30/06/2013 Sunday Politics Yorkshire and Lincolnshire

On the Sunday Politics in Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, we investigate

claims that millions of European money, which was due to be spent on

Apology for the loss of subtitles for 1916 seconds

Hello, you're watching the Sunday Politics for Yorkshire,

Lincolnshire and the North Midlands. Coming up today.

We look at claims that millions of pounds worth of European money,

which was due to be spent on Yorkshire, has gone to Scotland.

And we ask whether it's time to amend the smoking ban to save the

traditional working men's club. Our guests today are. A guest today are

Flight Lieutenant Jason McCartney, Linda McAvan and Godfrey Bloom. Has

it been a good or bad week for our region? It has been excellent week

Yorkshire. Good news for the regional growth fund, getting �20

billion in the infrastructure announcement, more money for pot

holes, electrification and Huddersfield Town have signed three

strikers. Linda McAvan? I don't agree with him at all, we have had

the Chancellor delivering spending cuts that he said we would never

have to make and a massive cut in the funding for our region. Good or

bad week, Godfrey Bloom? In it has been a very bad year. We have youth

employment. That doesn't look like any time soon that will start

improving. I think it will not start improving because the

mainstream parties know what to do. They're all at sea. So until we

start addressing some of the economic problems that will not get

any better, so a bad week. We're going to be discussing claims

that EU regeneration money, earmarked for our part of the world,

will now go elsewhere. Over the past few decades transport, job

creation, training and education have been given an economic leg-up

from Brussels. It was aimed at improving the economies of Europe's

weaker regions. But now it's emerged that in some parts of

Yorkshire, more than half that money will disappear and Labour

claim the Government is diverting money to Scotland ahead of next

year's referendum on independence. Welcome to the Think Carbon Centre.

It's nice of you to come all the way from Spain to join us.

�2,758,000 of European money has been spent on building the Think

Low Carbon Centre here at Barnsley College. It's attracted so much

interest from other EU member states that bus loads of them are

trekking to South Yorkshire to have a look at it.

The building here is demonstrating various ways of producing, or

saving, energy. We can produce our own hot water. We can produce our

own electricity. We recycle our own rainwater within the building. We

use air source heat pumps and ground source heat pumps to produce

energy and heat for the building. These are basically systems,

certainly with ground source heat pumps, where you put pipes in the

ground and take energy out of the ground to produce energy for the

building. But there was no way that Barnsley

could have afforded to build this centre without that European cash.

It footed about two-thirds of the overall cost. The project here at

Barnsley College fits the criteria for the way regions with economies

performing below the European average can bid for funding to help

boost job and business prospects. Barnsley's is just one of 113

different projects across Yorkshire and the Humber partly funded by

European cash. Between 2007 and this year, we were allocated �855

million. South Yorkshire alone, with one of the weakest economies,

had �350 million. As there are now more member states,

the region expected a lower figure over the next period to 2020. But

not as low as the �636 million we actually got. South Yorkshire's

allocation was slashed even more to just �154 million. Apparently

Brussels' bureaucrats calculated we should have far more but our own

government decided to send a big slice of our allocation somewhere

else. They have set out to protect

Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales, with the European funding and to

top them up, they've cut us in South Yorkshire and in Merseyside.

Not just by the 5% that other areas are getting cut, by but 50%. This

is money we need in South Yorkshire to boost our jobs, our businesses,

to bring our economy back up, which is what the money there is for. Yet,

they're taking it from us and giving it to the Welsh and the

Scots. The issue is to be debated in

Parliament tomorrow with Yorkshire MPs expected to be queuing up to

ask if it's just coincidence that the money is heading to Scotland,

just as the country gears up for Flight Lieutenant Jason McCartney

is there any truth in this claim the government has given the EU

money to Scotland? He it is not the EU's it is our money. We give these

billions of pounds to them every year and I would rather miss out

the EU altogether and police were good have a referendum under a

Conservative government in 27 - pleased. I would rather these

billions of pounds are delivered to the Yorkshire economy by the

regional growth fund so that we don't have this nonsense that we

are hearing about here. We know the government said that Scotland,

Wales and Northern Ireland should lose more than five per cent of

their funding. They have not said why. They've taken it from South

Yorkshire,, so Jason can talk about this. Our region should have got

more of this. I've not seen anybody in central government say you're

getting less from Brussels but we are making it up from national

government, we are losing half the money and that money was allocated

to our region based on GDP. Scotland's GDP is 170 per cent of

national average, South Yorkshire's 82 per cent. This is scandalous. We

have been here before with the Tories because when I worked in the

coalfield areas we got money from Col finding areas from Europe and

the government pocketed the money. I would not have anything to do

with it. I would not start from here. If you divide the amount that

we sent to the European Union which is over 12 billion, with the number

of regions that we have, a little bit crude, Yorkshire and North

Lincolnshire cent as their share �1.1 billion the year to the

European Union. What I would say, if there is a billion pounds to

spare to give back to the people of Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire

and would like to half all business rates across the broad and let

private enterprise grew the Connery and that is the way to do it.

of this funding will be delivered through the local enterprise

partnerships. The government is doing that and that can be

delivered. I'm the only won here that is an MEP, what can you do for

us fighting are caused a European Parliament. I've written the

European Commissioner seeking an urgent meeting because the European

Commission allocated its funding based on objective criteria. We

have had the government admits it has done this to protect the

devolved administrations and we know that the Scottish referendum

we know government departments are trying to protect Scotland, what on

earth is that? Do get a photon this, we get a vote on finance bills and

UK parliaments? Were head of road on the methodology and how it will

be allocated. How did you photon that cue mack how did you vote?

are not there to make it work, we are vote - there to make it work.

Our job up on you could... This is just mucking around the edges. Let

the viewers decide what they want in Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire.

�1 billion a year go to the European Union, keeping it

Yorkshire and give it back to people. Which has my opening answer.

You want to give it to some bureaucrat at Leeds Town Hall!

Local Enterprise Partnership. it in tax cuts. There's a feeling,

Jason, the coalfields are getting a bum deal. The US near the beginning

whether the week as good or bad, said it was excellent. We announced

�600 million on a new round for the regional growth fund, companies in

South Yorkshire, companies in my area are getting funding through

that. I won the money that is going to the European Parliament, going

to the EU, Godfry we agree a bit of this, through the local enterprise

partnerships which have businessman on the border levelled delivering

that funding to help sustainable jobs where we live and work here in

Yorkshire. The Local Enterprise Partnership is outraged at what has

happened and the chairs are business people have written to

ministers saying we should not happen. They saw ministers, give an

assurance it would not happen, it has. The local business Mini is out

rage. We are seeing cuts, not the levels of capital expenditure we

need to regenerate the economy. It is typical of the Tories, we been

here before, being not interested in investing in regions like ours.

When I speak to Martin... A I know all about economic regeneration and

have watched what your party has done to our region. Government is

the problem. I spoke at Chamber of Commerce in Hull and said what we

do have, in regeneration grant from Europe or VAT on new business rate

cut by half. The answer, hot and strong, they do not want

bureaucracy, let business get on with it, get the monkey of

government on their back. Let's stop giving all these billions to

the EU, let's get it right in Yorkshire. Linda, it does not show

what a mess this EU funding stuff is. Nobody understands the formula

and it will get worse the more countries that join the EU? De is

not all a mess and this has brought investment in our region. We get

money back for farmers, I wonder what Jason says to the farmers in

North Yorkshire who will get money back. It is real things, real

projects. Most of which ghostly Eastern Europe. Most of it goes to

Eastern Europe. Yorkshireman a. is not EU money, it is and what

money. 3.5 million jobs depend on our EU membership. It is worth �250

billion to Our economy. Let the people decide. We have got till

2017 to talk about this. A change of topic.

It's six years since the smoking ban was introduced. Some claim it

has led to the closure of many traditional working men's clubs,

especially in the North. Now there are attempts to try to reintroduce

dedicated smoking rooms in private clubs, if a majority of members

This is the enduring image of the traditional working men's club.

People enjoying a pint, and a smoke. Of course, those days are gone, as

with all licensed premises, drinkers here at Beverley

Conservative Club in East Yorkshire must head outside if they want to

light up. I believe that there should be smoking areas.

Somewhere comfortable, that people that smoke can go and just sit and

have a cigarette, away from everybody else and not bothering

everybody else. I think there should be a room

where smokers could go because otherwise they are pushed outside

and it's not social, is it? The number of working men's clubs

has fallen from 4,000 in the 1970s to less than 2,000 today. Latest

estimates suggest that four clubs a week are closing. Staff at this

club in Leeds say they've felt the effect of the smoking ban.

Gradually since 2007 when the smoking ban actually came into

force, there's been a decline in the amount of members coming into

the club and from opening six nights a week, the concert room has

now dwindled down to two nights a week. And, the club is not

functioning as it used to do. Some industry campaigners claim

that introducing dedicating smoking rooms is the only thing that will

prevent many clubs with dwindling memberships from closing their

doors forever. Even if one room within a club

could be sectioned as a smoking room. Providing it's well

ventilated, providing it's restricted to one place, these

places have lots and lots of space. It would be not too much of a

stretch of the imagination to designate one, or maybe two rooms,

within this building, as smoking only to try to reverse that decline

in trade that we are seeing today. A bill to allow smoking in clubs,

if a majority of members support the move, has been proposed by a

group of right wing Tory MPs. But any change in the law would be

fiercely resisted by many health professionals.

More than 80% of people on a YouGov survey in Yorkshire and the Humber

said that they supported the smoke- free legislation. It was brought in

to protect workers, to protect staff. It has been very successful

in that. We have seen reductions in heart attacks and respiratory

disease after the introduction of the legislation. We very much feel

this would be a backward step. The government currently has no

plans to look again at the smoking ban in England but that won't stop

some from being nostalgic for a Godfrey Bloom, why do want to go

back to breathing other people's smoke? Clearly we don't, what

people suggesting and is perfectly logical to say we can have a room

where you can smoke and one way you do not smoke as they do in Germany

and Holland and Denmark. Perfectly straightforward and perfectly easy.

What we have to get back to, what really important is, what kind of

society do we want to live in? Hours driving through Leeds quite

late in February the other day, early in the year and there were

old age pensioners having a cigarette in the freezing cold. Do

feel if you want have a smoke, and you are Committee and club one

should have a smoke that is your decision would you think these

decisions should be made for you by Linda McAvan, whoever she may be a

most people have not heard of her. Should she make those decisions or

the committee of your working men's clubs, do we want to work our own

lives? You want to do with that point, Linda McAvan? If the club's

committee decide it is in their best interest, what is wrong with

that? It is not me deciding on smoking, it is the government in

London. Secondly, we saw the evidence there. People support the

smoking ban. People do not want to go back to times when they go out

for a drink and come home smelling of other people's cigarettes. It as

a huge public support. I used to work in an office with a smoker and

I could not do anything about it. People will not accept to go back

and turn the clock back on why would we want to do that we have

seen the evidence in terms of public health and the effect on

children, for example, 17,000 children each year in hospital from

secondary smoking. That is part of an alternative Queen's Speech and

they also want to have a dedicated Margaret Thatcher Bank Holiday, D U

support than? It is compulsory to support Huddersfield Town and I'm

doing a local pub campaign. 30 to have replied. Only four of those 32

have mentioned the smoking ban as having an effect on the profits.

Only one has put it as a prime reason for any loss in the profits.

Representing the suburbs off Huddersfield, I my fault of Roy

Castle who died off and lung cancer, if we are going to allow smoking

inside the building, we need to be very mindful. You do not supported

even in private members' clubs cue mack? I would support any private

libertarian. I am a genuine libertarian but not all you Kip

people are. What are we talking about smoking? Or a yes or no do

sport equal marriage? I believe nobody should get married in church,

if you want to let is nothing to do with the state. Libertarianism.

have a scoop here! It is a libertarian. If you a Catholic

teacher and the Catholic School a new been told by your department of

education in a say gay marriage is normal straight or whatever you

want. We are talking about members of the Church. There's nothing

libertarian about a gay marriage. change in policy. I am against gay

marriage. You had deviated, 180 degrees. Deal with those. You

cannot argue with their health statistics. We have 20 per cent of

people smoke and that has been the same for 30 years. It has not made

the slightest bit of difference but none of that is the point. If you

are in your own club, issue before the committee to say, not Jason or

Linda McAvan, it has than all to do with politicians. A who cleans it

up. Who works there? What happens, Linda McAvan Indies working-class

people cannot go to their clubs because there are not enough

punters? I know there are problems in working men's clubs and many

predate the smoking ban because of a changing society. I still think

that somebody has to clean a club for stop somebody has to work

behind the bar. We know the effects of passive smoking. Yes, I think we

should retain the ban and should not turn the clock back.

Now let's get some more of the week's political news now. Louise

Martin has our round-up in 60 For decades the main A63 to Hull

docks and the city centre has been known more for congestion than

convenience. That's about to change as it was one of the long list of

road improvements announced in the Spending Review. The A63 in Hull.

And, more spending on flood relief, according to the government. All

its spending plans add up to �100 million. Labour's David Blunkett

clearly didn't believe the sums. The statement is an insult to the

intelligence of the British people. An agreements been struck with the

insurance industry to guarantee affordable cover in flood relief

areas, announced just one working day before an existing deal ran out.

That's exactly what most people had been wanting to hear for a very

long time. And MPs gave the nod to the high-

speed rail plan linking Yorkshire with London but it was revealed the

estimated costs are still rising, now over �40 billion. They won't go

any higher says the government. We On the infrastructure announcements,

some question about whether these are genuine new projects. Been a

big supporter of investment in railways. The Northern club

electrification of the chance Pennine routes as well, we know how

busy the M62 and M one R. We have already seen all the roadworks

going there to widen it. That is really important and Connectivity

with the Leeds-Bradford airport. Why does everyone have to go to

London if they want to fly. Is it all new money? It is over a period

of time. There was lots of new money there. There was some we

Nelson of existing schemes but the schemes take a long time. We took

about high-speed rail, that is over 20 years for the young year, it is

less they spent on CrossRail in London and I'm pleased the North

are going to get their fair share of transport infrastructure

spending. Linda McAvan do commend the government. The biggest

infrastructure spending, that is positive? I think David Blunkett is

right, we are renouncing bold project. Any investment is welcome.

His government that was going to repeat new schools and anyone has

been started. Under Labour, we built many new schools, with a lot

of investment. The IMF - the IMF is telling us to bring forward capital

investment programmes, the government is not doing now.

Without investing in future will not create jobs are not create

growth. That is why they have to make more cuts. We should also down

and look up what is in the best interest of the country make the

right decisions. Is it about time invested more in infrastructure?

Know, the government doesn't get it we are a trillion pounds in debt,

we have left our children and grandchildren a trillion pounds in

debt with the baggage that goes with it. What are we talking about

that? You bail them out. I would have sent them to jail. What week

as saying here we a trillion pounds in debt was a come a day talking

about 40 billion and rising so businessmen can get home early in

time for tea. Jason, is the coalition in say? It is a major

investment in our transport in for Chepstow. It will break down the

North-South divide, it will create thousands of jobs, it is over 20