter what colour or how conspicuous they

are, they just follow the law. There was a big debate at the time and you

had some of the transport bureaucrats and some of the chief

constables particularly from the smaller constabularies, they were

hiding them behind bushes and painting them grey. Effectively what

they were trying to do was catch people out. I wanted to make sure

that it made people adjust their behaviour and to focus on areas

where we knew there was a high risk of accidents and that proved itself

so it got public acceptance. It did not look like we were just try to

find ways... Are you applying the same logic now? Absolutely. We

wanted position where people understand the need for the

cameras. They recognise where there are dangerous stretches, they

recognise the desire to cut accidents. What they get annoyed

about is where they think they are trying to find them, like with the

parking. Justice must be seen to be done, so it must be clearly seen. I

agree with John and I don't think speed cameras should be there just

to raise revenue, they should be there for safety purposes but the

cameras that are on the M6 which will come into force shortly at

there to support the management of motorways programme and that is a

good idea, the idea that you open up additional lanes when you need them.

I can understand that cameras are useful in making sure you understand

what the motorway looks like before you make that decision to use

another lame but I would not be in favour of this being a stealthy way

of raising money for motorists. Still to come, helplines for

domestic violence victims could be scaled down under the next round of

council cuts. Why some essential local services are deemed more

essential than others. This will be our main talking point later. It's

40 years since mainland Britain's' at from the Troubles in Northern

Ireland, 21 people died in the Birmingham pub bombings. But for

decades later, the truth is still to emerge about who really planted the

bombs at the Kenilworth and the play seven macro. Paddy Hill, one of the

wrongly convicted people of the outrage is demanding the IRA must

come clean. `` is asking for a full public in quiet and is being

supported by Julie Hambleton whose sister was killed in the bombings

and was one of the leaders of the Justice For The 21 campaign. I asked

Julie Hambleton what she hoped a public enquiry could achieve so many

years later. no amount of time that could pass

could possibly be an excuse not to have a full public enquiry. And why

it has taken so long to do so, it beggars belief. Tell me about the

efforts that you have made to raise this with our senior political

leaders in this country. You cannot get more senior than David Cameron

and when we met Peter Robinson last year and Belfast `` in Belfast, a

consummate diplomat and gentleman, he promised to hand deliver a

dossier that he wanted us to put together to David Cameron which is

what he did last June and we are still waiting for a response. I have

written to Ed Miliband added was his office he responded, he did not even

respond, I have written to the Shadow Home Secretary four times

with recorded delivery, none of which have been responded to. I am

still waiting. Some you are supporting this online petition

launched by Paddy Hill, what are your hopes for it and what do you

think will happen next? I hope everybody in the West Midlands, not

just in Birmingham, and around the country will sign this petition and

get behind us because we are not doing it just for us, we are not

doing just for the other families, we are doing it for future

generations. If we don't fight today to these perpetrators caught and

sentenced, then who is to say it would not happen in the future? Who

is to say that people will not come to Birmingham or any other city for

that matter and create mass murder and for them to have their liberty?

And nobody is looking for them? How can we claim to live in a democratic

society where we allow that to happen? Because until that happens,

there is no justice, is there? No, the only injustice is that there has

been no justice. Julie Hambleton there, so is the

injustice perpetrated against the Birmingham six being compounded

against the 21 victims? Presumably you have influence in Government,

you could get David Cameron to reply to Julie? I think the wider point

she is making is a good one, they have not yet been people held to

account for these terrible crimes. For a monstrous atrocity, and we

gaze back at the Sunday, and Hillsborough, but this is hanging on

result. `` gaze back at Bloody Sunday. This happened 40 years ago

and we need to unearth new evidence but that will be challenging. If it

is there to be found, it should be looked for. I think one of the other

things that are striking about the Birmingham six case and I remember

clearly seeing the Birmingham six, at the pavement when I was a

teenager and talk about what happened to them, John and I will

get regular letters from people asking for the restoration of the

death penalty. Were the death penalty is to have been in existence

at that time, I have no doubt it would have been used on these six

men and given that they were wrongly convicted, we would not have been

able to put right that mistake and that is also something that is

reminding ourselves about the Birmingham six and what happened to

them. As a former Northern Ireland Minister, the same question, surely

you could use your influence to get Ed Miliband and Yvette Cooper to

respond to Julie. The first point is actually, where should the enquiry

start? Should they not get a reply? I will certainly look at that but

West Midlands Police need to look at this. Where people have got new

information and evidence and if Peter Robinson has got a dossier,

that should be handed to the West Midlands Police and the chief

constable and possibly should be taken up and I the member of

Parliament up in Birmingham Perry Barr has raised this issue with Bob

Jones, the new police Commissioner, to ensure that any new information

is looked into with a view to try to track down the perpetrators of this

awful crime which shocked the city and the country. Your party was in

power at the time and Paddy Hill, one of the Birmingham six is also

alleging that there was so much pressure from your Government on the

police to secure convictions, no matter who or where, frankly that is

how it ended up in this catastrophic miscarriage of justice. I am certain

there was pressure to catch the perpetrators and unfortunately they

caught the wrong people and I fully understand his sense of grievance.

But he rightly says the IRA should come clean about what happened and

if he has got any information or any other people have, that should go to

West Midlands Police and urge them to reopen enquiries into this awful

crime. Another big problem is that the whole case is covered by one of

these public interest immunity certificates which is like a

guarantee of silence for 75 years will stop when you have secrecy like

that, it is bound to embolden those who have alleged conspiracy

theories. Surely we need a bright light on the enquiry? There are huge

challenges when dealing with security information but I agree

that that does not prevent the West Midlands Police force looking at it

again. If they believe they have new evidence. If it was not properly

scrutinised in the first place, it does not prevent them doing that and

that is what they should do if such evidence comes to light. Thank you.

This week will see yet another round of council budget cuts, or savings,

after some further belt tightening it headed by George Osborne's Autumn

statement. Worcestershire County Council must decide how to take ?20

million out of its budget next year, almost half, ?30 million, designated

to come from adult social care which means cuts to non`statutory services

for elderly, disabled or other vulnerable people. More on this now

from our BBC Hereford and Worcester political reporter, the bone.

A few years ago, Claire Baker found there was no way out, trapped in an

abusive relationship with two small children to consider, she was living

in fear of her partner. I would never spend one week without him

doing something that was upsetting me or making me cry. And getting

used to the abuse, eventually I stopped crying and it used to go

over my head. I became emotionally numb. Things changed when she

contacted West Mercia Women's Aid, which helps victims of domestic

abuse. She left her abuser, regain self`confidence and even qualified

as an electrician. It was really scary to begin with

because it is a male`dominated trade but being here, people have been

supportive and lovely and I got on with everybody.

Hello, West Mercia Women's Aid, Joe speaking? Eight 24`hour emergency

helpline is run along with other support services. It helps 6000

people a year. Three quarters of the work is paid for by local councils

to contract out the services but they are looking at reducing

funding. Worcestershire county council is looking at cutting a half

of its contribution. I believe that the high risk victim side of things,

if we have funding cut, then women will die because we are not going to

be there to provide the level of support that we have been able to

provide in the past. But like many other authorities, Worcestershire

County Council is under pressure to balance books while dealing with a

huge dip in funding. They can do this by save around ?80 million over

the next three years and to do that, it needs to cut around ?29 million

this year and out of that, it needs to save around ?30 million from the

adult social care budget which deals with things like homelessness,

elderly and disabled and domestic abuse support services. Councillors

say the scale of the task means difficult decisions have to be made.

When we had specific grants and when money was plenty, it was very easy

for the county council to put funding into a lot of projects which

are nice to have which were good and well founded but in times of budget

reductions, we must reassess and analyse where we focus taxpayers'

money to ensure it is spent in focus areas and as wisely as possible.

West Mercia Women's Aid up Claire to put her life together and stand on

her own two feet. With local councils struggling to balance the

books, these charities are increasingly asked to do the same.

And the committees and local Government department reminders that

local Government accounts for a quarter of all public spending so it

has to do its bit to help pay down the deficit. That was Matthew Bone

reporting. And we are joined by the chief executive of West Mercia

Women's Aid, Jan Frances, supporting women and children affected by

domestic violence right across Worcestershire, Herefordshire and

Shropshire for the past 30 years. The cuts we are talking about sound

quite substantial. Can you give us an itemised list of the areas we

might be talking about? Yes, we saw a call being added to the helpline

there, we run a 34 hour helpline and we may not be able to run that 24

hours a day which is a major problem `` 24 hours a day because it does

not happen just between 9`5, so we must cut down on hours leading

people without a first point of contact and without a lifeline. We

may have to cut down on numbers of places that we have for refuge and

soap men who need to leave immediately with their children

because they are in danger, we may not be able to accommodate them. We

might have to cut down on our recovery programmes. Domestic abuse

is not an event and recovering from it is a process. It will affect the

whole service. And we have heard from the council are there, the

council must make some pretty tough choices and the Government must bear

down on the deficit so maybe you should look to a more scientific

approach to fundraising and your own systems. We already do a great deal

of fundraising but these are not trimmings, our services on the

trimmings, they deal with high victims who may, possibly, suffer

injury and death if we are not there to support them and to safety plan

with them. Yes, we do fundraiser, with a large charitable trust and

individual donors but it is not enough. I wonder whether this should

cue more expansive thinking where we care for people in society, and

active citizenship, perhaps a big society and so, dare I say it, is

that of money being handed out to charities and places like yourself,

get the community around helping to involve themselves and rethink the

idea. I think there is room for both. Money is not handed out. We

deliver services and contract will stop we are very tight at monitoring

them, these are not grants, this money comes from the local

authorities to deliver services. If we did not deliver them, they would

have to. They would have to do it. You can see how this looks, Jeremy.

It looks like really important services which gave Claire the

chance to rebuild her life and put something back into the economy as

well as society, so it is an investment and your Government,

local authorities is being driven doing really serious damage to

important services. I do not doubt that the charity's work is very

important but in context, 25% of Government spending is spent by

local Government, we cannot do the things we need to do in order to

reduce public expenditure without local Government taking a share of

that. And that is feeding through into the tough choices we are

talking about here. But those choices are unavoidable, we cannot

go on spending more money than we earn and when we came to power as a

Government in 2010, we found that very substantial budget deficits and

a note from the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury saying

there is no more money. And that is why we must make these decisions.

There are more economy still to come which could be on your watch if you

come into Government, so you cannot is off the pressure either, you must

make cuts as well. In answer to Jeremy, we had a world financial

crash and that is what caused the deficit. And if it keeps being

reiterated, I will keep answering that point but the reality that is

facing so many vital services are particularly when other financial

pressures are causing pressures domestic `` domestically and I am

visiting local food banks and they are seeing similar signs, the rather

sneering reference by that counsellor to" nice to have

services" as if they were luxuries. Some statutory and some are

non`statutory, it is a harsh thing to say but that is the reality. I

think we saw how important they were. For many people, they are a

lifeline and it is this sort of belligerent attitude we see from

Eric Pickles. New and imaginative ways of funding are interesting

things to talk about and we are trying to encourage things like

social capital, people making an investment in projects that may not

be all about delivering a financial return but also about delivering a

social return, seeing an improvement in the way things are done. Lots

more things like that are happening and we want to see more of it and

encourage it in all sorts of deals. The macro fields. John picked up on

the "nice to have" line. We are working with people who are victims

of crime. It is a crime. We are not talking about... Obviously Claire

did very well and we saw some pictures of her in recovery. When

she first came to us, the state she was in was different and she was

recovering from crimes committed against her. So we must take it

seriously, it is not" nice to have" . Thank you very much. Let's catch

up with more of the week's political developments here in the Midlands in

sexy seconds brought to us today by BBC's Nick Allen. `` Nick Owen. It's

the end of the road for tyre production at Dunlop in Birmingham.

The firm is closing its plant with the loss of nearly 250 jobs.

West Midlands Police has ended its recruitment freeze after five years.

It's looking to take on 450 new officers.

PC Keith Wallis has been jailed for a year after admitting misconduct in

a public office. He wrongly claimed seeing a row involving police and

the Sutton Coldfield MP Andrew Mitchell in Downing Street.

Cannock Chase MP Aidan Burley is to step down at the general election.

An internal Tory Party report said his role organising a Nazi`themed

stag party was "stupid and offensive."

And when is a riot not a riot? When it's "concerted indiscipline." The

Prisons Minister was put on the spot over last month's disturbance at

Oakwood Prison near Wolverhampton. I would urge the Government to

abandon this PR spin and for once, tell the simple truth.

And the PR spin according to Paul Flynn is that expression, "concerted

indiscipline", when prison officers inside building macro told the BBC

it was a full`scale riot. `` inside Oakwood prison. "concerted

indiscipline" has been used by governments for a long time, it is

not just PR spin. What really happened is this, I was at the

present two weeks ago and I spoke to those involved and the staff

involved and looked at the CCTV coverage. What I think happened was

not fairly described as a full`scale riot, it was certainly a serious

incident but there were 20 prisoners out of 1600 currently at Oakwood and

in one wing, the wing was recovered professionally as one was let macro

would expect. Changes are being made and it is important not to blow what

happened out of proportion. Is it teething troubles in a new prison? I

don't think so and I think there are a number of concerns about a number

of the privatised prisons but the underlying basis is that our full to

bursting. Prisons are over 99% full but the Government are still closing

some prisons and they won't have the new prison opened and they will not

listen. Plus they are not getting on with deporting foreign prisoners,

they are way behind on that. If Oakwood was made a private prison,

it was by the Labour Government and we have substantially full prisons

because we want to make efficient use of the space and not expert the

taxpayer to pay for spaces we don't need. The last Labour Government

went past full prisons and had to release people because the prisons

were so full, they could not cope and we don't intend to repeat that.

Briefly, with the decision for Aidan Burley to stand down... That is a

personal decision for him to make and he must make his own decisions.

The also lied to the enquiry and disgracefully referred to the

opening of the Olympics as multicultural rubbish. I

the hot seat next week will be on BBC Radio Stoke will feature

Mohammed Pervez and next week's Sunday politics, I will be joined

here in the studio by Alison Londoners who otherwise may not have

a voice. Both of you, thank you so much. Andrew, it is back to you Can

David Cameron get a grip on the floods? Can UKIP push the

Conservatives into third place in the Wythenshawe by-election on

Thursday? Is the speaker in the House of Commons in danger of

overheating? All questions over the weekend. Let's look at the politics

of the flooding. Let me show you a clip from Eric Pickles, the

Communities Secretary, earlier on the BBC this morning. We perhaps

relied too much on the Environment Agency's advice. I apologise. I

apologise unreservedly and I am really sorry we took the advice of

what we thought we were doing was the best. The Environment Agency is

being hung out to dry by the Government and the Government has

taken over the running of the environmental mess in the Somerset

Levels. It is turning into a serious crisis by the Government and even

more so for the people who are dealing with the flooding. There is

no doubt that what has been revealed is it is not just about what the

Government did or did not do six months ago. What is being exposed is

an entire culture within the Environment Agency, fuelled often by

European directives about dredging and all manner of other things, a

culture grew up in which plants were put ahead of people if you like All

of that is collapsing in very difficult circumstances by the

Government and it is difficult for them to manage. Chris Smith would

save the Environment Agency is acting under a law set by this

Government and previous governments and the first priority is the

protection of life, second property and third agricultural land and he

is saying we are working within that framework. It is an edifying

spectacle, they are setting up Lord Smith to be the fall guy. His term

of office comes at the end of the summer and they will find something

new. But the point Lord Smith is making is that dredging is important

and it was a mistake not to dredge, but it is a bigger picture than

that. I am no expert, but you need a whole skill solution that is looking

not just bad dredging, but at the whole catchment area looking at the

production of maize. It is harvested in autumn and then the water runs

off the topsoil. You see the pictures of the flooding, it is all

topsoil flooding through those towns. What you have got to have in

the uplands is some land that can absorb that water and there are

really big questions about the way we carry out farming. Chris Smith

was meant to appear on the Andrew Marr show this morning, but pulled

back at the last minute. There must be doubts as to whether he can

survive to the summer. Where is the chief executive of the Environment

Agency? I agree with Nick that Chris Smith has been setup in this

situation. David Cameron went to the Somerset Levels on Friday for about

half an hour, in and out, with no angry people shouting at him. You to

a farm. It is agreed he has had good crisis. But we are seen as being a

London media class who does not understand the countryside. You can

imagine David Cameron in a pair of wellies. If this was happening in

Guildford, it would not have dragged on for so long. Looe it is

interesting how they are saying the Environment Agency has put words in

front of everything else. The great-great-grandson of Queen

Victoria thinks people should be sacked at the whim. He is talking

about how the Environment Agency spent ?31 million on a bird

sanctuary. It turns out the bird sanctuary was an attempt to put up a

flood defence system for a village which has worked. That village has

been saved. They compensated some farmers for the farmland they were

not going to be able to farm and put a flood defence system further back

to protect this village and then they built a bird sanctuary. It was

not ?31 million to create a bird sanctuary, it was to save a village

and it worked. But in 2008 the Environment Agency was talking about

dynamiting every pumping agency There was a metropolitan mindset on

the part of that agency. If it does what Owen Paterson, who is now off

in an eye operation, suggested a plan to fix this, they will find a

lot of what they want or need to do will be in contravention of European

directives. The Wythenshawe by-election. There is no question

Labour is going to win, probably incredibly convincingly, one poll

showing 60% plus of the vote. It would be surprising if Labour was in

any threat up there. The issue is, does UKIP beat the Tories and if so,

by how much? The latest poll was showing it in second place as nip

and tuck, but the feeling I have is UKIP will do better. And they have

got a great local candidate. The Tories have not parachuted somebody

in and they have got a local man in and that will help them. We have all

been waiting to see if the Tories lose their head, but they might go

chicken earlier than that. Will UKIP come second? It looks like that A

poll this week showed that Labour is way ahead and UKIP possibly second.

But it is an important by-election for UKIP. If they do well in the

European elections, they should still be on a roll. They did really

well in by-elections last year. If they do not do well, is it because

they are not on payroll? Or in Manchester they have a fantastic

leader of the council? Will UKIP come a good second? I think they

will and if they do not, it might suggest Nigel Farage is losing its

slightly. One thing to look out for is how little Labour are attacking

UKIP. Their election strategy relies a lot on UKIP taking Tory votes But

it could also take Labour votes Particularly in the north and we

shall see. The results will be out on Thursday night. The Speaker of

the House of Commons, John Bird , his interventions have become more

frequent and something was strange. Have a look. I am grateful to the

honourable gentleman. Order, the Government Chief Whip has absolutely

no business whatsoever shouting from a sedentary position. Order, the

honourable gentleman will remain in the chamber. If we could tackle this

problem. I say to the honourable member for Bridgwater, be quiet if

you cannot be quiet, get out, it is rude, stupid and pompous and it

needs to stop. Michael Gove. Order. You really... Order. You are a very

over excitable individual. You need to write out 1000 times, I will

behave myself at Prime Minister 's questions. He was talking to the

Education Secretary and it is not 1000 lines, it is 100 lines, at

least it was in my day. Is he beginning to make a fool of himself?

There was only one over excitable person there and that was the

speaker and he is losing the confidence of the Conservative MPs,

but he never had that in the first place. But he is an incredibly

reforming speaker. He has this strange idea that Parliament should

hold the Government to account. It will never catch on. It means very

frequently there are urgent questions. The other day he called a

backbench amendment on the deportation of foreign criminals. He

could have found a way not to call that. He is a real reformer and the

executive do not like that. That is true and he has allowed Parliament

to flourish which has given us room to breathe at a time of a coalition

Government when Parliament has more power. That is all that enough to

overcome these increasingly mannered and some of them may be preplanned

interventions? The last one was last week, and last week the speaker had

a rather stressful week with the tabloids. Something is clearly up. I

think it is a real shame. I think many of us when he was elected did

not think he would make a great speaker and there are people like

Douglas Carswell and Tory rebels who have said he is a fantastic speaker.

He has given the Commons room to breathe and he has called on

ministers to be held to account when they do not want to be. What do you

think? He is seen as anti-government and he is pro-backbencher and that

is what people do not like. People like Douglas Carswell are actually

very strongly in support of him We carry the interventions every week

on Prime Minister 's questions and we see them every week and they are

getting a bit more eccentric. If I was having to keep that under

control, I would be driven slowly mad. But his job is easier than

mine. But if you look at his deputy, Eleanor Laing, she is very

robust, but she is calm. Chap who does the budget is excellent. We are

on throughout the week at midday on BBC Two. We will be back next Sunday

at 11. If it is Sunday, it is the Sunday Politics.