01/07/2012 Sunday Politics West

In the West: Should you be allowed to keep a dog

in a council flat? A local authority has changed the rules,

saying it is a human right to keep a pet. But now other tenants are

Apology for the loss of subtitles for 1681 seconds

Coming up in the West this week: They are said to be man's best

friend. But not all council tenants in this block of flats are happy

with their neighbours keeping dogs. They want the council to ban them.

But will Europe have the final say? Joining us today is the cat-loving

Lib Dem from Bath Don Foster. And the Labour Councillor from Taunton

Libby Lisgo. I want to talk about the banking scandal first. Is there

an argument to say the find that Barclays had should be used to

build a big prison that people at the top can be properly punished?

do not think so. Not directly. I, along with a lot of people, feel

that the situation is an obscenity. The banking system has clearly got

completely out of hand. We need a completely independent, arm's

length inquiry to look at who has done what so that people who have

done the worst things can be punished. People are saying it is

one rule for the rich and another for the poor. You fiddle your

benefits and they come down on you like a ton of bricks, but you do

something on a massive scale and you are untouchable. It was a

massive fine. �300 million, which is peanuts to a bank like barkers.

It was only �60 million of the find in the UK -- Barclays. The rest as

in the USA. Some have said for a long time that at the moment the

banks have two different parts, high-street lending and the risky

casino banking. And if they get into difficulty with that, we end

up bailing them out. None of us is getting any younger.

But who is going to pay for our care when we get older? At the

moment, if you have savings of more than �23,000, you have to pay for

yourself. But it is proposed that limit should go up to �100,000. But

is that affordable? At a senior citizens' social club on the east

side of Bristol, it is raffle time. Most who attend still live

independently. But they know one day they'll need help. I could live

until I am 100 and I do not know who will -- what will happen.

the moment I manage on my own. will have to sell powerhouses. --

RN houses. The Emersons Green club is run by volunteers. But charities

are small players in the country's care system. Everyone agrees that

the amount must go up massively, not just because people live longer

but also that an official report concluded the state should pay a

greater share. The problem is how to afford it. At her home in

Melksham, Patricia Simpson-Bysman is among one and a half million

adults who need help. Carers visit four times a day, paid for by her

and Wiltshire council. They have to realise that while we may be living

longer, we have paid, financially, and many of us in emotions, to fund

the country's welfare. The funding of care was investigated by

economist Andrew Dilnot. All main parties welcomed his commission's

conclusions. We need to the States to provide certainty and

reassurance so that people know the worst case is something they can

manage. At present in England, people must pay for all their care

if they have more than �23,250 savings. It still leaves the

Government paying 12 billion. Andrew Dilnot suggested raising the

threshold and putting a cap on individual contributions. The cost

to the Government, �1.7 billion extra. The commission recognised

implementing the reforms would have significant cost that the

Government will need to consider against other priorities. It has

proved very difficult. The government's white paper on social

care is months overdue, after a rough passage in the Treasury.

not think they are holding it up. I think there are strong discussions

at the heart of government. Everybody realises this is an issue

that for too long politicians have not have to worry about the cars if

you push it into the long grass because you don't need to worry

about election time. The time has come when we can no longer avoid

delay. He has thought about it and come up with proposals which he

reckons could save taxpayers �1 billion a year. Elsewhere in Europe,

they have said if you want to look after an Old City -- elderly

relative we can give you the cash directly at two-thirds the cost. In

Germany and the Netherlands, people have taken cash and it gives them

greater freedom to choose where to spend that money. It brings down

costs. Back in his constituency, lunch is being served. These senior

citizens were not sure about simply relying on family members. They

know care ultimately needs cash. think any expenditure like that

should come out of income tax. If it is not high enough to pay for it,

it should be increased. Whoever is in Parliament, they are not miracle

workers. They only have so much money. We grumble about them, but I

would not like to be in their shoes. They voice of reason. We can

discuss those points. People feel they have paid national insurance.

Why should they pay more? I am not sure that the question is as simple

as that. If people are fairly well off, they can make choices about

care, about how they live in older age. It is the people who have not

got so much money that really get stuck sometimes with some of our

least well-funded least good services. If people cannot afford

to pay, in my view,... The state has to be there as the last stop

provider. That is the important thing. What is really important in

paying for care, it is massively important. It ought not to become a

political football. It needs to be a cross party approach. That's why

Ed Miliband initiated cross-party talks. It is �1,000 a week to put

them in a care home, what about giving the relative �600 and it

might give them an incentive to give -- to do the job. 5 million

people in this country care for older people and for some of them

it is a full-time job and the Government has provided more

support for them. The ultimate issue as you heard Inverkip. The

Andrew Dilnot report says we have to put a cap -- in the kip. He

suggested an amount and thereafter the state picks up the rest. Let me

suggest a way of funding it. The richer pensioners, maybe they could

give up some of the things they currently get such as the winter

fuel allowance. If you are poor, it is provided anyway. If you are rich,

looking after your own care is peanuts anyway, it is the people in

the middle. That is why there should be a limit. Andrew Dilnot

suggests �35,000 and thereafter the state picks it up. That means

everybody can be assured they will get proper care. That would stop

people losing their houses which is distressing. And they do not

actually use their houses the way it works, but they are required to

use the value of their property to pay for care. That is a

misconception. In Scotland, you get it for nothing. You only get the

personal care free in Scotland. is a burden on the young, younger

taxpayers. Paying for our generation as we get older. That is

why I suggest one way would be to look at other things not on general

taxation but which can -- tax pays for, such as the bonus you get for

winter fuel allowance, which I do not think wealthier pensioners

should get. It would be a way of the people who benefit funding it.

Is it your human right to own a dog? Councillors in Bristol have

decided it is and changed the rules to allow tenants in council flats

to keep pets. But what about the rights of the other residents who

do not want to want to hear the hounds next door? Maybe it's their

rough luck. Man's best friend is not proving

quite so popular here. Two years ago, Bristol City Council relaxed

the rules to allow any tenant to keep pets in their council flats.

It has prompted a surge in the number of dogs and a raft of

complaints. People go out to work all the time. They do not take

their animals out enough. But they bark, basically, everything.

will have an owner who is not responsible to pick up dirt. The

other day we had it in the doorway. Just inside the door, dog muck.

Why? Can may not bend down and pick it up? Their concern is shared by

the RSPCA. We do not think it is right that animals are kept in

high-rise flats. The reasons are hygiene issues, exercise, the dog

needs to go out and stretch its legs. Not everybody is a fan of

animals and does not want the animal in a communal area. In other

parts of the country, housing authorities have a blanket ban in

high rise flats, but in Bristol the council says such a ban is

difficult to end force and not fair. And an ombudsman has found it could

contravene the European Convention on Human Rights. That allows the

right to enjoy possessions and the right to a family life. It is that

mention of Europe that has upset the Tories. In common with lots of

councils and large organisations, they use these European d'etats to

justify steps they wished to take. -- rulings. I think it is one of

the reasons I feel that Europe is a difficulty for us all. Is this a

case of Brussels meddling in Bristol affairs? Not so say the

ruling Lib-Dems. We have a strategy in the city which is your home is

your springboard for life. People of every 10 year has arrived to use

their home. -- tenancy. It is their home. Everyone needs to be

reasonable. By and large, most people are reasonable. Where that

goes wrong, we have to do something about it. The council says it could

be tougher on those with noisy dogs. It is writing to the housing

minister for more powers to tackle nuisance neighbours, but for now

some neighbours high above Bristol say that Barking and fouling

continue to make their lives a misery.

We are joined by the Lib Dem responsible for housing in Bristol

and the Conservative, Chris windows. You have made a life -- life a

misery for tenants? We have had a policy for a long time for not

having pets in flats, but in reality that has been allowed to

lapse for a long time for the good reason that you cannot enforce it.

You can have a dog on the 15th floor? You cannot enforce demanding

people not to have pets. Why is it not a enforceable? We only have

under the Housing Act 1 real final redress, which is eviction. And

there is nothing between. They should be something between. People

love their animals. I am sure they do. I had large dogs as pets until

a while ago. I loved my animals. If I lived in a high-rise, there is no

way I would have a dog as a pet. I understand that some elderly people

on their own would like a pet as company. Why would you object

about? I would not. Is there any way you can say you could have a

small dog, but not a pit bull? is a big dot macro? It is difficult.

We have rules about -- dog. We do have rules about the type of animal

that can be kept and bread, it cannot be a dangerous breed or a

dog that causes a major problem. I do not how to distinguish between a

small dog and a larger one. Somebody's nice dog might be

another person's problem. How the politicians do with his? It is

difficult. I do not recognise -- I do not envy the job he has to do.

Some people do need an animal for company, but the ultimate issue is

whether the council can enforce rules it has to ensure noise and

nuisance that can be caused by irresponsible overs -- owners can

be dealt with. I live in a flat. I know about this. It is not the

right environment for animals. you live in a private flat, they

have very strict rules, no barbecues, no animals, no ball

games, and all that. Why should the council not take the same rules?

There is a difference in terms of the law. It is difficult to enforce

much of the conditions of the tenancies under the law as it

stands. Why has Bristol gone out on a limb on this? They are banned in

other parts of the country? So I understand. I do not know why the

council has taken this view. I cannot understand it. I can

understand better the elderly ladies and men who come to me,

absolutely distraught, or I go to them and see them in their flats,

because they are kept awake through the night by dogs barking. Some of

them have been there for years in those flats and they are frightened

to go out of their front door. They are frightened to identify

themselves. That is pretty bad? That is pretty bad. And the fact is

we get very few complaints. Perhaps people do not dare? We get fewer

complaints. Should we ban stereo systems because people might make a

noise? A lot of people might appreciate that! Thank you for

coming in. It's time now to see some of the other stories making

the headlines this week in just 60 seconds. Figures out this week show

nearly 3,000 families in the West face having their homes repossessed.

This is Michael Conway, his home is about to be taken away. He says

there's not enough help for people like him. A quarter of working

people in the Forest of Dean are on the brink of poverty. The Citizens

advice bureau say over 60% of people looking for debt advice are

in work and owe an average of �15,000.

Bristol City Council is planning to borrow �70 million to fund major

changes to its offices. It is also considering turning the vacated

buildings into schools, nurseries and housing.

There have been celebrations in Brussels after the Lib Dem MEP Sir

Graham Watson won his battle to have prunes branded as a laxative.

He challenged an EU commissioner to a prune eat-off last December. Now

in a change of heart, the EU says prunes do help bowel functions,

after all. I am sure they do. We can talk

about one of those stories, repossession numbers. Not as high

as the last recession, but still serious if you are in that

situation. Very serious and dreadful for people, especially

families, where they are trying to get through. It is a reflection of

the economic situation. Perhaps the banks are being more lenient than

last time? I think they are, but they could do more to develop a

shared ownership scheme whereby they take back half ownership of

that house and allow the people to continue to live there. There are

ways forward and we have to find more effective ways to help people

in those circumstances. That's all we've got time for today.

Thank you to Don and Libby for joining us. We're off air next week

because of the Wimbledon final. But we will be back with you on Sunday