09/02/2014 Sunday Politics Yorkshire and Lincolnshire

morning, folks, welcome to the Sunday Politics. Rising flood water,

a battered coastline, the winter storms forced the Government to take

control. Is it hanging the Environment Agency out to dry?

Embarrassment for the Government is the Immigration Minister resigns

after he discovered he was employing a cleaner with no right to work here

for seven years. Ed Miliband promised an end to what he called

the machine politics of union fixes in the Labour Party,

Coming up on the Sunday Politics in Yorkshire and Lincolnshire,

no`frills. Should more than councils copy this London Borough by

following the lead of budget airlines?

Boris Johnson will be talking to ask about strife on the Underground All

of that and after a week of very public coalition spats can David

Cameron and Nick Clegg keep the coalition show on the road? Two

senior party figures will go head to head. And with me, Helen Lewis, Nick

Watt and Iain Martin who would not know they Somerset Levels from their

Norfolk Broads, but that will not stop them tweeting their thoughts.

We start with the strange Case of the Immigration Minister, his

cleaner and some lost documents Yesterday Mark Harper tendered his

resignation, telling the media he had discovered the cleaner who

worked for him for seven years did not have the right to work in the

UK. The Communities Secretary Eric Pickles said he had done the

honourable thing. I was sad to see him go, he was a strong minister.

Had he been a member of the public he would not have done anything

wrong, but he set himself a very high standard and he felt that

standard and honourably stood down. This would seem like a good

resignation, maybe unlike the Baroness Scotland one years ago on a

similar issue, but have we been told the full story? We wait to see that.

Labour have picked up saying he is an honourable man, that the reason

why he resigned is these very owners checks that landlords and employers

will have to perform on employees over their documentation. The most

interesting line is that, we do not require them to be experts or spot

anything other than an obvious forgery. The suggestion that there

is the document he was presented with originality, which he lost was

on home office paper and was perhaps not entirely accurate. That is the

embarrassment. He is the minister putting through a bill that will

demand tougher checks on people and he himself did not do enough checks

to discover she was illegal. There is an odd bit where he involves the

home office later to check her out as well. He writes a resignation

letter and he has to hold himself to pay higher standard. He has done the

David Laws approach to this, resign quickly and he can come back. David

Cameron wants him to return swiftly to the frontbenchers. He is a state

school educated lad. He is the kind of Tory that the Tories are in short

supply of. He is a rising star. I would caution on this idea that it

is customary that whenever anyone resigns, it is always thought they

will come straight back into office. If only the outside world worked

like that. It is not, in a company if the HR person resigns, he is such

a great chap he will be back next week. There is a silver lining for

David Cameron is he has been able to move Harriet Bond up as he moves

everyone up. But nobody will see her in the whips office because she is

not allowed to appear on television. And if you three want to resign Do

not hate you are coming back next week. But we will do it with honour.

It has been a hellish week for residents of coastal areas with more

storms bringing more flooding and after Prince Charles visited the

Somerset Levels on Tuesday the Government has been keen to show it

has got a grip on the situation at last.

For last weekend's Sunday Politics I made the watery journey to the

village of Muchelney, cut off for a whole month. Now everyone has been

dropping in. First it was Prince Charles on a park bench pulled by a

tractor. He waded into the row about how the floods have been handled.

Next it was the chair of the Environment Agency, Lord Smith, who

faced angry residents. Sought the river is out. That is precisely what

we are going to do. Where he faced, a resident, he did not need that

many. David Cameron went for a look as well and gave the region what it

wanted, more pumps, more money and in the long-term the return of

dredging. There are lessons to learn. The pause in bridging that

took place from the late 1990s was wrong and we need to get dredging

again. When the water levels come down and it is safe to dredge, we

will dredging to make sure these rivers and stitches can carry a

better capacity. The Environment Secretary Owen Paterson has not been

seen again because he is recovering from emergency eye surgery. In the

meantime the floodwaters rose ever higher. Some residents were told to

evacuate. In Devon the railway was washed away by the waves leaving a

big gap in the network. Look at the weather this weekend. If you can

believe it, the storms keep rolling in. What is the long-term solution

for flood prone areas of the country? I am joined from Oxford by

the editor of The Ecologist magazine, Oliver Tickell, and by

local MP Tessa Munt. Tessa, let me come to you first. What do you now

want the Government to do? I want it to make sure it does exactly as it

promises and delivers what every farmer and landowner around here

knows should have been done for years. First, to solve the problems

we have right now, but to make sure there is money in the bank for us to

carry on doing the maintenance that is necessary. Was it a mistake not

to do the dredging? When the waters start to subside does dredging

become a key part of this? Yes, of course. It is something the farmers

have been asking for four years When you wander along a footpath by

a river and you see trees growing and there is 60% of the capacity

only because there is silt, it needs to have a pretty dramatic action

right now and then we need to make sure the maintenance is ongoing

Oliver Tickell, was it a mistake to stop the dredging? If the dredging

had happened, the land would not be covered in water for so long?

Clearly it is necessary to do at least some dredging on these rivers

and in particular because these rivers are well above ground level.

They are carrying water that comes down off the hills well above the

level of the flood plain on the Somerset Levels. They naturally tend

to silt up. But the key thing is that is only a small part of the

overall solution. What we need is a catchment wide approach to improve

infiltration upstream and you also need to manage the flood plain on

the levels and upstream so as to have active flood plain that can

store water. This idea it is just about dredging is erroneous.

Dredging is a part of it, but it is a catchment wide solution. Dredging

is only a small part of the solution he says. Yes, of course it is. But

look here. With the farmer is locally, the landowners, they know

this land will carry water for a few weeks of the year, that is not a

problem. But this water has to be taken away and there is a very good

system of drainage and it works perfectly well. In my area there are

serious problems because the dredging has not taken place. There

are lunatic regulations around were when they do do some of dredging,

the Environment Agency is asked to take it away because it is

considered toxic waste. This is barmy. We need to take the stuff out

of the rivers and build the banks up so we create protection in the

future. We have to make sure the dredging is done but make sure the

drainage works well and we have pumps in places and we have

floodgates put onto the rivers. We need to make sure repairs are done

more quickly. All right, let me go back to Oliver Tickell. Is it not

the case a lot of people on your side of the argument would like to

see lands like the Somerset Levels return to natural habitat? Looe I

would like a degree of that, but that does not mean the whole place

needs to turn into wilderness so it will remain agricultural landscape.

Everybody, all the interested parties who signed up to a document

called vision 2034 the Somerset Levels envisages most of the area of

the Somerset Levels being turned over to extensive grassland and that

is what it is best suited for. Let me put that to Tessa Munt. Have you

signed up to this where you will end up with extensive grassland? I have

seen it, but grass does not grow if water is sitting on this land for

weeks and weeks. What you have to remember is a lot of the levels are

managed very carefully and they are conservation land and that means

cattle are allowed to go out at certain times of the year and in

certain numbers. It is well managed. Do you accept it should return to

grassland? Grassland, fine, but you cannot call land grassland in the

flipping water is on it so long that nothing grows. It is no good at

doing that. You have got to make sure it is managed properly.

Drainage has been taking place on this land for centuries. It is the

case the system is there, but it needs to be maintained properly and

we have to have fewer ridiculous regulations that stop action. Last

year the flooding minister agreed dredging should take place and

everything stopped. Now we have got the promise from the Prime Minister

and I thank Prince Charles for that. Is it not time to let the local

people run their land rather than being told what to do by the

Environment Agency, central Government and the European Union?

The internal drainage boards have considerable power in all of this.

They wanted to dredge and they were not allowed to. The farmers want to

dredge that is what is going to happen, but they have signed up to a

comprehensive vision of catchment management and of environmental

improvement turning the Somerset Levels into a world-class haven for

wildlife. It is not much good if your house is underwater. The

farmers themselves, the RSPB, the drainage boards, they have all

signed up to this. The real question now is how do we implement that

vision? You give the money to the drainage boards. At the moment they

pay 27% of their money and have been doing so for years and years and

this is farmers' money and it has been going to the drainage boards

and they pay the Environment Agency who are meant to be dredging and

that has not happened. We have to leave it there. We have run out of

time. Last week saw the Labour Party

adopts an historic change with its relationship with the unions.

Changes to the rules that propelled Ed Miliband to the top. Ed Miliband

was elected Labour leader in 20 0 by the electoral college system which

gives unions, party members and MPs one third of votes each. This would

be changed into a simpler one member, one vote system. A union

member would have to become an affiliated member of the party. They

would have to opt in and pay ?3 a year. But the unions would have 50%

of the vote at the conference and around one third of the seats on the

National executive committee. The proposals are a financial gamble as

well. It is estimated the party could face a drop in funding of up

to ?5 million a year when the changes are fully implemented in

five years. The leader of the Unite trade union has welcomed the report

saying it is music to his ears. The package will be voted on at a

special one of conference in March. And the Shadow Business Secretary

Chuka Umunna joins me now for the Sunday Interview. Welcome back. In

what way will the unions have less power and influence in the Labour

Party? This is about ensuring individual trade union members have

a direct relationship with the Labour Party. At the moment the

monies that come to us are decided at a top level, the general

secretaries determine this, whether the individual members want us to be

in receipt of those monies or not so we are going to change that so that

affiliation fees follow the consent of individual members. Secondly we

want to make sure the individual trade union members, people who

teach our children, power via - fantastic British businesses, we

want them to make an active choice, and we are also recognising that in

this day and age not everybody wants to become a member of a political

party. We haven't got much time The unions still have 50% of the vote at

Labour conferences, there will be the single most important vote, more

member -- union members will vote than nonunion members, their power

has not diminished at all, has it? In relation to the other parts of

the group of people who will be voting in a future leadership

contest, we are seeking to move towards more of a one member, one

vote process. At the moment we have the absurd situation where I, as a

member of Parliament, my vote will count for 1000. MPs are losing. .

They still have a lot of power. I am a member of the GMB union and the

Unite union, also a member of the Fabians as well so I get free votes

on top of my vote as a member of Parliament. We are moving to a

system where I will have one vote and that is an important part of

this. You asked how many people would be casting their votes. The

old system, up to 2.8 million ballot papers were sent out with prepaid

envelopes for people to return their papers were sent out with prepaid

turnout. The idea that you are going to see a big change... Even if

your individual party members. In one vital way, your purse strings,

your individual party members. In the unions will be more powerful

than ever because at the moment they have to hand over 8 million to

than ever because at the moment they fraction of that now. They will get

to keep that money, but then come the election you go to them and give

them a lot of money -- and they will have you then. They won't have us,

as you put it! The idea that individual trade union members don't

have their own view, their own voice, and just do what their

general secretaries do is absurd. They will make their own decision,

and we want them to make that and not have their leadership decide

that for them. Let me go to the money. The Labour Party manifesto

will be reflecting the interests of Britain, and the idea that somehow

people can say we are not going to give you this money unless you do

this or that, we will give you a policy agenda which is appropriate

for the British people, regardless of what implications that may have

financially. They will have more seats than anybody else in the NEC

and they will hold the purse strings. They will be the

determining factor. They won't be. Unite is advocating a 70% rate of

income tax, there is no way we will have that in our manifesto. Unite is

advocating taking back contracts and no compensation basis, we would not

-- there is no way we would do that. How many chief executives of the

FTSE 100 are backing Labour? We have lots of chief executives backing

Labour. I don't know the exact number. Ed Miliband has just placed

an important business person in the House of Lords, the former chief

executive of the ITV, Bill Grimsey. How many? You can only name one

Bill Grimsey, there is also John Mills. Anyone who is currently

chairman of the chief executive With the greatest respect, you are

talking about less than half the percent of business leaders in our

country, we have almost 5 million businesses, not all FTSE 100

businesses, not all listed, and we are trying to get people from across

the country of all different shapes and sizes. Let's widen it to the

FTSE 250. That is 250 out of 5 million companies. The largest ones,

they make the profits and provide the jobs. Two thirds of private

sector jobs in this country come from small and medium-sized

businesses, and small and medium-sized businesses are an

important part of a large companies supply chains. So you cannot name a

single chairman from the FTSE 2 0, correct? I don't know all the

chairman. Are you going to fight the next election without a single boss

of a FTSE 250 company? I have named some important business people, but

the most important thing is that we are not coming out with a manifesto

for particular interests, but for broader interest. Let me show you,

Digby Jones says Labour's policy is, "if it creates wealth, let's kick

it" . Another quote, that it borders on predatory taxation. They think

you are anti-business. I don't agree with them. One of the interesting

things about Sir Stuart's comments on the predatory taxation and I

think he was referring to the 5 p rate of tax is that he made some

comments arguing against the reduction of the top rate of tax

from 50p. He is saying something different now. Digby of course has

his own opinions, he has never been a member of the Labour Party. Let me

come onto this business of the top rate of tax, do you accept or don't

you that there is a point when higher rates of income tax become

counter-productive? Ultimately you want to have the lowest tax rates

possible. Do you accept there is a certain level you actually get less

money? I think ultimately there is a level beyond you could go which

would be counter-productive, for example the 75% rate of tax I

mentioned earlier, being advocated by Unite in France. Most French

higher earners will pay less tax than under your plans. I beg your

pardon, with the 50p? Under your proposals, people here will pay more

tax than French higher earners. If you are asking if in terms of the

level, you asked the question and I answered it, do I think if you reach

a level beyond which the tax burden becomes counter-productive, can I

give you a number what that would be, I cannot but let me explain -

the reason we have sought to increase its two 50p is that we can

get in revenue to reduce the deficit. In an ideal world you

wouldn't need a 50p rate of tax which is why during our time in

office we didn't have one, because we didn't have those issues. Sure,

though you cannot tell me how much the 50p will raise. In the three

years of operation we think it raised ?10 billion. You think. That

was based on extrapolation from the British library. It is at least

possible I would suggest, for the sake of argument, that when you

promise to take over half people's income, which is what you will do if

you get your way, the richest 1 currently account for 70 5% of all

tax revenues. -- 75%. Is it not a danger that if you take more out of

them, they will just go? I don't think so, we are talking about the

top 1% here. If you look at the directors of sub 5 million turnover

companies, the average managing director of that gets around

?87,000. Let me narrow it down to something else. Let's take the .1%

of top taxpayers, down to fewer than 30,000 people. They account for over

14% of all of the income tax revenues. Only 29,000 people. If

they go because you are going to take over half their income, you

have lost a huge chunk of your tax base. They could easily go, at

tipping point they could go. What we are advocating here is not

controversial. Those with the broadest shoulders, it is not

unreasonable to ask them to share the heavier burden. Can you name one

other major economy that subscribes to this? Across Europe, for example

in Sweden they have higher tax rates than us. Can you name one major

economy? I couldn't pluck one out of the air, I can see where you are

coming from, I don't agree with it. I think most people subscribe to the

fact that those with wider shoulders should carry the heavy a burden We

have run out of time but thank you for being here.

Over the past week it seems that Nick Clegg has activated a new Lib

Dem strategy - 'Get Gove'. After a very public spat over who should

head up the schools inspection service Ofsted, Lib Dem sources have

continued to needle away at the Education Secretary. And other

senior Lib Dems have also taken aim at their coalition partners. Here's

Giles Dilnot. It's unlikely the polite welcome of these school

children to Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg and his party colleague

schools minister David Laws would be so forthcoming right now from the

man in charge of schools Conservative Michael Gove. Mr Laws

is said to have been furious with The Education secretary over the

decision to remove Sally Morgan as chair of Ofsted. But those who know

the inner working of the Lib Dems say that's just understandable. When

you have the department not being consulted, it would be possible for

him to not publicly comment. The remarkable thing would be if he

hadn't said anything at all. We should be careful to understand this

is not always part of a preplanned decision. There is a growing sense

that inside Number Ten this is a concerted Lib Dem strategy, we also

understand there is no love lost between Nick Clegg and Michael Gove

to say the least, and a growing frustration that if the Lib Dems

think such so-called yellow and blue attacks can help them with the

election, they can also damage the long-term prospects of the Coalition

post 2015. One spat does not a divorce make but perhaps even more

significant has been Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander s

recent newspaper interview firmly spiking any room for George Osborne

to manoeuvre on lowering the highest income tax rate to 40p. All this

builds on the inclusion in Government at the reshuffle of

people like Norman Baker at the Home Office and Simon Hughes at Justice

people who are happier to publically express doubt on Conservative

policy, unlike say Jeremy Browne who was removed and who has made plain

his views on Coalition. It is difficult for us to demonstrate that

we are more socialist than an Ed Miliband Labour led party. Even if

we did wish to demonstrate it, doing it in coalition with the

Conservatives would be harder still. Nonetheless a differentiation

strategy was always likely as 2 15 approached, so is there evidence it

works? Or of the work we publish shows the Lib Dems have a huge

problem in terms of their distinctiveness, so attacking their

coalition partners or the Labour Party is helpful in showing what

they are against, but there are bigger problem is showing what they

are for. And one Conservative MP with access to Number Ten as part of

the PM's policy board says yellow on blue attacks are misplaced and

irresponsible. At this stage when all the hard work is being done and

the country is back on its feet the Lib Dems are choosing the time to

step away from the coalition. That is your position, but do you suspect

coming up to the next election we will see more of this? I think the

Lib Dems are about as hard to pin down as a weasel in Vaseline. And

with the public's view of politicians right now, and wants to

be seen as slicker than a well oiled weasel? And we have Lib Dem peer

Matthew Oakeshott and senior Conservative backbencher Bernard

Jenkin. Matthew, the Lib Dems are now picking fights with the Tories

on a range of issues, some of them trivial. Is this a Pirelli used to

Lib Dem withdrawal from the coalition? I do not know, I am not

privy to Nick Clegg's in strategy. Some of us have been independent for

some time. I resigned over treatment of the banks. That is now being

sorted out. But what is significant is we have seen a string of attacks,

almost an enemy within strategy When you have Nick Clegg, David Laws

and Danny Alexander, the three key people closest to the Conservatives,

when you see all of them attacking, and this morning Nick Clegg has had

a go at the Conservatives over drug policy. There is a string of

policies where something is going on. It is difficult to do an enemy

within strategy. I believe as many Lib Dems do that we should withdraw

from the coalition six months to one year before the election so we can

put our positive policies across rather than having this tricky

strategy of trying to do it from within. Why does David Cameron need

the Lib Dems? He probably does not. The country generally favoured the

coalition to start with. Voters like to see politicians are working

together and far more of that goes on in Westminster then we see. Most

of my committee reports are unanimous reports from all parties.

Why does he need them? I do not think he does. You would be happy to

see the Lib Dems go? I would always be happy to see a single minority

Government because it would be easier for legislation. The

legislation you could not get through would not get through

whether we were in coalition or not. The 40p tax rate, there

probably is not a majority in the House of Commons at the moment,

despite what Nick Clegg originally said. It does not make much

difference. What makes a difference from the perspective of the

committee I chair is historically we have had single party Government

that have collective responsibility and clarity. The reason that is

important is because nothing gets done if everybody is at sixes and

sevens in the Government. Everything stops, there is paralysis as the row

goes on. Civil servants do not know who they are working for. If it

carries on getting fractures, there is a bigger argument to get out. If

it continues at this level of intensity of the enemy within

strategy as you have described it, can the coalition survived another

16 months of this? It is also a question should they. I never

thought I would say this, I agree with Bernard. Interestingly earlier

Chuka Umunna missed the point talking about business support.

Business is worried about this anti-European rhetoric and that is a

deep split between the Liberal Democrats and the UKIP wing of the

Tory party. That is really damaging and that is something we need to

make our own case separately on. Do you get fed up when you hear

constant Lib Dem attacks on you? What makes me fed up is my own party

cannot respond in kind because we are in coalition. I would love to

have this much more open debate. I would like to see my own party

leader, for example as he did in the House of Commons, it was the Liberal

Democrats who blocked the referendum on the house of lords and if we want

to get this bill through it should be a Government bill. We know we can

get it through the Commons, but we need to get the Liberals out of the

Government so they stop blocking the Government putting forward a

referendum bill. And put millions of jobs at risk? I am not going down

the European road today. It strikes me that given that the attacks from

the Lib Dems are now coming from the left attacking the Tories, is this a

representative of the failure of Nick Clegg's strategy to rebuild a

centrist Liberal party and he now accepts the only way he can save as

many seats as he can do is to get the disillusioned left Lib Dem

voters to come back to the fold? The site is we have lost over half our

vote at the last election and at the moment there is no sign in the polls

of it coming back and we are getting very close to the next election. I

welcome it if Nick Clegg is starting to address that problem, but talking

about the centre is not the answer. Most Liberal Democrat voters at the

last election are radical, progressive people who want to see a

much fairer Britain and a much less divided society and we must make

sure we maximise our vote from there. We know what both of you

want, but what do you think will happen? Do you think this coalition

will survive all the way to the election or will it break up

beforehand? I think it will break up beforehand. Our long-term economic

plan is working. The further changes in policies we want to implement to

sustain that plan are being held back by the Liberal Democrats. When

will they break up? It has lasted longer than I thought it would, but

it must break up at least six months before the election. Do you think it

will survive or not? The coalition has delivered a great deal in many

ways, but it is running out of steam. It depends what happens in

the May elections. If the Liberal Democrats do not do better than we

have done in the last three, there will be very strong pressure from

the inside. You both agree. Television history has been made.

You are watching the Sunday Politics. Coming up: I will be

looking at Hello, you're watching Sunday

Politics for Yorkshire and Lincolnshire. Coming up, no frills.

Should more than councils copy this London Borough by following the lead

of budget airlines in delivering services?

And, as more council services are outsourced, we find out why some

Yorkshire care workers claim they are facing drastic pay cuts. First,

though, let's say hello to our guests. Sarah Champion is the Labour

MP for Rotherham, and Simon Reevell is the Conservative MP for Dewsbury.

Hello to you both. So, town halls are setting their budgets for the

coming year, why are so many councils rejecting the government's

money to freeze council tax bills? I think they have strings attached to

the government money and a lot of councils are afraid. They are being

cut to the bone at the moment, trying to protect services and to do

the best for their constituents but they have a tough time ahead. Many

councils say they cannot afford to freeze bills and carry on delivering

services they are supposed to. The countries with councils that are

managing to do what is necessary and sensible things with tax. If you are

a local authority not doing that, you have got to ask yourself why.

So, should councils adopt to no`frills approach to providing

services? Some argue that town halls could learn lessons from budget

airlines where customers pay for a basic product, but have to dig

deeper into their pockets for extra services. The move was pioneered by

Barnet Council in London. So could the idea work in the north?

Recent years have seen budget airlines pioneer a no`frills

approach to travel. So, could the same principle work at your local

town Hull? Barnet in North London has been described as the first

no`frills council. The move came about five years ago when

authorities started to realise they'd be facing a financial

squeeze. The idea is something like this. If residents were willing to

pay for larger bins or fast`track planning applications, that's what

they get. If not, they'd receive the basic service, like anyone else. The

Conservative leader of Barnet Council says the model has allowed

the authority to cut its budget by a third and this year council tax

bills will be reduced by 1%. I don't think people want frills from their

council. They just want good, solid service at a reasonable price. And

that's what we're doing. We're providing all the social services

that we need to provide, and we are doing it well. We started looking at

every single activity that we do, seeing if there are things we could

stop doing, whether there are things we could do better, or things that

we could outsource. And we have outsourced a fair bit of what we do.

It's uncomfortable for us to say it but Mr Pickles was right. We could

take a third out of the budget and we've done it. Barnet is home to

Finchley which was famously represented in Parliament by a

Lincolnshire lass called Margaret Thatcher. I suspect she would have

approved of the idea of no`frills councils. But what do local

residents say? I like Barnet Council. They do offer value for

money. They keep the borough clean. Do you get value for money? No!

We're always having to put our hands in our pockets to pay extra bills.

This is a pretty good place to live and these services are pretty good

around here so I'm not going to complain. The local government

secretary Eric Pickles believes many town halls could further tighten

their belts. So, would the no`frills approach work in somewhere like

north`east Lincolnshire, an authority which is proposing to

raise council tax by 1.9% to balance the books? Could you become a

no`frills council? We are a no`frills council. Mr Pickles wants

to come up here and see how it's done right. We are doing everything

that Mr Pickles has told us to do. Two years ago when I became leader

of this council, I had ?140 million revenue budget. That's the things I

spend day`to`day. By the time I get to 2017, I've got a ?67 million

revenue budget. It's more than halved, yet I've still got to do

everything people expect. That's the nucleus of it. Barnet is Barnet,

north`east Lincs is north`east Lincs. I keep inviting Mr Pickles,

and he's not replied once. Every time I'm on your programme, I say

the same thing. Eric, come and see me. So, the jury's out on whether

the no`frills council model could get off the ground elsewhere.

Sarah Champion, do you think council tax payers would welcome that

no`frills approach? I am sure they'd love to be able to afford it but,

unfortunately, Rotherham and Yorkshire is not Barnet, and income

levels are lower. And to think you have to pay your taxes and on top

for your fundamental services is outrageous. Eric Pickles might love

Barnet, but that is not the same income level. We are finding living

standards are getting absolutely hammered so to have to lose your

services and pay for them again, I cannot accept that. Do people want

frills from their councils? It is a bit defeatist. Why wouldn't a

council want to look and see whether it can deliver for less? Why would

your starting point being no, we don't want to consider that. They

have been cut so much already that they would love frills! They are

down to nothing. If anybody watching this programme and is not familiar

with waste with their counsel, I'd be amazed. In Kirklees, they've

spent ?600,000 on a programme that has been declared unlawful. It has

been scrapped. There is all sorts of waste. To start from the position of

we can't improve anything, that is defeatist. If there are ways of

doing it, we all shop around and buy things from different places, so a

council can do that so it spends less. What about the people who

can't afford to shop around? And, I'm sorry, my counsel and I think

virtually all of them in Yorkshire are cutting to the bone at the

moment. It is not a question of frills and overspend. They have

looked at all of their backroom offices, they've reduced as much as

they can and I don't believe there is any waste now. To be losing your

vital services and expecting people to pay for them that is ridiculous.

That is where we disagree. I think that it is the council that buys its

services. We are used to picking and choosing. But saying there is no

money to be saved, we wouldn't take that attitude Norman `` in our

day`to`day lives so why should the authority? Whether savings are being

made is by outsourcing things. The people at the very bottom are having

their wages cut, they're having their terms and conditions cut, so

you can save money but what is the consequence to the individual? The

point is that you do it in a way that is fair. No one is suggesting

that you do it in a way that employs people below the minimum wage. All

the people that Barnet employee are paid the London living wage. But

they are looking at employing people below the living wage. Your

suggestion is we don't look at this, my suggestion is let's see if

it can be done. If there are savings that can be made fairly, that allow

services to be provided properly, why wouldn't you look at that? Do

you think people are willing in theory to pay more for better

services through the council tax, and why don't more councils, if that

is the case, challenge that 2% ceiling and put it to a referendum?

I understand the principle of bedroom tax, but the reality is that

an awful lot of people do not have any spare money to be able to pay

for these additional services. They are paying their taxes already, they

are finding it hard to meet end to end. There are food banks

proliferating. I feel so much shame there is this going on in our

society. I understand what Simon is saying but it is not the reality.

Eric Pickles wanted to reduce the cap from 2% to 1%. Would you agree

with him? I don't see anything wrong with asking local authorities to do

as much as they can to see they spend as little of our money as they

have to because local authorities do not have money and governments that

have money and it is people who have money and it is how much is taken

from them. If a local authority can do something at 1% rather than 2%,

why not? We can think of things that have changed over the last few years

that are done different key, better and cheaper and we wouldn't go back

to how it used to be. We should see how it can be progressed further.

Now, to claims that many care workers in Yorkshire are facing

drastic pay cuts. Some staff, who provide home support to vulnerable

adults, say they could be paid less than supermarket shelf stackers

because their jobs have been outsourced to private companies and

charities. Len Tingle has the story. We are passionate about health and

social care. If you are, too, then come join us and make life more

interesting. This is a recruitment video for the award`winning national

charity Choice Support. It specialises in helping adults with

severe learning disabilities to live relatively independent lives. It's

been awarded contracts in many parts of the country to take over teams of

NHS or local council staff who used to do this. In West Yorkshire, it

now does this work in Wakefield. And it's shocked its 284 workers by

telling them it has to drastically cut the wage bill. What we are

seeing on the ground is an increasing number of charities and

private sector companies picking up contracts from local government. And

then decimating terms of conditions to such an extent that the staff are

leaving in droves. In a statement, Choice Support confirmed that its

Wakefield operation is making losses with its current wage bill and

added... At the heart of this issue is how

this work is carried out, or, more importantly, how it is paid for. In

the past, all of the work was done by NHS staff on NHS terms and

conditions. Now responsibility has shifted to local authorities and

they are contracting it out. The problem is that budgets for those

contracts are not ring`fenced. So that means that the work for these

vulnerable people is now right in the middle of council spending cuts.

It is definitely becoming an increasingly serious issue,

nationally. Because local authorities can't pay very high

prices for care services because of the financial environment we are in.

And because of the cuts to local government. And, so, actually being

able to support what we want to be a very skilled, stable, confident and

capable workforce is becoming a pressure, without doubt.

Hello, we are Care UK. We are in the business of making lives more

fulfilling. Not just the lives of people we care for. We like the

people who work with us to be fulfilled, too. It's not just

charities who are finding it hard to make the contracts they've been

awarded financially viable. This is a promotional video by the big

commercial health company Care UK. In Doncaster, it took over a

contract from the local council to support 144 vulnerable adults. Staff

here have been offered a transitional one off payment if they

agree to cut overtime and holiday entitlements. Some of those staff

say it will make their take`home pay so low they might have to leave the

job. They can go out now and earn more working at Morrisons, stacking

shelves... Instead of looking after some of the most vulnerable people

in society. We deem that more important, obviously. With this type

of group of people with disabilities, it takes years to get

trust and understanding of what they want and how they communicate and

what their needs are. You can't learn it in two minutes. We learn

that over many years. In a statement, Care UK confirmed it is

negotiating the wages bill it has inherited from the public sector and

added... In both these cases, strike ballot

has been held, negotiations are going on. There is a glimmer of

hope. In a third case in Bradford, a different provider, a different

workforce, a deal has been struck this weekend and the threat of wage

cuts has been withdrawn. And it has to be said that among all the

upheaval of public spending across the UK, this affects relatively few

people. But they are among the most vulnerable.

It is a difficult one. Can we realistically expect private

companies and charities to offer the same pay and conditions to staff as

they had under the NHS? Well, they are getting profit, so that is

immediately coming off wages. And people are suffering because of it.

What I am interested in is the bigger picture. The most vulnerable

people in our society who we care about the most, our young, the

disabled, the very old, they should have the best care but wages are

being reduced so dramatically that as the lady said it is better for

her to be working in Morrisons. What we need is some really well skilled

and well supported and motivated staff to look after the most

vulnerable people and pay is part of that. Simon Reevell, is it fair to

ask people who do these jobs to work on sociable hours and do some

terrible shifts to be paid less than people stacking shelves? Maybe not.

One of the things that concerns me as well is that the organisations

that describe themselves as charities but really have got people

running them who are paid directors salaries, if there is an issue about

pay, it is important for people who are getting six`figure sums at the

head of these organisations to show some leadership. I think it is

important to value properly in always what people who look after

elderly and vulnerable people actually do and what they actually

have to do. I have seen this close`up through family

circumstances. It is fantastic the effort people in. If you are running

one of these organisations, you need to stop, a little bit like local

authorities, stop and make sure that it is being done properly and

fairly, and make sure the people you are asking a lot of feel valued.

Sarah Champion, many of the unions might be ideological the opposed

outsourcing but this is something that started under Labour, and it

happens under many Labour councils, doesn't it? Yes, and everyone is

looking for ways to make the money go further because it is very tight.

So, for me, it is not an ideological problem, for me it is making sure

that the workers are resourced properly. It is making sure the

people get the best care. We are talking about people in care homes

in the future, but I know people who work for agencies who go into homes,

and they are on zero hours contracts, they get paid for the 15

minutes they are in the home, they don't get paid for the drivetime, so

they are on the minimum wage. How can somebody do a good job when they

feel so tomorrow lies? So, we have companies, charities, who take on

these contracts but say they cannot afford to cover running some, so how

does the government get over that? We must be careful not agree with

each other too much, but it isn't an ideological thing. There are plenty

of companies that do this and do it well. So what we have got to ask

ourselves is why don't some be `` white answer able to? If someone is

heading for a contract, people need to be absolutely sure they can

provide it in terms that can be ongoing, but it isn't a question of

coming back after two or three months and saying, we didn't get our

maths right. Local authorities are quite right to shop around. They

need to talk to charities and companies and they need to make

sure, as we all do on a day`to`day basis, that they are buying from

someone they trust. That is why I would rather it stayed with the

local authority because I want the safeguards in place, I want the

monitoring in place. Now, strike action, do you support that? I can

completely see why they feel so frustrated that they don't know what

to do. Do you think they are right? It is up to them to make that

decision. Now, let's get some more of the

week's political news in our part of the world. Louise Martin has our

round`up in 60 seconds. Disgraced former Rotherham MP Denis

MacShane was released from prison on Friday after being jailed for

defrauding ?13,000 in Parliamentary expenses. He said on Twitter he had

spent six fascinating, humbling weeks in prison.

After last week's deselection of Thirsk and Malton MP Anne McIntosh,

Labour's taunted the government over the number of Conservative women

MPs. David Cameron, however, trumpeted the appointment of four

new Tory women frontbenchers. The bill to repair potholes on roads

in East Yorkshire and Lincolnshire will run into hundreds of millions

of pounds. One councillor warns that will only increase if councils fail

to adopt more creative ways of prevention.

And Scarborough and Whitby MP and Transport Minister Robert Goodwill

revealed to the Commons a personal reason for backing a ban on smoking

in cars. Having at a young age having to sit in the back of the car

feeling green and carsick while my father was puffing away...

We have all been there. So, tomorrow, the Commons will have a

free vote on a ban on smoking in cars where children are present.

Supported by labour, so no prizes for guessing how you will vote.

Personally, I am absolutely supportive of this. On Friday I was

with a class of seven`year`olds and I asked them their opinion and

absolutely everyone of them said it should be banned. I am listening to

my constituents, if they cannot vote yet. Simon Reevell, how will you

vote? I don't think I will supported. It is wrong to smoke in a

car with children, but how will we do it practically? A policeman sees

someone smoking, pulls him over, denies it, what does he do? There

are things we need to do through education. And I think we need to be

certain we want to achieve this, but I just think the practical policing

of this is almost impossible so I prefer to do it by education than by

law. I don't think education has worked. I hear what you are saying

but it sends out a clear signal to people that this is not acceptable.

Children cannot make an informed choice. You cannot send out signals

bylaw which is unenforceable. If you can in force in law, then use it,

but practically, how would this work? We haven't had a proper go at

educating people about this, and we need to make it more of an issue.

Let's see if that works. I am doing nothing but condemning it. Denis

MacShane, served six weeks of a six`month sentence. Do you think

many people in Rotherham will be angry about that? I don't know if

they will be angry. It is surprising it is only six weeks, but if that is

what the judge thought was appropriate, then so be it. He very

clearly has been punished for a crime so justice has been served. It

is a matter of debate whether or not you think it is right he has got off

lightly. He should have served half his sentence. Here's an example of

people getting up sooner than he should. Chris has introduced a bill

to keep people in prison for longer than they `` for longer. Let's talk

about the fallout from the Anne McIntosh deselection. Was that a

huge mistake by David Cameron, having an all`male front bench in

Prime Minister 's questions? I don't think it is a mistake. There are men

and women in politics and sometimes they sit down in a particular seat

and sometimes they don't... There are fewer women in Parliament is so

he's got slender pickings. Are we really suggesting that it would be

better for politics if we think carefully we ask whom to sit where

so it looks good or it doesn't look bad? Let's try to be serious about

this. It is better for democracy to have a more representative chamber.

That's got nothing to do with where they sit. Let's try and concentrate

on what we are trying to do in politics and let's worry less about

who is sitting where, or stuff like that. The fallout from the affair

will continue for a while. Thank you both for your time today. Sarah

Champion and Simon Reevell. Now, let's go back to Andrew Neil in

London. a voice. Both of you, thank you so

much. Andrew, it is back to you Can David Cameron get a grip on the

floods? Can UKIP push the Conservatives into third place in

the Wythenshawe by-election on Thursday? Is the speaker in the

House of Commons in danger of overheating? All questions over the

weekend. Let's look at the politics of the flooding. Let me show you a

clip from Eric Pickles, the Communities Secretary, earlier on

the BBC this morning. We perhaps relied too much on the Environment

Agency's advice. I apologise. I apologise unreservedly and I am

really sorry we took the advice of what we thought we were doing was

the best. The Environment Agency is being hung out to dry by the

Government and the Government has taken over the running of the

environmental mess in the Somerset Levels. It is turning into a serious

crisis by the Government and even more so for the people who are

dealing with the flooding. There is no doubt that what has been revealed

is it is not just about what the Government did or did not do six

months ago. What is being exposed is an entire culture within the

Environment Agency, fuelled often by European directives about dredging

and all manner of other things, a culture grew up in which plants were

put ahead of people if you like All of that is collapsing in very

difficult circumstances by the Government and it is difficult for

them to manage. Chris Smith would save the Environment Agency is

acting under a law set by this Government and previous governments

and the first priority is the protection of life, second property

and third agricultural land and he is saying we are working within that

framework. It is an edifying spectacle, they are setting up Lord

Smith to be the fall guy. His term of office comes at the end of the

summer and they will find something new. But the point Lord Smith is

making is that dredging is important and it was a mistake not to dredge,

but it is a bigger picture than that. I am no expert, but you need a

whole skill solution that is looking not just bad dredging, but at the

whole catchment area looking at the production of maize. It is harvested

in autumn and then the water runs off the topsoil. You see the

pictures of the flooding, it is all topsoil flooding through those

towns. What you have got to have in the uplands is some land that can

absorb that water and there are really big questions about the way

we carry out farming. Chris Smith was meant to appear on the Andrew

Marr show this morning, but pulled back at the last minute. There must

be doubts as to whether he can survive to the summer. Where is the

chief executive of the Environment Agency? I agree with Nick that Chris

Smith has been setup in this situation. David Cameron went to the

Somerset Levels on Friday for about half an hour, in and out, with no

angry people shouting at him. You to a farm. It is agreed he has had good

crisis. But we are seen as being a London media class who does not

understand the countryside. You can imagine David Cameron in a pair of

wellies. If this was happening in Guildford, it would not have dragged

on for so long. Looe it is interesting how they are saying the

Environment Agency has put words in front of everything else. The

great-great-grandson of Queen Victoria thinks people should be

sacked at the whim. He is talking about how the Environment Agency

spent ?31 million on a bird sanctuary. It turns out the bird

sanctuary was an attempt to put up a flood defence system for a village

which has worked. That village has been saved. They compensated some

farmers for the farmland they were not going to be able to farm and put

a flood defence system further back to protect this village and then

they built a bird sanctuary. It was not ?31 million to create a bird

sanctuary, it was to save a village and it worked. But in 2008 the

Environment Agency was talking about dynamiting every pumping agency

There was a metropolitan mindset on the part of that agency. If it does

what Owen Paterson, who is now off in an eye operation, suggested a

plan to fix this, they will find a lot of what they want or need to do

will be in contravention of European directives. The Wythenshawe

by-election. There is no question Labour is going to win, probably

incredibly convincingly, one poll showing 60% plus of the vote. It

would be surprising if Labour was in any threat up there. The issue is,

does UKIP beat the Tories and if so, by how much? The latest poll was

showing it in second place as nip and tuck, but the feeling I have is

UKIP will do better. And they have got a great local candidate. The

Tories have not parachuted somebody in and they have got a local man in

and that will help them. We have all been waiting to see if the Tories

lose their head, but they might go chicken earlier than that. Will UKIP

come second? It looks like that A poll this week showed that Labour is

way ahead and UKIP possibly second. But it is an important by-election

for UKIP. If they do well in the European elections, they should

still be on a roll. They did really well in by-elections last year. If

they do not do well, is it because they are not on payroll? Or in

Manchester they have a fantastic leader of the council? Will UKIP

come a good second? I think they will and if they do not, it might

suggest Nigel Farage is losing its slightly. One thing to look out for

is how little Labour are attacking UKIP. Their election strategy relies

a lot on UKIP taking Tory votes But it could also take Labour votes

Particularly in the north and we shall see. The results will be out

on Thursday night. The Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bird ,

his interventions have become more frequent and something was strange.

Have a look. I am grateful to the honourable gentleman. Order, the

Government Chief Whip has absolutely no business whatsoever shouting from

a sedentary position. Order, the honourable gentleman will remain in

the chamber. If we could tackle this problem. I say to the honourable

member for Bridgwater, be quiet if you cannot be quiet, get out, it is

rude, stupid and pompous and it needs to stop. Michael Gove. Order.

You really... Order. You are a very over excitable individual. You need

to write out 1000 times, I will behave myself at Prime Minister 's

questions. He was talking to the Education Secretary and it is not

1000 lines, it is 100 lines, at least it was in my day. Is he

beginning to make a fool of himself? There was only one over excitable

person there and that was the speaker and he is losing the

confidence of the Conservative MPs, but he never had that in the first

place. But he is an incredibly reforming speaker. He has this

strange idea that Parliament should hold the Government to account. It

will never catch on. It means very frequently there are urgent

questions. The other day he called a backbench amendment on the

deportation of foreign criminals. He could have found a way not to call

that. He is a real reformer and the executive do not like that. That is

true and he has allowed Parliament to flourish which has given us room

to breathe at a time of a coalition Government when Parliament has more

power. That is all that enough to overcome these increasingly mannered

and some of them may be preplanned interventions? The last one was last

week, and last week the speaker had a rather stressful week with the

tabloids. Something is clearly up. I think it is a real shame. I think

many of us when he was elected did not think he would make a great

speaker and there are people like Douglas Carswell and Tory rebels who

have said he is a fantastic speaker. He has given the Commons room to

breathe and he has called on ministers to be held to account when

they do not want to be. What do you think? He is seen as anti-government

and he is pro-backbencher and that is what people do not like. People

like Douglas Carswell are actually very strongly in support of him We

carry the interventions every week on Prime Minister 's questions and

we see them every week and they are getting a bit more eccentric. If I

was having to keep that under control, I would be driven slowly

mad. But his job is easier than mine. But if you look at his

deputy, Eleanor Laing, she is very robust, but she is calm. Chap who

does the budget is excellent. We are on throughout the week at midday on

BBC Two. We will be back next Sunday at 11. If it is Sunday, it is the

Sunday Politics.