12/01/2014 Sunday Politics Yorkshire and Lincolnshire

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

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

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

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

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

European Court of Human Rights. He joins me.

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

will they On the Sunday Politics in Yorkshire

and Lincolnshire, we find out why Scotland's independence referendum

campaign has triggered calls for home

campaign has triggered calls for be serious. Have cuts left to the

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

not make any additional contributions from their taxes if

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

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

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

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

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

additional sacrifices to fill the remaining buckle in the public

finances. Nick Legg eating up on the Tories

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

with the Conservatives, you have a problem.

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

Prison Oakwood, barristers on strike and unhappy probation officers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

financial realities. The Justice Secretary for two years after the

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

have six academies in prisons, training prisoners inside, and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

promise to withdraw from the European Convention of human

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

direction of travel for a new Conservative government that will

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

General says. I would be asking Strasberg a

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

country are overwhelmingly behind the Conservative party. 95

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

where one Parliament can prevent laws across the whole European

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

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

Smith has suggested EU migrants coming to work in this country

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

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

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

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

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

trying to get the European Commission to accept the need for

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

private prisons and whether there are problems or otherwise. Oakwood

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

operating normally, 95% of magistrates courts were operating

normally. We are having to take difficult decisions across

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

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

becoming tougher. You issued misleading figures about criminal

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

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

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

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

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

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

difficult decisions, we have tried hard in taking difficult decisions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

road and have properly established yourselves in work. And by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

election. Although 16% more house-builds were

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

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

National Statistics estimates that between now and 2021 we should

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

conference last autumn, Ed Miliband promised a Labour government would

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

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

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

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

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

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

has been pursuing its own ideas including loan guarantees for

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

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

the senior backbencher Nadhim Zahawi criticised planning reforms for

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

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

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

Emma Reynolds will give more details of how Labour would boost

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conservative mayor of London and the Local Government Association are

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

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

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

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

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

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

there is another problem before that. That is around transparency

about land options. There is agricultural land that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the neighbouring authority. In Stevenage, it is estimated at

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

will put the five new towns? We have asked him to look at how we can

incentivise local authorities to come forward with sites for new

towns. You cannot tell us where they are going to be? I cannot. We will

have to wait for him. When you look at the historic figures overall, not

at the moment, Private Housing building is only just beginning to

recover, but it has been pretty steady for a while. The big

difference between house-building now and in the past, since Mrs

Thatcher came to power a and including the Tony Blair government,

we did not build council houses. Almost none. Will the next Labour

government embark on a major council has programme? We inherited housing

stock back in 1997... This is important. Will the next Labour

government embark on a major council has programme? We have called on

this government to bring forward investment in social housing. We

want to see an investment programme in social housing, I cannot give you

the figures now. We are 18 months away from the election. Will the

next Labour government embark on a major council house Northern

programme? I want to see a council house building programme, because

there is a big shortage of council homes. That is a guess? Yes. We got

there in the end. -- that is a yes? We will be talking to Patrick homes

in the West Midlands in a moment. You are watching the Sunday

Politics. Coming up in just over 20 minutes, I will look at the week

ahead with our political Hello, this is the Sunday Politics

for Yorkshire and Lincolnshire. Coming up today, we find out why

Scotland's independence referendum campaign has triggered calls for

home rule for Yorkshire. And we will be digging into the

archives to find out what we can learn on the recently released

Cabinet papers of 1984. Let's say hello to our guests, Angela Smith,

Labour MP for Penistone and Stockbridge, and Nigel Adams,

Conservative MP for Selby and instead. Seeing as it is our first

show of 2014, I want your insight into how this year will play out

politically. Two big events, politically, the European elections

on May the 22nd, and the Scottish referendum later in the year. Both

of those events will give us some indication of where the country is

going politically. I await with interest the outcome. On the

referendum, I am hopeful that Scotland will stay with the union,

think it is better for all of us. The European elections and, who

knows? We have four months yet, anything can happen between now and

then. We will be working as hard as we can to deliver as many Labour

MEPs as possible. I am looking forward to the economy continuing to

recover. In my particular patch, we managed to get an implement down by

35% since the last election and I hope that we were focusing `` will

offer a course on assuring that work continues. `` we will focus. As we

have just said, 2014 is the year of the referendum on Scottish

independence. Voters north of the border will decide whether they want

to break free from the United Kingdom. Some point out that the

Yorkshire and Humber region has a similar population size to Scotland,

so is it time once again to debate the prospect of home rule for

Yorkshire? Here is Len Tingle. Scotland, a proud nation with a

population of around 5.2 million. Yorkshire and the Humber, equally

proud and a bigger population of 5.3 million. But Scotland has a more

successful economy. Must you, average hourly earnings in Scotland

were ?12.32 per person than stock in Yorkshire and the Humber, almost

pound less. An implement levels are running at 7.1%. In Yorkshire and

the Humber, it .6%. Some argue that this down to another difference.

Scotland has a Parliament. Yorkshire does not. But there are those who

say that has to change and they are campaigning for more power to be

wielded from inside Yorkshire. I am not sure if it is a Parliament we

need, but we have population the same size as Scotland and an economy

double the size of Wales but we do not have any of either of those. Why

can't we get fairer funding from London and decide what we want to do

with our own resources? But have we not been here before? A decade ago,

this building in Wakefield was earmarked as potentially being the

home of the very first directly elected regional assembly for

Yorkshire. A lot of public money was spent on the plan, months went into

preparation. It came to nothing. A major campaign survey failed to

attract enough support. Yes campaigners claimed everything from

crime to the economy would improve. The no campaign simply ridiculed the

idea as an expensive extra layer of government, and even aliens beaming

in from space would find it amusing. The Labour government had planned

referendums on setting up elected December is the three regions but

finished up cancelling two of them, including Yorkshire and the North

West. The only one that went ahead, in the North East, saw three

quarters of voters turning down the idea. It was a pretty disastrous

campaign, very little power was being offered to transfer to a North

East assembly so it is not really supposing that it was voted out. So

much has happened over the last ten years, we have seen the success of

devolution in Scotland and in Wales, and also in London, London and `` is

a good example of regional government at work. The use of

voices comic more power in the North are not just looking towards

Scotland or even Wales, their eyes are cast firmly south, towards

London, with its all`powerful Mayor and looming economy. `` booming. But

the high`profile leadership of Boris Johnson in London and that relative

economic success under the SNP's Alex Salmond in Scotland, still is

not enough for those who refuse to believe that regional assemblies,

backed heavily at the time by John Prescott, would redress the economic

balance. If we are to get real power to Yorkshire, that means for

example, we do not have Yorkshire as part of the National Health Service,

we have a Yorkshire health service that is independent, or we have

Yorkshire universities that are not charging tuition fees. But with the

also vote to pay for the taxation to pay for such a policy? When you get

down into the meat of the debate, I don't think it would be any more

support for Yorkshire devolution than we saw ten years ago. Whether

the Scots vote for or against independence, that is not the issue

for Yorkshire at the moment. What is interesting is that it has sparked

discussion about whether lack of political power is holding back

northern regions. Is it time once again to look at

home rule for Yorkshire and the Humber? I tend to agree with the

aliens in this package, and also with John Watson. I think there is

enough politicians and elected representatives in the region.

Scotland is different altogether, they are funded differently with

their grant system. We visited this ten years ago, and the idea that we

have more paid politicians rattling around Yorkshire, I don't think the

public will swallow it. Labour ditched the idea of regional. Made

ten years ago, is a more appetite now? We have moved on, it is ten

years later, the evidence is mounting now that we are being

damaged economically by the lack of investment in the north, and lack of

an ability in the North for politicians to take decisions that

are in the interest. But we also have to remember that when it comes

to government funding, there is far more money going into London and the

South East than we see going into Yorkshire and Lincolnshire.

Something has to be done to address that. One of the other issues we

have to face is that local and as we know it is rapidly disappearing.

Sheffield will have lost 50% of its budget by 2015. By 2018, the money

begins to run out and there is nothing left except money for social

services. Local government is rapidly being broken beyond repair,

so in the gap that creates, I think there is an opportunity for a real

debate about serious devolution for the area of Yorkshire and the

Humber. Sure you accept there is an argument for us having more of a say

on how our money is spent on our part of the world. We do have a say,

that is why we have MPs. We have a completely event system, the

comparison with Scotland does not really work. They get the block

grant and they have this sophisticated formula, they are

entitled to spend the money how they wish. We have dozens and dozens of

parliamentarians in the North Mac, we should be fighting our corner. ``

in the North. We have just seen Harrogate tapping into that might

there is cash there, but surely, we are not saying we should create

another, more expensive layer of bureaucracy to govern our region. I

do not think it is feasible. Nobody is arguing that we want to put layer

upon layer of political accountability into the picture. I

am just saying that given that destruction, the effective

destruction of local Governor, `` local government, the has to be a

serious look at what we do for the future. And I will say this, we have

seen Amazon, for instance, investing in Scotland rather than the North

East, because of what the Scottish Parliament was able to offer that

company in way of incentives for investment. We have to be able to

address the issues created by a more independent Scotland, and the power

base that is London and the South East. Yorkshire is being squeezed by

the two and we have to deal with that. Do we have devolution for

Lancashire or Derbyshire? Hurdle we stop? We need a new constitutional

settlement that deals with the fact that local government is

disappearing. Surrey`mac they are having to do more with less...

Yorkshire and Lancashire, let's not divide the two, the North of England

is suffering badly in terms of funding from central government. It

doesn't get the deal that you're saying in others. Some companies may

have done, but the levels of investment are not as good as we

have seen in the South East of England or in Scotland. Or even in

Wales. What about London? It has a regional assembly, Boris never

complains about it. Because the people wanted it. We went down this

route of asking people if they wanted regional assemblies, and you

saw the result in the North East. There was no appetite for it. London

is a different market, it is very much a financial centre, and it is

very, very... I think it is far too simple a fight to compare the two.

`` simplified. Therein lies the problem. London is the financial

centre, we have an economy which is Rob Lee based on financial services,

and if the North is to regenerate, Yorkshire in particular, we need to

build our manufacturing base. To do that, Yorkshire needs to have more

control over its destiny. But we have plenty of examples of success

in Yorkshire. I do wish that our politicians would talk up our

region. We need more of what we have had. It always comes out of the

woodwork every so often. Margaret Thatcher famously talked about the

enemy within during the miners' strike 30 years ago.

But it seems Arthur Scargill's NUM was not the Iron Lady's only enemy.

Recently released Cabinet papers from the unity for reveal the

Conservative government feared a prolonged strike by the dockers,

which could have prevented coal being imported and led to blackouts

and food shortages. Ministers were so concerned by the prospect of a

dock strike on the Humber that they were prepared to bring in troops and

to declare a state of emergency. Mrs Thatcher had a go at anyone who

was in a trade union, that is fact. These papers really prove that. She

talked about getting the Army in. If that had come out at the time, she

would have had a fight on our hands, from us and from the minors.

I knew that the heart of the dockers was not in closing down their own

industry. Dockers were very well paid, you had the Dock Labour scheme

where they inherited their jobs from their fathers. They knew they were

on to a good think. They knew if the dock strike were to confront the

Government, the Government would end, as it did, the Dock Labour

scheme. She thought that by closing all the pits, and Arthur Scargill

was right, she told us there was 20 bits to close and it was more than

that. If that was to come out at the time, I do not think you would have

the dockers... We were in the process of privatising the docks,

but we had secret ammunition. There were lots of private wards, into

which imported coal was coming. Not many people knew about this. I was

briefed on it and told to make sure my constituency did not make too

much of a farce. So I personally never had fears about the

possibility of a national dockers strike. Martha Mabey Aaron is that

the docks `` the irony was that the docks were being used to import

coal. We had tonnes and tonnes of coal underground but the pits were

being closed. Do you still think Mrs Thatcher was right? Absolutely.

Every government since then is now put there by the people, not by

Arthur Scargill. I am in no doubt that Tony Blair gave the greatest

thanks to Margaret Thatcher once she had sorted out the minors.

`` sorted out the coal miners. Do you think if the dockers had been

more militant, the outcome of the miners' strike would have been

different? It could have been. If the pit supervisors and deputies had

decided to go to strike and stay out, who knows what we do know now,

it is just how close it really was. There were moments when the Thatcher

government really was very worried about the outcome. It is very

emotional and painful for most of us to recall. And to see the images

once again. A very painful time in our history. The miners' strike is

seen as a great victory for Margaret Thatcher, but actually, looking at

some of the Cabinet papers, they were genuinely worried, talking

about troops being brought in, a national urgency. These 30`year`old

papers are something that was brought in, rightly so, we have now

seen these particular papers, it is unusual for a Prime Minister at the

time to be given advice by officials, it happens all the time.

Harold Wilson was given advice in 1964 I've, that we should invade

Rhodesia. `` 1965. He didn't take that advice, but the advice was

there in the Cabinet papers. It is not unusual that these things come

forward. It was a very difficult time, my own family were involved in

the strike on both sides. But it is absolutely right that a Prime

Minister, any Government, takes whatever preparations it can, to

ensure that food and fuel are transported, and in actual fact,

Tony Blair did exactly the same bribe ringing in the Army in 2002

during the firefighters strike. We will be hearing a lot over the next

few months with the 30th anniversary of the miners' strike yup, but who

was responsible for the demise of the Yorkshire coal industry,

Margaret Thatcher or Arthur Scargill? You could go back further

and say that effectively, when industry was nationalised in the

post`war period, it had already been severely damaged by decades of

underinvestment, refusal on the part of the coal mine owners to reform

the industry. So to some extent, you have to go back a long way to find

the roots of what went wrong. We capitalised on our dominant position

in the coal market for far too long. When the competition came

along, we were helpless in the face of it. Or I will say is that I think

the Thatcher Government behaved irresponsibly in the way that it

handled the decline of the coal industry. Allowing those villages

and communities to go to the wall like they did and to Allied the coal

industry that went to allow the coal industry to disappear as radically

as it did as do lasting damage to the south torture economy, which was

still effectively trying to repair `` which we are still trying to

repair. The Thatcher Government had a much more wide ranging pit closure

programme than was revealed back then. If you look at the papers,

governments get advice and recommendations all the time, it

does not necessarily mean that is the policy. There is absolutely no

evidence that that was going to be the case. As I mentioned, the Harold

Wilson Rhodesia story, they get papers, they get recommendations all

the time. Is there much to learn when we look back to those images of

1984? The power of the trade unions, that was the high water mark, after

that, they have never had the same kind of clout. Know, and I think we

are where we are now, it is a cliche, you have to look forward and

not back. For trade unions in this country, that has to be a

recognition by everyone, politicians, employers, they'd

unions, that we have to find a better way of doing business in this

country. `` trade unions. That does mean involving the trade unions in

decision`making in this country. In Europe, it is quite common for trade

unionists to be on the boards of major companies and are pleased to

be on the boards of major companies. For some reason in the UK, this does

not happen. We have to reform the way we do this. That is another

debate for another time. Let's get more of the week's

political news. Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg

came to see how ?1 million other Government's regional growth fund is

being spent at a factory in West Yorkshire, he heard it means 200 new

jobs. He says that money spent in this way will attract more private

investment. If we can make a modest addition and

say with this bit of Excel, these make the decision to invest in

Britain, that is the money of taxpayers, well spent.

The process has begun this week to decide whether Anne McIntosh should

be sacked as candidate in her constituency at the net collection.

The next election. They had been sent postal ballot papers to say

whether they endorsed the decision to be selected.

Controversy as the Government suggests the way to reduce air

pollution on the M1 motorway is to cut speed, a 60 mph top speed is

proposed on the motorway between North Derbyshire and rather, local

businesses say the idea will not work. `` and Rotherham.

Nigel Adams, what do you make of the plan to cut speeds on the M1? Well,

I suspect it is more to do with traffic flow than pollution. That

section of the motorway is notorious. It is very difficult at

peak times. It is worth an experiment. I know various

campaigners have looked at increasing speeds as well, at

quieter times, to increase traffic flow. Some want 80 mph limit on

motorways, what is your take you Mac one of my colleagues is doing a lot

of work on this. She is very unhappy with the proposals. She thinks there

are real issues around safety. I know that South Yorkshire safety

partnership is also very concerned. They are pressing for meetings with

ministers to talk through the implications of the proposals and

this latest suggested speed limit. Your colleague in North Yorkshire

MP, Nigel Adams, Anne McIntosh is facing a fight for her political

future with a ballot of party members. The you support her? We

have a democratic system in our party. That is how we select our

candidates. It is clearly a very difficult time for her but she will

have the opportunity to put her case to the members, and they will be

given an opportunity to vote. It is really down to the members to

decide. Do you support her? I suspect she will win. I expect her

to win stop but I don't get a vote. It is not my business. It is for

members of the local party. I wish her all the best, actually. I do not

agree with her very often. But I wish her all the best.

Let me ask you about Nick Clegg. A busy start to 2014, what do you make

about this new love in with Ed Balls? Saying that Labour would

perhaps form a coalition with the Lib Dems. I take it with a pinch of

salt. The media has been getting very excited about this. Nick Clegg

is all over the place on most wings. Ed Balls is saying he is willing to

jump into bed now with the Lib Dems. Let's concentrate on the really

serious issues, which as you know, rebuilding the Yorkshire economy.

There is so much work needs to be done. I will not be detected by

Lovins between politicians. I will get on with my job. `` I will not be

distracted by loving `` love`ins. Andrew.

Can David Cameron get his way on EU migration? Will he ever be able to

satisfy his backbenchers on Europe? Is Ed Miliband trying to change the

tone of PMQ 's? More questions for the week ahead.

We are joined by Jacob Rees Mogg from his constituency in Somerset.

Welcome to the programme. You one of the 95 Tory backbenchers who signed

this letter? Suddenly. Laws should be made by our democratically

elected representatives, not from Brussels. How could Europe work with

a pick and mix in which each national parliament can decide what

Brussels can be in charge of? The European Union is a supernatural

body that is there for the cooperation amongst member states to

do things that they jointly want to do. It ought not be there to force

-- to enforce uniform rules on countries that do not want to

participate. It is the vision of Europe that people joined when we

signed up to it and came in in 973. It has accreted powers to itself

without having the support of the public of the member states. This is

just a way of preparing the ground for you to get out of Europe

altogether, isn't it? I do not big so. There is a role for an

organisation that does some coordination and that has trade

agreements within it, I do not think there is a role for a federal state.

Europe seems to be dominating the. I remember your leader telling you not

to bang on about Europe, your backbench colleagues seem to have

ignored that. Would you like to restrict the flow of EU migrants to

come to work in this country? Yes. I think we should have control of our

own borders, so we can decide who we want to admit for the whole world.

What we have at the moment is a restrictive control of people coming

from anywhere other than the EU There is a big decrease in the

number of New Zealanders who came in the last quarter for which figures

are available, but a huge increase in people coming from the continent.

Does it really make sense to stop our second cousins coming so that we

can allow people freely to come from the continent? I do not think so, we

need to have domestic control of our borders in the interests of the

United Kingdom. There are still lots more people coming from the rest of

the world than from the European Union. That has been changing. But

there are still more. A lot more. The permanent residence coming from

the European Union are extremely high. In the period when the Labour

Party was in charge, we had to put 5 million people coming here, of whom

about 1 billion were from Poland. -- we had 2.5 million people coming

here. We have no control over them. Like the clock behind you, you are

behind the times on these figures. I have stopped the clock for your

benefit, because it was going to chime otherwise! I thought that

might be distracting! Only a Tory backbencher could stop a clock!

Helen, when you at this up, it is preparing to get out, is it not We

have had this one bill about a referendum that seems to have tied

us up in knots for months on end. If Parliament could scrutinise every

piece of EU legislation, we would never get anything else done. It

would be incredible. Even Chris Grayling said earlier that you can

not have a national veto on anything that the EU proposes. I am surprised

that Jacob Rees Mogg is talking about dismantling one of Margaret

Thatcher's most important legacies, the creation of the single market,

and the person sent there to dream it up under Margaret Thatcher said

the only way you can run this sensibly is by not having national

vetoes, because if you have that, guess what will happen? The French

will impose lots of protectionist measures. It was Margaret

Thatcher's idea that national parliaments should never veto. How

could you fly in the face of the lady? Even the great lady makes

mistakes. Excuse me, Jacob Rees Mogg says even Margaret Thatcher makes

mistakes! No wonder the clock has stopped! Even be near divine

Margaret made a mistake! But on the single market, it has been used as

an excuse for massive origination of domestic affairs. We should be

interested in free trade in Europe and allowing people to export and

import freely, not to have uniform regulations, as per the single

market, because what that allows is thought unelected bureaucrats to

determine the regular vision. We want the British people to decide

the rules for themselves. If this makes the single market not work,

that is not the problem, because we can still have free trade, which is

more important. If David Cameron is watching this, I am sure he is, it

will be nice for you to come on and give us an interview, he must be

worried. He is beginning to think, I am losing control. It is a clever

letter, the tone is ingratiating and pleasant, every time, you have stood

up to Brussels, you have achieved something, but the content is

dramatic. If you want Parliament to have a veto, you want to leave the

EU, because the definition is accepting the primacy of European

law. The MPs should be clear about that. It is almost a year since the

Europe speech in which David Cameron committed to the referendum. The

political objective was to put that issue to bed until the next

election. It has failed. David Cameron is going to have to pull off

a major miracle in any renegotiations to satisfy all of

this. Yes, it makes me think how much luckier he has been in

coalition with the Liberal Democrats, because there is a bit of

the Tory party that is irreconcilable to what he wants to

do. The Conservative MPs are making these demands just as David Cameron

is seeing the debate goes his way in Europe. Angela Merkel has looked

over the cliff and said, do I want the UK out? No, they are a

counterbalance to France. France one the UK to leave, but they do not,

because they do not want to lose the only realistic military power Tom

other than themselves. Just when the debate is going David Cameron's way,

Jacob Rees Mogg would take us out. Let me move on to another subject.

That is nonsense. The debate is not beginning to go David Cameron's way.

We are having before us on Monday a bill about European citizenship and

spending British taxpayers money so that Europe can go and say we are

all EU citizens, but we signed up to being a part of a multinational

organisation. The spin that it is going the way of the leader of a

political party is one that has been used before, it was said of John

Major, it was untrue then and it is now. It is, for the continuing

deeper integration of the European Union. I want to ask a quick

question. Chris Grayling said to us that the Tories would devise a way

in which the British Supreme Court would be supreme in the proper

meaning of that, but we could still be within the European Court of

Human Rights. Can that circle be squared? I have no idea, the Lord

Chancellor is an able man, and I am sure he is good at squaring circles.

I am not worried about whether we remain in the convention or not PMQ

's, we saw a bit about this week, Paul Gorgons had died, so the house

was more subdued, but he wants a more subdued and serious prime

ministers questions. Let's remind ourselves what it was like until

now. What is clear is that he is

floundering around and he has no answer to the Labour Party's energy

price freeze. The difference is John Major is a good man, the Right

Honourable gentleman is acting like a conman. Across the medical

profession, they say there is a crisis in accident and emergency,

and we have a Prime Minister saying, crisis, what crisis? How out of

touch can hate the? You do not need it to be Christmas to know when you

are sitting next to a turkey. It is not a bad line. Is Ed Miliband

trying to change the tone of prime ministers questions? Is he right to

do so? The important point is this was a special prime ministers

questions, because everybody was really sad and by the death of Paul

Goggins and in the country, the legacy of the floods. That was the

first question that Ed Miliband asked about, so that cast a pall

over proceedings. When it suits him, Ed Miliband would like to take a

more statesman-like stance, but will it last? That is how David Cameron

started. His first prime ministers questions, he said to Tony Blair, I

would like to support you on education, and he did in a vote

which meant Tony Blair could see off a naughty operation from Gordon

Brown. But it did not last, they are parties with different visions.

Jacob Rees Mogg, would you like to see it more subdued? I like a bit of

Punch and Judy. You need to have fierce debate and people putting

their views passionately, it is excellent. I am not good at it, I

sit there quite quietly, but it is great fun, very exciting, and it is

the most watched bit of the House of Commons each week. If it got as dull

as ditchwater, nobody would pay attention. Three cheers for Punch

and Judy. Ed Miliband is going to make a major speech on the economy

this week. You can now define the general approach. We had it from

Emma Reynolds, we have seen it over energy prices, this market is bust,

the market is not working properly, and that will therefore justify

substantial government intervention. Intervention which does not

necessarily cost money. It is the deletion and reorganising

industries. It constitutes an answer to the question which has been

hounding him, what is the point of the Labour Party when there is no

money left? He says, you do not spend a huge amount fiscally, but

you arrange markets to achieve socially just outcomes without

expenditure. It is quite serious stance. I am not sure it will

survive the rigours of an election campaign, but it is an answer. Is

that an approach, to use broken markets, to justify substantial

state intervention? Yes, and the other big plank is infrastructure

spending. The Lib Dems would not be against capital investment for info

structure will stop Emma Reynolds talking about house-building, the

idea of pumping money into the economy through infrastructure is

something that the Labour Party will look at. Jacob Rees Mogg, you once

thought Somerset should have its own time zone, and today, you have

delivered on that promise! Live on the Sunday Politics! I try to

deliver on my promises! That is all for today, the Daily

Politics is on BBC Two every day this week, just before lunch. I

aren't back next Sunday here on BBC One at 11am. -- I am back. If it is

Sunday, it is the Sunday Politics.