13/01/2013 Sunday Politics Yorkshire and Lincolnshire

In Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, we investigate why some local councils

are spending millions on regeneration site, which are

Apology for the loss of subtitles for 2535 seconds

The morning. This is the Sunday Politics for Yorkshire and

Lincolnshire. We investigate why some of the

local councils are spending millions by Ian regeneration sites

which were already owned by the public sector.

We will be finding out why children with special needs a good for two-

thirds of school exclusions in some areas.

The guest today are Hilary Benn, Labour MP for Leeds Central, Nigel

Adams, the Conservative MP for Selby and instead, and David Ward,

the Liberal Democrat MP for Bradford East. We have had the

coalition's midterm report this week. Marks out of 10.

presentation was a shambles. We discovered that there were lots of

bits they did not want to publish because someone was photographed

carrying the details. It failed their test because it did not do

what it said on the 10th. It is not achieving much. -- on the tin.

We're on the right track, we have reduced the deficit by a quarter.

There are more than one million more people back in work.

Unemployment is down by a quarter since the last election. There is

lots more to do, but we are on the rate track. David, can I pressure

for a figure, my axe out of 10. haven't read it. I have been too

busy. It is work-in-progress. Hilary Benn is correct. In terms of

growth, I am more interested in what is to come. I will judge the

Government on how well it deals with the huge issue of social care

and the funding thereof. You're not going to tell us that Bradford City

only get to Wembley under a Liberal government, our youth? I am

thrilled with this. I will take credit for that, but full tribute

to the fantastic effort being made at Bradford City. Are taxpayers

effectively being forced to pay twice for regeneration sites which

are owned by the public sector? A BBC investigation found that

millions of pounds have been spent by local authorities buying land

which used to belong to the now- defunct regional development

agencies, such as Yorkshire Forward. James Vincent has the story.

Barnsley. In the best possible way, it can look a bit grim. They have

been waiting for redevelopment for years. Key sites were bought by

Yorkshire Forward with public money, so that work could go ahead.

Barnsley has had a number of regeneration sites, here in the

east, but the principal site, and the main site we need to regenerate

is right here in the town centre. They were already publicly owned by

one government agency, but after Yorkshire Forward was closed by the

coalition, their land was given to the homes and communities Agency,

another part of the government. Barnsley council did not have to

bank -- did not bank on having to buy them again with �10 billion of

public money. They said we want market value, and if you are not

prepared to pay for it we will sell it somewhere else. That would have

been a disaster. Councils thought they might be giving these pieces

of land, ready to be redeveloped, and then only pay for them when

they were successful. That did not happen, and the money has had to be

found up front, much more of a risk. The council has bought carriage

works near the railway museum in York.

It is reasonable to assume that land owned by the public would be

passed on to people and to the public after the demise of regional

development agencies. I wrote to Vince Cable about this issue,

asking for the land to Transco over, and I was told no, so we have to

buy the land that we thought was important for Europe.

government would say local councils do not need to own places for them

to be successful. This is owned by the homes and communities Agency.

We have a Rolls-Royce moving in, wind turbines working here, and

hundreds of jobs. It is seen as the future of South Yorkshire's economy.

This is another of those sites. It is run by the homes and communities

Agency, who say that it shows what can be done when they hold on to

former Yorkshire Forward assets. have recently opened a scheme,

which has been highly successful and a centre for digital creative

media. We have spent �5 million in the last two years are continuing

refurbishment. When the decision was taken to abolish Yorkshire

Forward, we were asked to take on responsibility for the remaining

property assets. Some of them were sold, where there is no development

planned in the immediate future, and others, we are still working

with the councils to bring forward schemes. In some cases, the local

authority decided they wanted to keep their assets from us. The

rules were clear that we would not be able to give those assets away

for nothing. Others are still on the market and it will be up to

their council whether they want to take the gamble on taking

responsibility for land in their areas. Barnsley hope their

purchases will turn into a brand new town centre.

Hilary Benn, is it right that Labour councils in Yorkshire are

spending millions of pounds buying land that has already publicly

owned? Now, it is not. I can understand why they are feeling

really cross. It was public money that bought the assets and the

first place. Their budgets are being cut by the government, so

they are being hit twice over. The thing that really riles is that

when it came to London, Boris Johnson was given the assets of the

development to an agency there for free, but in the west of the

country, if councils want the land, they have to pay. It is one rule

for London and a different role for of the one else. Nigel Adams, it is

wrong that local authorities have to pay for land, isn't it? A lot of

these assets will have been acquired many years ago, and

despite what has happened in terms of land and property downturn in

recent years, many of those assets will have grown in value, and to

give local authorities a handout effectively, and say, you have won

the lottery by getting this, questions would have be -- would be

asked of the Treasury. It is not just Labour councils in my own --

it is not just Labour councils. In my own patch, Selby council is

bidding to produce some land for what they want to do with it, but

they're also going to get a grant from central government to acquire

its. David Ward, this will leave a bitter taste in many people's

mouths. They will be saying, why is my council tax payment going

towards the square is to mark this is not straightforward. Many of

these assets have a negative asset value. They were bought for

regeneration purposes. I am sure some authorities would not like the

transfer of assets to them that had a negative value. He showed a clip

of the Odeon, which is being transferred to Bradford Council for

�1, and it has had to funding on it. It is a question of consistency and

approach we are looking for, without an appearance at some

people are gaining an son are losing. Many regeneration projects

have gone ahead without the local authority buying these assets. For

example one project in Leeds. different developments we are

talking about, and in the end local authorities make that judgment. The

best developments take place in partnership, and in some cases the

local authority owns land. It is wrong that they get charged. Why

was one rule applied for Boris Johnson and a different role for

us? I cannot answer for London, but we would be getting a lot of

questions of these valuable assets were being transferred with nothing

going back into Treasury coffers. We do not have a regional

organisation looking after regional regeneration now, does that not

sure that there is less of a joint a picture out there? There is lots

of good work being done on a local level rather than a regional level

now, through the Local Enterprise Partnership. I met with hours on

several occasions, and they are doing good work. They are getting

their teeth into the job. There are some very exciting plans in my part

of the world, and the rest of Europe Show. But in Bradford, there

are still a lot of work to do. There certainly is. We're aware of

the much needed Westfield development. We managed to get

�17.6 million of regional growth funding to support city centre

funding. -- redevelopment. Some schools are adopting illegal

tactics to keep challenging children out of their classrooms.

It has prompted that is a lush accusations of elitism -- it has

prompted accusations of elitism in some schools. In Lincolnshire,

almost two-thirds of children are expelled from their schools with

special education will meet. Some schools are choosing who they

educate and who they do not. There is new evidence that

vulnerable children are having a tough time in Lincolnshire's

schools. A county council inquiry has found that all the children

expelled in the last academic year, 65% had some form of special

educational need. There is also evidence of illegal expulsions and

some children being denied admittance into schools and the

first place. First, the vast majority of children are faring

well. However, as small number of education providers are playing

with the rules. They are unofficially excluding children.

Parents are told to collect their children at lunchtime, and they are

sent home and given homework for a couple of weeks. They are kept out

of the class system, which is totally wrong. Children with

special educational needs are by far the most vulnerable to illegal

tactics, such as interviewing page -- parents and discouraging them to

apply. Also, only teaching a child for part of the school day. This

mother from Lincoln has four children, including one with

special educational needs. When the family moved, he started attending

a mainstream school. Her identity has not been revealed to protect

her as. I told the school about his problems, and they said that was

fine. He gets disruptive and does not like change, but he settled at

his previous school and was OK. five-year-old is waiting for a

diagnosis of autism, and is on the special needs register. He was

given one-to-one tuition but was expelled after one month. They kept

saying he was being disruptive and they have done all they could. How

can they say that after less than four weeks? The school declined to

be interviewed but says it has not expelled any child with a diagnosis

of autism recently. This head teacher gave evidence that the

council inquiry. He accepts all pupils, but says schools fill

pressurised to show good exam result.

For whatever reason, if it looks as though the student is not going to

be successful in their exams because of problems in the past, or

educational needs. -- or special educational needs, that will affect

the statistics we are judged on. We should not be thinking that, we

should be wondering how we can best support the child. As special

educational needs child in England is eight times more likely to be

permanently excluded than any of their contemporaries. The

Children's Commissioner is so concerned about that that she is

conducting her own inquiry. Schools can no longer be compelled to

reinstate a pupil. Some people also believe that the academy system has

weakened accountability. This report relates to both state

controlled schools and academies which are outside local authority

control. This week the Academy's Commission accused some UK

academies of covert police selecting pupils. Now schools are

under notice. Break the rules and face the consequences.

The accusation is that some schools and academies have an elitist

agenda. Can that be just a fight? am no fan of over bearing targets

which has been referred to. I do not have any academies in my

constituency, but children with special educational needs should,

in any school, it should be essential they are dealt with

properly, if they have got special care requirements. The figures of

65% are worrying. The fact that we have the sort of numbers in

Lincolnshire would alarm me. The guidance given back in September

was that academies have to it here to the same exclusion policies as

maintained schools and pupil referral units. Within the children

and families draft Bill, that is something that is being debated and

looked at by the Education Select Committee. How widespread do you

fear this practice is of schools and academies using effectively

illegal selection process is? a very worrying report, and as we

just heard, the Children's Commissioner is looking into this

because she spoke about this same problem not too long ago. She said

she had reports made to her of schools sending children home for

the afternoon and telling them to go away for a week. This cannot be

right. Plus, the appeals system has changed, which may make it more

difficult for parents of children with special needs to challenge an

exclusion if they think it is unfair. There is a lot of pressure

on schools, but there is no justification for acting illegally,

and there has to be accountability for all schools. How worried should

we be that children with special educational needs our eight times

more likely to be excluded? opposed Academy's under Labour, and

if you have a system which determines the success of a school

based on attainment, this is what is going to happen. Any failing

school can be turned round, but it is a hard slog, teaching, learning,

management, leadership. How much easier it is to manipulate the

intake to the school and get a rapid increase in performance? The

Education Select Committee is a very disturbed about how we judge

the performance of schools, and a single determinant is simply

distorting the behaviour of teachers within schools. What

happens to the children who get kicked further down the system,

what about the schools where they end up? It should not be happening.

The idea that these children are being excluded because of lack of

attainment is absolutely ridiculous. There are measures currently, but

under the funding agreement to deal with academies, and I am not sure

of any of these measures are being used in Lincolnshire, but we should

not be having a situation where children, through their perceived

lack of attainment, are being excluded from schools. Is this one

of the floors of the Academy process? All schools need to be

accountable, so we need to know what is going on. We also brought

in the value-added measure, because if you look at just the score is,

you do not get a sense of the progress schools make with children

with special educational needs. But we need to know what is going on,

and all schools need to be accountable. Let us get more of the

political news. Here is the round- up and 60 seconds.

-- in 60 seconds. The vote on the controversial 1%

cap on increased the benefits was the big political story of the week.

It emerged that two Lib Dem MPs, including David Ward, voted against

the move. A House of Commons committee discussed the failure of

social workers to tackle the grinning and sexual exploitation of

young girls. It heard this from the chief executive of Rotherham

council. I would certainly apologise to young people and

families where they have been left bound.

Meanwhile, the Jimmy Savile scandal continues. A police investigation

confirmed he was involved in over 200 sexual assaults and should have

been prosecuted. The Archbishop of York has backed keeping children's

heart surgery in the region. He says he cannot understand the logic

of plans to stop operations in Leeds and send sick children to

Newcastle or Liverpool. So we have had to Jimmy Savile

report. Could another situation like this happen? I sincerely hope

not. With each passing revelation this becomes more appalling. What

is clear is that young people need to be able to speak out and adults

need to take what they have to say seriously. That was the lesson from

what happened in some of the other authorities. It is about changing

attitudes and listing to the evidence, and if people have broken

the law, pursuing a M. David Ward, why did you rebel against the 1%

cap? This is a reduction in benefits for the most vulnerable,

for people who are unemployed, and a reduction in tax credits for

people on the lowest incomes. Let us not dress this up. It is a

reduction in benefits to some of the most formidable people.

admire his stand on principle? we have seen in Yorkshire is

people's wages going up by around 10.7% across the county, yet what

we have seen is out of work benefits have gone up by 20%. This

is an issue of fairness. You referred to that. I know from the

people I speak to, and I read a recent national poll, that this

policy was supported by over 80% of the population. No one likes making

tough decisions, but we had to. It is a case of fairness. But you have

not made a tough decision. For some non- jobseeker's allowance, this is

an increase of 71p a week. There is a difference between someone

reliant on benefits and someone who is working. Why are you doing this

at the same time as giving people tax cuts from April? If you are

going to take tough decisions, they have to be fair. This is profoundly

unfair. I disagree with you. You have been in politics a long time.

You will recognise a scam and are gone when you see it. He had

brought in this tax band just before a general election, when

Gordon Brown knew he was not going to be prime minister after that and

whoever was going to come along, you said this trap. It is nonsense.

Also, tax increase is supposed to raise money. That increase has lost

the Treasury �7 billion. assumption behind this are that

people in unemployment somehow think it is unfair. People in

employment are thinking thank God I am not unemployed. Hilary Benn, are

you in danger of falling on the wrong side of public opinion? How

do you justify you are giving people on benefits more than they

are getting in wages? They are not getting more. People are paying for

food bills and gas bills in pans, not percentages. What has been

revealed over the past few weeks, over two-thirds of the people being

hit by this are those in work. That is why we have called it the tax on

strivers. This is not about people trying to find a job, it is also