09/02/2014 Sunday Politics West

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,

A row over smoking. Should your Council tax be used to pay for

advertisements like 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 last time around, under 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 Good morning. Welcome. Can we really

blame the politicians for the weather? Not really, is how much

help should we expect for the victims of it? And another brow

about smoking. Should your Council tax pay for ads like these, as local

authorities cut their spending, they are accused of stabbing out actions

to protect the book help. Let's join our guests, a Conservative MP and

the woman hoping to kick him out. `` protect the public. More from them

in a moment. First, there seems to be no end to the terrible weather.

In Somerset, the plight of the farmers has touched the nation.

There is a political storm as well. The Prime Minister wore boots. This

is the image the government wanted to project. David Cameron came to

Somerset and waded into the debate. We are doing everything we can to

help. More help from emergency services among more pumps, money to

help Somerset get back on its feet. The Army coming in to help about

whether it is helping with sandbags, which they have been doing over the

last 24 hours, or looking to see whether embroidery bridges can be

put in place, everything that can need and will be done. His visit

came hours after the head of the Environment Agency. Chris Smith aced

complaints from locals who were angry. His defence was that the

industry budget `` that the budget was set by the government. Two days

running, MPs were told of millions extra being given, but in fact,

floods prevention fell in the coalition's first two years. All

agree much will need to be spent, much more. The scale of the

challenge that we face from climate change and floods demands we have a

combo has a look at the investment that is required. The government is

being one. The extreme `` the government is being warned. In

general, we are going to have to adapt, and low`lying parts in some

places, we will have to think about how we will live in them. The floods

may be live `` the floods may be with us for months, and the debate

about how to prevent them will go on for much longer. If you are affected

by the floods, our thoughts are with you. How do you think the government

is handling this crisis? The first thing to say is, of course, we are

not letting the government for the weather, but I think people feel

that the reaction has been very slow from the government. I think that it

is good that there is no action being taken, and it is good that the

government are now looking to reinstate the funding which they

actually cut. In a sense, that is an admission of failure. Why do you

think the government was caught on the back foot? I do not think the

government has been cut `` caught on the back foot. We have put in

another ?100 million for the rest of this year. We have put in ?3.1

billion in the course of this Parliament. We can talk figures

There is a sense that the government did not get a grip on the situation

and it was out of sight, out of mind. When you look at some of the

Conservative MPs, some of them have done a great job right at the

highest level, and all of the local MPs of all local parties have done a

good job to make sure that Somerset's voice is heard. This is a

longer`term problem. The rivers have not been dredged since 1995, and we

have got to double our efforts for folks in the countryside. We heard

Ed Miliband talking about climate change, but not very long ago, we

were talking about drought. It is quite hard to plan for these

extremes of weather even that we do not know what is going to happen. I

think it is in ports and that we look at climate change as something

which is happening, and we have evidence to suggest it is. `` I

think it is important. The crucial element here is the funding, and at

the moment, the government are saying that the funding is there for

people, and all they are doing. . Listen, what is actually happening

is that the government is saying that they are putting more funding

into it, but the funding is less than when we had a lever government.

`` Labour government. I guess if David Cameron felt the need to

actually show up... That is another issue, the role of the Environment

Agency, and making sure they prioritise what is needed in the

local area. For too long it has been an area concerned with conservation

rather than flooding. I think the Environment Agency needs to pull

their finger out. We have all seen the adverts on the lid and urging

smokers to quit, but should the Council tax be funding a group that

are behind the ads? Is it a false economy? I used to manufacture

cigarettes and smoked them. Hard`hitting adverts like this do

not come cheap. And the rest. I rolled my own. It costs about

?350,000 for the group to put this on TVs throughout the region.

Thankfully, I do now. You and I pay about 30p a year in order to fund

this. Ed used to be done through the NHS, but now with councils in charge

of public health, some are thinking twice about continuing to pay for

smoke free Southwest. `` it used to be done. They say they have evidence

that packaging can appeal to children. One concern is over

whether it is right for a publicly funded company to lobby for

government. Gloucestershire is one company `` Council that is thinking

of withdrawing funding. They say that they are not legally able to

fund lobbying and they have a breakdown of exactly how the money

is being spent, particularly the impact of the funding locally to

help make the decision. The priority is to ensure that they get maximum

impact for taxpayer money, putting more people in Gloucestershire to

quit smoking, so we reduce the amount of people dying of

smoking`related illnesses. Crystal city Council are going to reduce

funding by 20%. `` Bristol city Council. North Somerset Council have

just decided to stop funding altogether. We have heard from

trading standards how illegal tobacco is coming in and getting

into our schools, and I would rather tackle that far more dangerous and

then a blanket campaign to tell people to stop smoking. Most adults

who smoke know that they should not. I do not want to direct

resources at telling people how to live their lives. But the former

head of Public health in the region says that it is successful campaigns

in the past that have helped to ban smoking in pubs. The budget is going

to local authorities, but they are meant to be ring fenced and they are

meant to be spent on improving the health of the population, and

political decisions taken on the basis of people posit personal

preferences should not really into it, it should be about the health of

the population. `` people's personal preferences. We should be doing our

best to help people, and spending on a campaign against tobacco is vital

in that. Smoke free Southwest now has its site and lobbying the

government to introduce plain packaging, but we may never see

adverts like this ever again. `` has its site. We can't be to the

director of smoke`free Southwest `` we can now speak to the director of

smoke`free Southwest. Why should Council taxpayers pay for those

advertisements? Because the councils that fund us are absolutely serious

about tackling the 8000 deaths that we see in the Southwest every year.

In terms of what we do come up we rent campaigns which are highly

affected `` in terms of what we do, we run campaigns that are highly

effective. We are a specialist health organisation and our primary

role is to try to protect children from taking up smoking, and to

reduce the death. You are opposed to this being funded by local

authorities, but that is not surprising because you want to grow

a new generation of smokers. That is outrageous. We defend adult

consumers who choose to smoke. You are funded by the tobacco industry.

What we are against his political lobbying by groups like smoke`free

Southwest, where you have a situation where it government money

is being used to lobby government and introduce legislation. With

great respect to the owner, I cannot see what's you they actually bring

`` to Fiona, I cannot see what they actually bring. If it is not

affecting you and your brand, presumably you can just get on with

it. Why are you talking about my brands? I do not represent the

tobacco industry. I speak on behalf of the consumer. We're talking about

smoke`free Southwest and the amount of government money they get to

lobby government. Federal government already spends millions of pounds on

anti`smoking education. This is a soon on of damage we are seeing I

am delighted that the Lord 's this week have nodded through four really

positive messages that will protect our children. The things we do our

evidence `based. We are public health, and we try to get good

vacation. You lobby, so it is the government paying for a lobby group

to lobby itself. The evidence around what you do to try and create health

is communicate well, and I make no apology for being an organisation

that communicates the strongest possible evidence to the public and

to those that are the decision`makers. Excuse me, if I

could finish. The decision`makers, and the awesome line is, there will

be people who are alive tomorrow. `` the bottom line. She wants people to

live and you do not care. There are other organisations already doing

that. Why should government have to spend this money? In terms of

communication, what they do not communicate very well is the source

of their funding. We are open about the fact we get money from tobacco

companies. You try and distance yourself. Let me finish. You already

had a word. If you go onto the smoke`free Southwest website, you

will not find their source of funding. We had a Freedom of

Information request to find out how the money came in. That is not true.

We are totally transparent. The local authorities that fund us are

more ambitious and want to make faster strides to improve the health

of their population. He looked at the website, we are cost`effective

because we `` if you look at the website, we are cost`effective, and

when you reduce smoking, you can campaign, which is why we do that.

Some people might like `` some people might find it difficult to

find this `` fund this. My job is to do the job around evidence, science.

Let's begin our other guests. This used to be paid for by the NHS and

now they have made it to local authorities, and local authorities

have other fish to fry. It was part of a measure to put a renewed focus

on public health. Public health would be seen as not just something

within the NHS, but something that does everyone's responsibility. But

the NHS has got a stake in preventing disease, whereas local

authorities have not. Local authorities are the interface for

local communities. That is where I think local authorities have a

strong and significant role which is backed up by a lot of research. Do

you think that the government is tough enough on smoking? I think the

previous Labour government did an awful lot to tackle smoking, and

obviously, what we are seeing is the smoking ban, which we implemented,

and now of course we are taking action to ban smoking in cars with

children. That vote is tomorrow Will you vote for that? I am voting

for that, yes. I would vote for that. I think it is important that

we take users to make sure that children are protected in the

circumstances. That is not to say that we would store them into

people's houses and stopped then. `` that is not to say that we would

storm into people's houses and stop them. This week, the Education

Secretary once again sent shock waves through staff rooms. Michael

Gove says he wants more discipline in schools and extra tests for

pupils. It has not gone down at all well with teachers who are set to

strike again next month in a dispute over their pay.

They are values steeped in tradition. Rigorous testing of

ability and of knowledge. State schools need a longer school day.

This week, the Education Secretary had this advice for the nation's

teachers, he said that under a future Conservative government, he

would have longer days at schools, perhaps even nine or ten hours long

`` long, and tests at 13, and above all, discipline, perhaps even line

stop and that has upset some `` lines. And that has upset some

teachers. Using writing as a punishment, that has flabbergasted

me. You learn that you never use reading or writing as a punishment.

It is completely contradicted to everything you are trying to do as a

teacher. It shows he has no understanding what we are trying to

achieve at all. Michael Gove has likened resistance to his changes to

a 1950s science`fiction film, and has been comparing this to dismiss

to a shape shifting mass will never make them universally popular. Sir

David Carter oversees 11 schools in the West and has the ear of

government. I think that the divides opinion. I think he is the darling

of the right wing and the left`wing parity him to their own peril. He is

an intelligent man. In his party is very popular and I think they look

to him to provide vision and strategy when they have been

challenged in the public sector Whether he is universally liked I

am not sure. Back `` a level politics students are considering a

Labour initiative. Making it so the teachers have to prove this every

three years will put them off. It would take them through sufficient

ways to teach the children better. The idea that teachers have ``

teachers should have licenses has also angered many in the

profession. I think it is about the deep rough rationalizing of

teachers, really. You do not have tests for teachers every three

years, you do not have tests for dentists or people like that, and it

is a profession and it deserves to be treated as one, and I do not

think this is a very sensible mind `` line for label `` line up for

Labour to take at all. It is clear that education will be a key theme

in 2015, but just writing it out, it makes me think I have heard it

somewhere before. Education, education and education.

I am surprised he could spell it! You are a school governor, aren t

you? Why is Michael Gove is setting the agenda? I do not think he is. We

are looking at getting more qualified teachers into schools to

stop I think Chris and I might have a different perspective `` into

schools. I think Chris and I might have different perspectives on the

eye think Chris looks at the more politically than I do, but as a

parent, you want your children to make sure they are in a classroom

with someone who understands not just the subject but how to deal

with your children emotionally, and we are seeing classrooms filling up

with unqualified teachers. As they are in private goals. They seem to

rub along, don't they `` private schools. They seem to rub along

don't they? I'm in schools have a lot to learn from state schools ``

private schools have a lot to learn from state schools. I think Michael

is determined to transform the educational landscape to make sure

that pupils get the chance... We are in this global `` global race, and

we have got to make sure that we give people the education that the

very best and brightest deserve and that is what we are setting out to

do. Is it reasonable to license teachers every three years or test

them every three years? That is an interesting debate. There were

18,000 qualified children `` teachers under label `` teachers

under Labour, and now there are 14,000. When it comes to asking

teachers to have a test every three years, it sounds great, but what is

behind that sensible is the practice of extra bureaucracy and paperwork

will stop when you check them out if they failed but you Mark? `` tabor

work. Would you chalk them out if they failed? No. We would give them

time. It is just making sure that they are up to scratch so they can

teach people 's property `` properly `` pupils properly. As I said

earlier, I do not think we should be using private schools as a benchmark

all of the time. In Bristol, every secondary school,, and some of their

facilities are are better than some of the private schools. We have had

to schools go back into the state sector. They used to be a huge

divide in Bristol between the state sector and the private sector. They

have transformed. Is he up `` is the aspiring to appeal to middle`class

parents? The one way he could do that is to improve the quality of

education. We have seen education maintenance allowance being cut All

of those things that make our state schools equal to public schools We

have to leave it there. The floods in Somerset dominated the political

week, but that was not all that happened. Here is our 62nd round up.

`` 62nd round up. Mark Harper has resigned as Immigration Minister

after discovering that his own cleaner was an illegal immigrant. He

had been responsible for a tough government clamp`down. One of his

most famous moments was on this programme, when he told an Iraqi

asylum seeker to go home. Many reckon it will not be long before he

is back in government. I think he would be a terrific minister. He

will carry on being. It is to his credit that he has stepped up to the

plate and said that there is a higher standard that applies to him

and that he `` and we will miss him in government but I hope he is back

before too long. The Prime Minister has said that the West still mind

him of the romance. He says one sung by a popular band reminds him of

when he used to drive to see his wife.

And on that note, it is time to say that is it. Thank you to our guests

for being here. Do not forget, you can keep up to speed on your local

BBC radio station, and you can also 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.