12/01/2014 Sunday Politics West

Good morning, welcome. 2014 is barely under way, and the

coalition is fighting over cuts Nick Legg says Tory plans to balance

the books would hit the poorest hardest. He will not say what he

will cut. That is the top story Chris Grayling called for a

completely new deal with Europe as he battles will rings from the

European Court of Human Rights. He joins me.

Labour promises to shift house-building up a gear, but how

will they get In the West, a backlog of benefit

claims. Families coping with serious illness

ambulance even when the incident may be serious. Have cuts left to the

service being overstretched? With me for the duration, a top trio

of political pundits, Helen Lewis, Jan and Ganesh and Nick Watt. They

will be tweeting faster than France or long scoots through Paris. Nick

Clegg sticks to his New Year resolution to sock it to the Tories,

the is how he described Tory plans for another 12 billion of cuts on

welfare after the next election You cannot say, as the Conservatives

are, that we are all in it together and then say that the welfare will

not make any additional contributions from their taxes if

there is a Conservative government after 2015 in the ongoing effort to

balance the books. We are not even going to ask that very wealthy

people who have retired who have benefits, paid for by the

hard-pressed taxpayers, will make a sacrifice. The Conservatives appear

to be saying only the working age pork will be asked to make

additional sacrifices to fill the remaining buckle in the public

finances. Nick Legg eating up on the Tories

a, happens almost every day. I understand it is called aggressive

differentiation. Will it work for them? It has not for the past two

years. This began around the time of the AV referendum campaign, that is

what poisoned the relations between the parties. They have been trying

to differentiation since then, they are still at barely 10% in the

polls, Nick Clegg's personal ratings are horrendous, so I doubt they will

do much before the next election. It is interesting it has been combined

with aggressive flirtation with Ed Balls and the Labour Party. There

was always going to be some sort of rapprochement between them and the

Labour Party, it is in the Labour Party's interests, and it is intent

macro's interests, not to be defined as somebody who can only do deals

with the centre-right. A colleague of yours, Helen, told me there was

more talk behind closed doors in the Labour Party high command, they have

to think about winning the election in terms of being the largest party,

but not necessarily an overall majority. There is a feeling it was

foolish before the last election not to have any thought about what a

coalition might be, but the language has changed. Ed Miliband had said, I

cannot deal with this man, but now, I have to be prismatic, it is about

principles. Even Ed Balls. Nick Clegg had specifically said that Ed

Balls was the man in politics that he hated. He said that was just a

joke. Of course, it is about principles, not people! When Ed

Balls said those nice things about Nick Clegg, he said, I understood

the need to get a credible deficit reduction programme, although he

said Nick Clegg went too far. The thing about Nick Clegg, he feels

liberated, he bears the wounds from the early days of the coalition and

maybe those winds will haunt him all the way to the general election But

he feels liberated, he says, we will be the restraining influence on both

the Conservatives, who cannot insure that the recovery is fair, and the

Labour Party, that do not have economic red ability. He feels

relaxed, and that is why he is attacking the Tories and appearing

pretty relaxed. He could also be falling into a trap. The Tories

think what they suggesting on welfare cuts is possible. The more

he attacks it, the more Tories will say, if you gave us an overall

majority, he is the one it. He keeps taking these ostensibly on popular

positions and it only makes sense when you talk to them behind the

scenes, they are going after a tiny slice of the electorate, 20%, who

are open to the idea of voting Lib Dem, and their views are a bit more

left liberal than the bulk of the public. There is a perverse logic in

them aggressively targeting that section of voters. In the end, ten

macro's problem, if you do not like what this coalition has been doing,

you will not vote for somebody who was part of it, you will vote for

the Labour Party. The Tories are too nasty, Labour are to spendthrift,

Lib Dem, a quarter of their vote has gone to Labour, and that is what

could hand the largest party to Labour. That small number of voters,

soft Tory voters, the problem for the Liberal Democrats is, if you

fight, as they did, three general elections to the left of the Labour

Party, and at the end of the third, you find yourself in Colour Vision

with the Conservatives, you have a problem.

Chris Grayling is a busy man, he has had to deal with aid riot at HM

Prison Oakwood, barristers on strike and unhappy probation officers

taking industrial action. Prison works. It ensures that we are

protected from murderers, muggers and rapists. It makes many who are

tempted to commit crime think twice. Traditional Tory policy on criminal

justice and prisons has been tough talking and tough dealing. Not only

have they tended to think what they are offering is right, but have had

the feeling, you thinking what they thinking. But nearly two decades

after Michael Howard's message, his party, in Colour Vision government,

is finding prison has to work like everything else within today's

financial realities. The Justice Secretary for two years after the

election had previous in this field. Ken Clarke. Early on, he signalled a

change of direction. Just binding up more and more people for longer

without actively seeking to change them is, in my opinion, what you

would expect of Victorian England. The key to keeping people out of

prison now, it seems, is giving them in a job, on release. Ironically,

Ken Clarke was released from his job 15 months ago and replaced by Chris

Grayling. But here, within HM Prison Liverpool, Timpson has been working

since 2009 with chosen offenders to offer training and the chance of a

job. Before you ask, they do not teach them keep cutting in a

category B prison. The Academy is deliberately meant to look like a

company store, not a prison. It helps. You forget where you are at

times, it feels weird, going back to a wing at the end of the day. It is

different. A different atmosphere. That is why people like it. Timpson

have six academies in prisons, training prisoners inside, and

outside they offer jobs to ex-offenders, who make up 8% of

their staff. It has been hard work persuading some governors that such

cooperation can work. I have seen a dramatic change positively, working

with prisoners, particularly in the last five years. They understand now

what business's expectation is. Timpson do not just employ

offenders, but as one ex-prisoner released in February and now

managing his own store says, the point is many others will not employ

offenders at all. From what I have experienced, on one hand, you have

somebody with a criminal conviction, on the other, somebody who does not

have one, so it is a case of favouring those who have a clean

record. Anybody with a criminal conviction is passed to one side and

overlooked. That, amongst myriad other changes to prison and how we

deal with prisoners, is on the desk of the man at the top. Ever since

Chris Grayling became Secretary of State for Justice, he has wanted to

signal a change of direction of policy, and he is in a hurry to make

radical reforms across the board, from size and types of prisons to

probation services, reoffending rates, legal aid services, and there

has been opposition to that from groups who do not agree with him.

But what might actually shackle him is none of that. It is the fact that

he is in government with a party that does not always agree with him,

he has to abide by the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights,

and in those famous words, there is no money left. We would like to go

further and faster. I would like him too, but we are where we are. If the

Liberal Democrats want to be wiped out at the next election based on

what they believe, that is fair enough. We accept there has to be

savings, but there are areas where we feel that there is ideological

driven policy-making going on, and privatising may not save any money

at all, and so does not make any sense. The question is, we'll all of

that means some of Chris Grayling's reforms need closer inspection?

Chris Grayling joins me now. Welcome. We have a lot to cover If

you get your way, your own personal way, will be next Tory manifesto

promise to withdraw from the European Convention of human

rights? It will contain a promise for radical changes. We have to

curtail the role of the European court here, replace our human rights

act from the late 1990s, make our Supreme Court our Supreme Court

they can be no question of decisions over riding it elsewhere, and we

have to have a situation where our laws contain a balance of rights and

responsibilities. People talk about knowing their rights, but they do

not accept they have responsible it is. This is what you said last

September, I want to see our Supreme Court being supreme again... That is

clear, but let's be honest, the Supreme Court cannot be supreme as

long as its decisions can be referred to the European Court in

Strasbourg. There is clearly an issue, that was raised recency -

recently. We have been working on a detailed reform plan, we will

publish that in the not too distant future. What we will set out is a

direction of travel for a new Conservative government that will

mean wholesale change in this area. You already tried to reform the

European Court, who had this declaration in 2012, do you accept

that the reform is off the table? There is still a process of reform,

but it is not going fast enough and not delivering the kind of change we

need. That is why we will bring forward a package that for the

different from that and will set a different direction of travel. We

are clear across the coalition, we have a different view from our

colleagues. You cannot be half pregnant on this, either our

decisions from our Supreme Court are subject to the European Cup or not,

in which case, we are not part of the European court. I hope you will

see from our proposals we have come up with a sensible strategy that

deals with this issue once and for all. Can we be part of the

Strasbourg court and yet our Supreme Court be supreme? That is by point,

we have to curtail the role of the court in the UK. I am clear that is

what we will seek to do. It is what we will do for this country. But

how? I am not going to announce the package of policies today, but we

will go into the next election with a clear strategy that will curtail

the role of the European Court of Human Rights in the UK. The

decisions have to be taken in Parliament in this country. Are you

sure that you have got your own side on this? Look at what the Attorney

General says. I would be asking Strasberg a

different question to that. If the best in class, he is saying is

enough is enough, actually somebody in Strasberg should be asking if

this has gone the way it should have done. I would love to see wholesale

reform in the court tomorrow, I m not sure it is going to happen which

is why we are going to the election with a clear plan for this country.

Would you want that to be a red line in any coalition agreement? My

mission is to win the next election with a majority. But you have to say

where your red lines would be. We have been very clear it is an area

where we don't agree as parties but in my view the public in this

country are overwhelmingly behind the Conservative party. 95

Conservative MPs have written to the Prime Minister, demanding he gives

the House of Commons the authority to veto any aspect of European Union

law. Are you one of the people who wanted to sign that letter but you

couldn't because you are minister? I haven't been asked to sign the

letter. We need a red card system for European law. I'm not convinced

my colleagues... I don't think it is realistic to have a situation where

one parliament can veto laws across the European Union. I understand the

concerns of my colleagues, but when we set out to renegotiate our

membership, we have got to deliver renegotiation and deliver a system

which is viable, and I'm not convinced we can have a situation

where one Parliament can prevent laws across the whole European

Union. So you wouldn't have signed this letter? I'm not sure it is the

right approach. I support the system I just talked about. Iain Duncan

Smith has suggested EU migrants coming to work in this country

should have to wait for two years before they qualify for welfare

benefits, do you agree? Yes, I think there should be an assumption that

before you can move from one country to another, before you can start to

take back from that country's social welfare system, you should have made

a contribution to it. I spent two and a half years working in Brussels

trying to get the European Commission to accept the need for

change. There is a groundswell of opinion out there which is behind

Iain Duncan Smith in what he is saying. I think we should push for a

clear system that says people should be able to move from one country to

get a job, but to move to another country to live off the state is not

acceptable. You are planning a new 2000 capacity mega prison and other

smaller presence which will be run by private firms. After what has

happened with G4S, why would you do that? No decision has been made

about whether it will be public or private. What do you think it will

be? I'm not sure yet. There is no clear correlation over public and

private prisons and whether there are problems or otherwise. Oakwood

is in its early stages, it has had teething problems at the start, but

the rate of disturbance there is only typical for an average prison

of its category. If you take an example of Parc prison in Wales a

big private run prison, run by G4S, when it was first launched under the

last government it had teething problems of the same kind as Oakwood

and is now regarded as one of the best performing prisons. Why would

you give it to a private company then? We have only just got planning

permission for the so we will not be thinking about this for another few

years. Some of the companies who run prisons are under investigation with

dreadful track records. In the case of G4S, what we have experienced is

acceptable and they have not been able to go ahead with a number of

contracts they might have otherwise got. They are having to prove to the

Government they are fit to win contracts from the Government again.

They are having to pay compensation to the Government and the taxpayer.

What has happened is unacceptable. So why would you give them a 20 0

capacity mega prison? Or anyone like them? It cannot be said that every

private company is bad. In addition to problems at Oakwood, you are

quite unique now in your position that you have managed to get the

barristers out on strike the first time since history began. What

happens if the bar refuses to do work at your new rates of legal aid

and the courts grind to a halt? I don't believe that will happen. When

the barristers came out on strike, three quarters of Crown Courts were

operating normally, 95% of magistrates courts were operating

normally. We are having to take difficult decisions across

government, I have no desire to cut back lately but we are spending over

?2 billion on legal aid at the moment at a time when budgets are

becoming tougher. You issued misleading figures about criminal

barristers, you said that 25% of them earn over ?100,000 per year but

that is their turnover, including VAT. 33% of that money goes on their

expenses, they have to pay for their own pensions and insurance. People

are not getting wealthy out of doing this work. I don't publish figures,

our statisticians do, with caveats in place explaining the situation.

Where you have high-cost cases, where we have taken the most

difficult decisions, we have tried hard in taking difficult decisions

to focus the impact higher up the income scale. But do you accept

their take-home pay is not 100, 00? I accept they have to take out other

costs, although some things like travelling to the court, you and I

and everyone else has to pay for travelling to work. That is net of

VAT. We have had a variety of figures published, some are and some

are not. Let's be clear, the gross figures for fees from legal payments

include 20% VAT. On a week when even a cabinet minister can be fitted up

by the police, don't we all need well-financed legal aid? There is no

chance that as a result well-financed legal aid? There is no

changes people will end up in court unable to defend themselves. We have

said in exceptional circumstances, if you haven't got any money to pay,

we will support you, but there is no question of anyone ended up in

court, facing a criminal charge where they haven't got a lawyer to

defend them. Let's look at how so many dangerous criminals have

managed to avoid jail. Here are the figures for 2012. Half the people

for sexual assault found guilty not jailed. I thought you were meant to

be tough on crime? Those figures predate my time, but since 2010 the

number of those people going to jail has been increasing steadily. If you

put the figures for 2010 on there, you would see a significant change.

We will never be in a position where everybody who commits violence will

end up in jail. The courts will often decided to his more

appropriate to give a community sentence, but the trend is towards

longer sentences and more people going to jail. That maybe but it is

even quite hard to get sent to jail if you do these things a lot, again

and again. In 2012 one criminal avoided being sent to jail despite

having more than 300 offences to his name. 36,000 avoided going to jail

despite 15 previous offences. That is why we are taking steps to

toughen up the system. Last autumn we scrapped repeat cautions. You

could find people getting dozens. As of last autumn, we have scrapped

repeat cautions. If you commit the same offence twice within a two year

period you will go to court. You still might end up not going to

jail. More and more people are going to jail. I cannot just magic another

34,000 prison places. You haven t got room to put bad people in jail?

The courts will take the decisions, and it is for them to take the

decisions and not me, that two men in a bar fight do not merit a jail

sentence. These figures contain a huge amount of offences from the

most minor of offences to the most despicable. Something is wrong if

you can commit 300 offences and still not end up in jail. That's

right, and we are taking steps so this cannot happen any more. Nick

Clegg said this morning you are going to make 12 billion of welfare

cuts on the back of this, he is right, isn't he? People on the

lowest incomes are often not paying tax at all, the rich... But these

cuts will fall disproportionately on average earners, correct? Let's look

at the proposal to limit housing benefit for under 25s. Until today,

after people have left school or college, the live for a time with

their parents. For some, that is not possible and we will have to take

that into account, but we have said there is a strong case for saying

you will not get housing benefit until you are some years down the

road and have properly established yourselves in work. And by

definition these people are on lower than average salaries. Give me a

case in which those on the higher tax band will contribute to the

cuts. We have already put in place tax changes so that the highest tax

rate is already higher than it was in every year of the last

government. The amount of tax.. There is no more expected of the

rich. We will clearly look at future policy and work out how best to

distribute the tax burden in this country and it is not for me to

second-guess George Osborne's future plans, but we need to look at for

example housing benefit for the under 25s. Is it right for those who

are not working for the state to provide accommodation for them?

Thank you for being with us. All three major parties at

Westminster agree there's an urgent need to build more homes for

Britain's growing population. But how they get built, and where, looks

set to become a major battle ground in the run-up to the next general

election. Although 16% more house-builds were

started in 2012/13 than the previous year, the number actually completed

fell by 8% - the lowest level in peacetime since 1920. The Office for

National Statistics estimates that between now and 2021 we should

expect 220,000 new households to be created every year. At his party's

conference last autumn, Ed Miliband promised a Labour government would

massively increase house-building. I will have a clear aim but by the end

of the parliament, Britain will be building 200,000 homes per year

more than at any time for a generation. That is how we make

Britain better than this. The Labour leader also says he'd give urban

councils a "right to grow" so rural neighbours can't block expansion and

force developers with unused land to use it or lose it. The Government

has been pursuing its own ideas including loan guarantees for

developers and a new homes bonus to boost new house-building. But David

Cameron could have trouble keeping his supporters on side - this week

the senior backbencher Nadhim Zahawi criticised planning reforms for

causing "physical harm" to the countryside. Nick Clegg meanwhile

prefers a radical solution - brand new garden cities in the south east

of England. In a speech tomorrow, Labour's shadow housing minister

Emma Reynolds will give more details of how Labour would boost

house-building, and she joins me now. It is not the politicians to

blame, it is the lack of house-builders? We want a vibrant

building industry, and at the moment that industry is dominated by big

house-builders. I want to see a more diverse and competitive industry,

where self build plays a greater role. In France over 60% of new

homes are built by self builders, but small builders build more homes

as well. 25 years ago they were building two thirds of new homes,

now they are not building even a third of new homes. That's because

land policies have been so restrictive that it is only the big

companies who can afford to buy the land, so little land is being

released for house building. I agree, there are some fundamental

structural problems with the land market and that is why we have said

there doesn't just need to be tinkering around the edges, there

needs to be real reforms to make sure that small builders and self

build and custom-built have access to land. They are saying they have

problems with access to land and finance. At the end of the day it

will not be self, small builders who reach your target, it will be big

builders. I think it is pretty shameful that in Western Europe the

new houses built in the UK are smaller than our neighbours. But

isn't not the land problem? France is 2.8 times bigger in land mass and

we are and that is not a problem for them. There is a perception we are

going to build on the countryside, but not even 10% is on the

countryside. There is enough for us to have our golf courses. There is

enough other land for us to build on that is not golf courses. The

planning minister has said he wants to build our National Parks, I am

not suggesting that. The single biggest land border is the public

sector. It is not. There are great opportunities for releasing public

land, that is why I have been asking the government, they say they are

going to release and of public land for tens of thousands of new homes

to be built, but they say they are not monitoring how many houses are

being built on the site. When your leader says to landowners, housing

development owners, either use the land or lose it, in what way will

they lose it? Will you confiscated? This is about strengthening the hand

of local authorities, and they say to us that in some cases,

house-builders are sitting on land. In those cases, we would give the

power to local authorities to escalate fees. This would be the

compulsory purchase orders, a matter of last resort, and you would hope

that by strengthening the hand of local authorities, you could get the

house-builders to start building the homes that people want. Would you

compulsory purchase it? We would give the local authority as a last

resort, after escalating the fees, the possibility and flexible it is

to use the compulsory purchase orders to sell the land on to a

house builder who wants to build houses that we need. Can you name

one report that has come back in recent years that shows that

hoarding of land by house-builders is a major problem? The IMF, the

Conservative mayor of London and the Local Government Association are

telling us that there is a problem with land hoarding. Therefore, we

have said, where there is land with planning permission, and if plots

are being sat on... Boris Johnson says there are 180,000 plots in

London being sat on. We need to make sure the house-builders are building

the homes that young families need. They get planning permission and

sell it on to the developer. There is a whole degree of complicity but

there is another problem before that. That is around transparency

about land options. There is agricultural land that

house-builders have land options on, and we do not know where that is.

Where there is a need for housing, and the biggest demand is in the

south-east of England, that is where many local authorities are most

reluctant to do it, will you in central government take powers to

force these authorities to give it? We have talked about the right to

grow, we were in Stevenage recently. What we have said is we

want to strengthen the hand of local authorities like Stevenage so they

are not blocked every step of the way. They need 16,000 new homes but

they do not have the land supply. What about the authorities that do

not want to do it? They should be forced to sit down and agree with

the neighbouring authority. In Stevenage, it is estimated at

?500,000 has been spent on legal fees because North Hertfordshire is

blocking Stevenage every step of the way. Michael Lyons says the national

interest will have to take President over local interest. Voice cannot

mean a veto. The local community in Stevenage is crying out for new

homes. Do you agree? There has to be land available for new homes to be

built, and in areas like Oxford Luton and Stevenage... Do you agree

with Michael Lyons? The national interest does have to be served

with Michael Lyons? The national will put the five new towns? We have

asked him to look at how we can incentivise local authorities to

come forward with sites for new towns. You cannot tell us where they

are going to be? I cannot. We will have to wait for him. When you look

at the historic figures overall not at the moment, Private Housing

building is only just beginning to recover, but it has been pretty

steady for a while. The big difference between house-building

now and in the past, since Mrs Thatcher came to power a and

including the Tony Blair government, we did not build council houses

Almost none. Will the next Labour government embark on a major council

has programme? We inherited housing stock back in 1997... This is

important. Will the next Labour government embark on a major council

has programme? We have called on this government to bring forward

investment in social housing. We want to see an investment programme

in social housing, I cannot give you the figures now. We are 18 months

away from the election. Will the next Labour government embark on a

major council house Northern programme? I want to see a council

house building programme, because there is a big shortage of council

homes. That is a guess? Yes. We got there in the end. -- that is a yes?

We will be talking to Patrick homes in the West Midlands in a moment.

You are watching the Sunday Politics. Coming up in just over 20

minutes, I will look at the week ahead with our political

Welcome to the first Sunday Politics in the West of 2014. Coming up this

week, what's the point of receiving disability benefits after you have

died? That is what is happening because of delays in the system We

will hear from a Somerset mother with terminal cancer who still has

not received her disability allowance eight months after first

applying. Joining me on our first show, we have Tessa Munt, the

Liberal Democrat MP for Wales, and Clare Moody, who is hoping to become

a Member of the European Parliament for Labour in the next elections

this May. Just got to be elected first. Let's start if we can about

the restrictions that were relaxed on Bulgarians and Romanians coming

into this country. It turned to be not much at all, didn't it?

Absolutely. Yes, after all the coverage and certain elements trying

to big this up as being a huge influx of people coming from

Bulgaria and Romania, it turns out there were actually less coming into

the country on the 1st of January than there was last year. It is

still early in January, of course. You could see more. Would that be a

bad thing? The people who come here come here to work and play fair If

they are part of our society and contributing to our society, as the

majority are, then no. Tessa, did politicians ramp this up? I think

some people got fairly hysterical about it. But as has been proven,

there are fewer people coming in. And people do come to work. There

are number of people in my constituency who do come to work,

and that is what they do, they work very hard and very often. They do

the jobs that people locally do not feel able to do. So you would not

like to see a cap? No. From a business point of view, it is

sensible that people should have access to work. There are large

numbers of people from this part of the world who go abroad to work Not

too many from Romania. Possibly not too many from Romania, but to the

rest of Europe. Well, it has been the wettest

Christmas and New Year that I can remember. It has been just a bit

depressing, frankly, for most of us. But for some communities, the

results have been devastating. The floods have turned parts of the West

Country into giant lakes and ruined some homes. Everyone is trying to

point the finger of blame. One thing is certain, Government funding is a

big issue. Here's Paul Barltrop The West Country has been watery for

weeks. Gloucestershire and Wiltshire have suffered but nowhere has been

hit as hard a Somerset, just as it was one year ago. It has brought a

flood of complaints. They should be protecting us. You're not happy are

you? No, I am very angry. We have been pushing and pushing for

dredging to be done and they will not do it. This has become an annual

event. Something must be done over dredging the River Parrett. Two big

rivers flow through the Levels. All agree that the Tone and Parrett

would drain beter if regularly dredged, but the Government's

Environment Agency is under financial pressure. `` dream better.

The challenge for us is how we best use our funding. River water floods

the fields, floods out roads and threatens properties. One of the

solutions to manage that is to dredge sections of the rivers. That

can cost up to ?4 million. It is a challenge for us to justify funding

the whole of that. The Environment Agency gets its money from the

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Defra sets out how

that money should be spent. Ministers boast that over four

years, funding to tackle flooding will rise to ?2.3 billion. But the

big increases are for capital projects. More routine work like

keeping rivers flowing will fall. So the Tone and the Parrett may yet

again miss out. Local politicians have been preoccupied with problems

on the ground, but they are preparing to put pressure on the

Government. We have got to get to the point where we clear the main

watercourses. We are launching a lobbying campaign and will be

lobbying MPs, Defra, central Government. We will ask for help. We

need money into the Environment Agency to get these watercourses

clear. Floods in Muchelney two winters running swept away the

belief that this was a once in a 100 year event. Politicians ranging from

the Prime Minister to MEP Graham Watson, who lives nearby, fear it

may happen more in future. We do know that the onset of climate

change means that weather patterns will be less predictable and the

regularity or frequency of something like this might be greater. That is

why we need to prepare for less predictable weather patterns in the

future. After the deluge comes the clean`up. Only when the waters

subside will the full scale of the damage be known. In Gloucestershire,

they are once again based for a big road repair bill. At the moment I

couldn't envisage what this current flooding will cost us, but what I

can say is the 2007 flood, which was considerably more than this one

cost the county ?20 million in road repairs and maintenance to put the

infrastructure back right. The water should be gone within weeks. The

argument over who foots the bill will last much longer.

Joining us in the studio now is Dr Richard Johnson, a senior lecturer

in physical geography at Bath Spa University, who specialises in

flooding. We'll come along. Is there a formula

the Government uses? We will spend ?1 million if we save 100 homes from

flooding? They would assess whether it is worth while defending those

particular assets and risks. It is not only a financial decision. They

must consider the implications of actions on the physical environment

but also the college as well. It is complicated. The allegation is that

the big eye`catching projects seem to get the funding but the dirty

routine work, dredging a river, is not such a high priority. Is that

fair? Dredging is a complicated issue because, by dredging eight

river, you can cause issues in the river system that can cause problems

elsewhere and you can impact the ecology of the river. It is not just

an economic decision. It is not as simple as we might like to think?

OK. Is it fair to expect the taxpayer to protect every property

in the country? It is fair to expect the Government to implement flood

defence protections. And not, when you see situations like this, where

you have flooding of houses and that flooding, you know, the defence

might have cost one eighth of what the costs of cleaning up the

consequences of the flooding. You are investing to save money and very

much like your earlier point about the cost benefits... If there is

enough houses, I guess. But if you buy a house on the Somerset Levels,

shouldn't the first question you ask me, is this place going to flood,

and if it does, can I afford to clean it up? We need to have

accurate flood maps. We also need to recognise, you know, quite a lot of

the Somerset Levels is on a flood plain. It is the extended periods

and the fact you take that what happened last year, it was wet snow

and it is still wet in April. The Environment Agency has a much `` has

aims and objectives which relate only to wildlife and the prediction

of that kind of thing. It does not recognise property and people, which

is what the Government has to do. More importantly, in my area, they

need dredging to, the rebels. `` the rivers. But it is not justice of the

question of dredging. There are other things coming into play. But

if you look at the way it works on the Somerset Levels, when a dredge,

they take a bucket load out of the river and everyone has to stop work

while the measure oxygen levels to make sure the fish have enough

oxygen in the water. This means dredging a few miles can take years.

What I am saying, if you go back to the old way it was done, I have

people who worked in my constituency doing this by hand and it was a

gentler way of doing things. One gentleman looked after 11 miles of

river every year. That is what he did. We have to get round the fact

this work has not been done in 0 years. We need to bring it back up

to speed and have a programme of maintenance. With Labour reverse the

cuts in environment? I cannot give you a guarantee that we would

reverse the cuts. Mariette Eagle, the Shadow environmental Minister,

has said she would look at departmental spending very, very

carefully. With regards to flooding, I go back to the point I made before

that you save money by investing. That is very much, I believe, the

view of Labour. Is this particularly unusual this year and can they

expect more of the same order just that it just happened this winter?

It is significant. People have gone through a lot of trauma as a result.

There are many incidences in the recent past of things according I

am afraid it will happen again. Jackie. `` thank you. If you have

been diagnosed with a serious illness, you would hope to receive

the sickness benefit in title to as soon as possible.

Here in the West, some people are waiting months with no word as to

when money may come through. Delays appear to be down to extra medical

tests brought in to try to control the rising bill for welfare.

There is never a good time to be told you have terminal cancer, but

the 30`year`old Rebecca McCafferty, it happened when she was pregnant

with her baby daughter. She had to relay the news to her five other

children. That was the worst part. I think that was the most difficult

they, sitting them all down and telling them was hard. The older

ones particularly, because they understand. Our illness and title

totally new Personal Independence Payment from the Government. The

money could be as much as ?430 a week to help with the extra costs

with a condition. Eight months on and very little correspondence

later, she is waiting to be assessed by the Government's chosen

contractor. It is just frustrating we are in the situation we are in,

and having cancer the Joe Hart, as you can imagine. Having six children

with cancer is doubly different We're having financial

difficulties, and that makes it ten times harbour. It is avoidable. If

the were doing what they were meant to do, we would not be in this

situation. The Government says it is too early to release figures about

how long people are waiting for Personal Independence Payments. But

they admitted is taking longer than expected. At this advice centre in

Bristol, just one in 20 claims received since last June and have

actually gone through the system. They were expecting it to take 2`15

weeks as opposed to six weeks under Disability Living Allowance, but

that is stretched out even further. The process of people being assessed

has obviously been far more order this than they realise. The

paperwork is far more complicated than they expected. In a statement,

the Government insisted it was trying to make the process

smoother, but added that claimants had not received money would do so

eventually and that exceptional cases were being fast tracked. The

firm responsible for the assessments has apologised for the delay and

says it is hiring more staff, although training takes six months.

Underlying all this is a controversial programme of welfare

reform. The Government is keen to control the increasing costs of

benefits and is after more rigour in the system. That is why it is asked

the organisation to do more assessments and paperwork, but

delays are mounting up. People in the West have the longest wait in

the country to be assessed for employment and support allowance.

Labour wants Atos out, but this Gloucester MP believes more the

petition is the answer. The bottom line problem is the contract we

inherited from the previous Government was with a single

supplier. Atos were the only people doing these work capability

assessments. Markets do not work well with a monopoly at provider.

You need competition. The Government has said it will change this and

introduce regional dividers to provide the competition and better

service. `` regional providers. They have said this should become

operational during the summer of this year. That is a big step

forward. Back at home, Rebecca's wait for her benefit goes on, not

knowing how long she might have left. Until you are actually in the

thick of it, you cannot fully comprehend how difficult it is. It

has such an impact on your life To have the Government feel others

which is how I feel, they have failed us by putting us in this

situation, it makes me so angry It upsets me to think these things

should be put in place and they are not put in place for people like us.

And we needed. It is a very moving story. That is

better news for Rebecca and her family. Since we alerted them

actually to her case, they have carried out her assessment, so

hopefully she will hear from them soon. We asked for a minister or

indeed anyone in terms of people who are newly

diagnosed, I do not know them personally very much at all.

My organisation is for people who define themselves as a disabled

person. I cases such as husbandry? `` I cases like this rare? No, not

at all. There are huge delays in the roll`out of this benefit for

first`time claimants. They have admitted they just did not

appreciate how long the process was going to take to do properly. You're

part of this Government, Tessa. How difficult can it be to get a letter

from the Government saying this person is dying and they need help?

This is the problem. They will not accept the letter from the doctor.

It is barmy. It is completely with a kiss. I have people who come to me

and are still waiting from March. `` completely ludicrous. It should not

take for an MP to intervene for someone to get fairness and justice

in this system. We must sort this out properly. You are part of the

Government. I spend a good deal of time with my staff... This is to do

with Atos. It is a poorly written contract. We need to get people who

specialise in doing proper specifications for these contracts.

What about the 2% of people? It is a 2% that matter. The lady we saw

there was under stress. When you're severely ill, the last thing you

need is more stress because it makes you more ill and brings people into

a situation where they have mental health problems. What would you do?

What would Labour do? We would end the contract with Atos. They have

proved time and again, like so many people, that they are incapable of

delivering a benefit to people when the `` when the absolutely needed

most. Do you accept the Government is right to make it more rigorous in

their assessment of people claiming disability benefits to try and cut

the bill? No, they should make it more effective as an assessment

which is not the same thing. At the moment, enormous amounts of money

have been wasted on unnecessary appeals. It is estimated 32 people a

week are dying while waiting for the result when they have been told that

they should be able to work either immediately or in the near future.

You're going along and John being assessed by people who know what the

impact of having impairments is a black person's day`to`day life.

Claims for disability benefit have gone up hugely. But now, this

statistic is about Disability Living Allowance. Where it has gone up most

is in the two sections of claimants are not affected. That is children

and older people. Working age population, although the period

described, their own figures say 4% increase. Do you accept the

Government is right to examine people very carefully before being

allowed to have disability benefits? We saw in the Olympics just what

disabled people can achieve. Absolutely. I can not agree more

about the disabled Olympics and the demonstration that gave about

disabled people's achievements. There has always been a test process

around getting benefits associated with disability. That is not the

issue. The issue is the competence and the level of test that people

are being put through. I must say, it is not just them actually. I had

the same issue with the Department of work and pensions. I filled out a

form saying I cannot walk because I have problems with nerve pain. I

would get a response saying, you're not good to get it, you could have a

walking stick. So you have had similar problems with the state as

well? Now it is time for a look at the

week just gone in 60 seconds. A charity has claimed that each

badger shot in the West last autumn cost more than ?4000. Care for the

Wild produced the figures. The Government insisted the costs were

outweighed by the expense to farmers by bovine TB.

Supporters of the English Defence League clashed with antifascist

groups in Bristol on Tuesday night. They were protesting after

permission was granted for a mosque. A big beast in West Country politics

is to step down at the next election. Don Foster, the MP for

Bath, has decided that 23 years in the House is enough. He also warned

me he might be looking for a career in broadcasting. What happens to you

next? I have no idea. One of your BBC colleagues has just invited me

to come and take over your job, so I will look all forward to doing that.

And a new political arrival has already sparked controversy. Debate

is raging over whether the baby of Chippenham MP Duncan Hanes and

Government minister Jo Swinson should be allowed in the voting

chamber. So much to talk about it. Is it the

right time for Don to hang up his hat? It is clearly a time when Don

thinks it is the right time. Is he getting out while the years ahead?

He is getting out while he has had a good run. He has had a fantastic

time as the MP for Bath and Diaz had a crack at getting things right as a

minister. Now he is my Chief Whip. He is a man with a sense of humour.

Got to do what you're told? I would not go that far. Let's talk about

babies. This idea about having your baby in your arms in the houses of

commons. `` House of Commons. Should this be allowed? It is great that as

a society, we have got a lot of moderate setting `` a lot more

accenting of women having babies with them in all sorts of

environments. Equally, the House of Commons is a particularly bizarre

work lace and does not keep normal hours. It is almost inevitable. .

What you think, Tessa? Should babies be welcome? We have to have some

common sense. At 10pm on Monday night whenever we go through the

voting lobby, which is not on the television and completely out of

your the public, I do not think I would get excited if they chose to

walk through the lobby with her baby. Taking children into the

chamber, completely not. I would not have taken a child to work. I was a

teacher. I never took my children into the classroom. I think

moderation in all things, but let's be practical. Babies are very

welcome here. Thank you. That's all we have time for this

week. Thank you to our guests. If you want to see more on the

flooding, tune into a special report tomorrow night on BBC One. This

programme is available again on their BBC iPlayer. Now back

will not be revoked. And I wouldn't want it to go. Thank you, back to

Andrew. Can David Cameron get his way on EU

migration? Will he ever be able to satisfy his backbenchers on Europe?

Is Ed Miliband trying to change the tone of PMQ 's? More questions for

the week ahead. We are joined by Jacob Rees Mogg

from his constituency in Somerset. Welcome to the programme. You one of

the 95 Tory backbenchers who signed this letter? Suddenly. Laws should

be made by our democratically elected representatives, not from

Brussels. How could Europe work with a pick and mix in which each

national parliament can decide what Brussels can be in charge of? The

European Union is a supernatural body that is there for the

cooperation amongst member states to do things that they jointly want to

do. It ought not be there to force -- to enforce uniform rules on

countries that do not want to participate. It is the vision of

Europe that people joined when we signed up to it and came in in 973.

It has accreted powers to itself without having the support of the

public of the member states. This is just a way of preparing the ground

for you to get out of Europe altogether, isn't it? I do not big

so. There is a role for an organisation that does some

coordination and that has trade agreements within it, I do not think

there is a role for a federal state. Europe seems to be dominating the. I

remember your leader telling you not to bang on about Europe, your

backbench colleagues seem to have ignored that. Would you like to

restrict the flow of EU migrants to come to work in this country? Yes. I

think we should have control of our own borders, so we can decide who we

want to admit for the whole world. What we have at the moment is a

restrictive control of people coming from anywhere other than the EU

There is a big decrease in the number of New Zealanders who came in

the last quarter for which figures are available, but a huge increase

in people coming from the continent. Does it really make sense to stop

our second cousins coming so that we can allow people freely to come from

the continent? I do not think so, we need to have domestic control of our

borders in the interests of the United Kingdom. There are still lots

more people coming from the rest of the world than from the European

Union. That has been changing. But there are still more. A lot more.

The permanent residence coming from the European Union are extremely

high. In the period when the Labour Party was in charge, we had to put 5

million people coming here, of whom about 1 billion were from Poland. --

we had 2.5 million people coming here. We have no control over them.

Like the clock behind you, you are behind the times on these figures. I

have stopped the clock for your benefit, because it was going to

chime otherwise! I thought that might be distracting! Only a Tory

backbencher could stop a clock! Helen, when you at this up, it is

preparing to get out, is it not We have had this one bill about a

referendum that seems to have tied us up in knots for months on end. If

Parliament could scrutinise every piece of EU legislation, we would

never get anything else done. It would be incredible. Even Chris

Grayling said earlier that you can not have a national veto on anything

that the EU proposes. I am surprised that Jacob Rees Mogg is talking

about dismantling one of Margaret Thatcher's most important legacies,

the creation of the single market, and the person sent there to dream

it up under Margaret Thatcher said the only way you can run this

sensibly is by not having national vetoes, because if you have that,

guess what will happen? The French will impose lots of protectionist

measures. It was Margaret Thatcher's idea that national

parliaments should never veto. How could you fly in the face of the

lady? Even the great lady makes mistakes. Excuse me, Jacob Rees Mogg

says even Margaret Thatcher makes mistakes! No wonder the clock has

stopped! Even be near divine Margaret made a mistake! But on the

single market, it has been used as an excuse for massive origination of

domestic affairs. We should be interested in free trade in Europe

and allowing people to export and import freely, not to have uniform

regulations, as per the single market, because what that allows is

thought unelected bureaucrats to determine the regular vision. We

want the British people to decide the rules for themselves. If this

makes the single market not work, that is not the problem, because we

can still have free trade, which is more important. If David Cameron is

watching this, I am sure he is, it will be nice for you to come on and

give us an interview, he must be worried. He is beginning to think, I

am losing control. It is a clever letter, the tone is ingratiating and

pleasant, every time, you have stood up to Brussels, you have achieved

something, but the content is dramatic. If you want Parliament to

have a veto, you want to leave the EU, because the definition is

accepting the primacy of European law. The MPs should be clear about

that. It is almost a year since the Europe speech in which David Cameron

committed to the referendum. The political objective was to put that

issue to bed until the next election. It has failed. David

Cameron is going to have to pull off a major miracle in any

renegotiations to satisfy all of this. Yes, it makes me think how

much luckier he has been in coalition with the Liberal

Democrats, because there is a bit of the Tory party that is

irreconcilable to what he wants to do. The Conservative MPs are making

these demands just as David Cameron is seeing the debate goes his way in

Europe. Angela Merkel has looked over the cliff and said, do I want

the UK out? No, they are a counterbalance to France. France one

the UK to leave, but they do not, because they do not want to lose the

only realistic military power Tom other than themselves. Just when the

debate is going David Cameron's way, Jacob Rees Mogg would take us out.

Let me move on to another subject. That is nonsense. The debate is not

beginning to go David Cameron's way. We are having before us on Monday a

bill about European citizenship and spending British taxpayers money so

that Europe can go and say we are all EU citizens, but we signed up to

being a part of a multinational organisation. The spin that it is

going the way of the leader of a political party is one that has been

used before, it was said of John Major, it was untrue then and it is

now. It is, for the continuing deeper integration of the European

Union. I want to ask a quick question. Chris Grayling said to us

that the Tories would devise a way in which the British Supreme Court

would be supreme in the proper meaning of that, but we could still

be within the European Court of Human Rights. Can that circle be

squared? I have no idea, the Lord Chancellor is an able man, and I am

sure he is good at squaring circles. I am not worried about whether we

remain in the convention or not PMQ 's, we saw a bit about this week,

Paul Gorgons had died, so the house was more subdued, but he wants a

more subdued and serious prime ministers questions. Let's remind

ourselves what it was like until now.

What is clear is that he is floundering around and he has no

answer to the Labour Party's energy price freeze. The difference is

John Major is a good man, the Right Honourable gentleman is acting like

a conman. Across the medical profession, they say there is a

crisis in accident and emergency, and we have a Prime Minister saying,

crisis, what crisis? How out of touch can hate the? You do not need

it to be Christmas to know when you are sitting next to a turkey.

It is not a bad line. Is Ed Miliband trying to change the tone of prime

ministers questions? Is he right to do so? The important point is this

was a special prime ministers questions, because everybody was

really sad and by the death of Paul Goggins and in the country, the

legacy of the floods. That was the first question that Ed Miliband

asked about, so that cast a pall over proceedings. When it suits him,

Ed Miliband would like to take a more statesman-like stance, but will

it last? That is how David Cameron started. His first prime ministers

questions, he said to Tony Blair, I would like to support you on

education, and he did in a vote which meant Tony Blair could see off

a naughty operation from Gordon Brown. But it did not last, they are

parties with different visions. Jacob Rees Mogg, would you like to

see it more subdued? I like a bit of Punch and Judy. You need to have

fierce debate and people putting their views passionately, it is

excellent. I am not good at it, I sit there quite quietly, but it is

great fun, very exciting, and it is the most watched bit of the House of

Commons each week. If it got as dull as ditchwater, nobody would pay

attention. Three cheers for Punch and Judy. Ed Miliband is going to

make a major speech on the economy this week. You can now define the

general approach. We had it from Emma Reynolds, we have seen it over

energy prices, this market is bust, the market is not working properly,

and that will therefore justify substantial government intervention.

Intervention which does not necessarily cost money. It is the

deletion and reorganising industries. It constitutes an answer

to the question which has been hounding him, what is the point of

the Labour Party when there is no money left? He says, you do not

spend a huge amount fiscally, but you arrange markets to achieve

socially just outcomes without expenditure. It is quite serious

stance. I am not sure it will survive the rigours of an election

campaign, but it is an answer. Is that an approach, to use broken

markets, to justify substantial state intervention? Yes, and the

other big plank is infrastructure spending. The Lib Dems would not be

against capital investment for info structure will stop Emma Reynolds

talking about house-building, the idea of pumping money into the

economy through infrastructure is something that the Labour Party will

look at. Jacob Rees Mogg, you once thought Somerset should have its own

time zone, and today, you have delivered on that promise! Live on

the Sunday Politics! I try to deliver on my promises!

That is all for today, the Daily Politics is on BBC Two every day

this week, just before lunch. I aren't back next Sunday here on BBC

One at 11am. -- I am back. If it is Sunday, it is the Sunday Politics.