13/04/2014 Sunday Politics Yorkshire and Lincolnshire

Aternoon folks, and welcome to the Sunday Politics. As MPs head off for

their Easter break, campaigning for the European elections in six weeks'

time gets underway. In a Sunday Politics special, we'll debate the

issues at stake on May 22nd with senior party figures from the

Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats, and UKIP. And as ever

we'll be discussing the week ahead with our panel of top political

And here: We report on the backlash commentators.

And here: We report on the backlash in South Yorkshire following this TV

programme impartial about informing people of

local services. So all that to come between now and

quarter to four and for the next thirty minutes or so we'll be

debating the European elections. Here in the studio we have Syed

Kamall, leader of the Conservatives in the

Kamall, leader of the Conservatives Howitt, chair of the Labour group of

MEPs, Sarah Ludford, deputy leader of the Lib Dems in Europe, and

Patrick O'Flynn, UKIP's director of communications. Welcome to you all.

In a moment, all four will give us their opening pitch for the

elections. A little earlier they drew lots to decide who'll go first.

And that privilege goes to Syed. Before that, though, here's a quick

reminder of what all the fuss is about.

The vote to choose members of the European Parliament takes place on

Thursday the 22nd of May. The same day as local elections are held in

England and Northern Ireland. The UK sends 73

England and Northern Ireland. The UK sends NTP is to Brussels. And the

vote is a form of proportional sends NTP is to Brussels. And the

representation. In total, there are 751 MEPs from the 28 member states.

What do they do all day? The European Parliament's power has

grown. A vet of the EU commissioners and they can amend, approve or

reject nearly all EU legislation and the EU budget. Some laws MEPs have

been responsible for include price caps on mobile phone chargers,

banking regulation and cover food regulation two -- labelling.

Syed Kamall, you have 30 seconds. Europe cannot go on as it is. Europe

needs to change. And our relationship with Europe needs to

change. Only the Conservatives have a plan to deliver that change and of

the British people and in-out the British people and in-out

referendum. Labour and the Lib Dems will not and UKIP simply cannot.

Only the Conservatives will offer the three yards, with Conservative

MEPs working alongside a conservative Prime Minister. For,

really is and above all a referendum. Sarah Ludford is next.

Your choice is simple. If you think Britain is better off in Europe,

vote for the Liberal Democrats. The Lib Dems are the only party of Ian,

fighting to keep Britain in Europe and in work. There is nothing

patriotic about UKIP's desire to pull-out. That is playing Russian

roulette with Britain's economy and jobs. The Conservatives are flirting

with exit and Labour lacks the courage to speak up. Thought Liberal

Democrat on May the 22nd to say in Europe for jobs and security. Sarah

Ludford. Next, Richard Europe for jobs and security. Sarah

Labour. The European elections are about who represents you. They are

not a referendum on a referendum. Labour MEPs believe in putting jobs

and growth first. A guarantee to help young people into work,

reforming energy markets so that bills are brought down for good.

Labour believes in reform in Europe, but within. It is David Cameron who

is risking your job and Britain's prosperity because of divisions in

his own party. Labour MEPs put British interests first. Our fourth

opening statement from Patrick O'Flynn. The EU is old hat. It is a

declining regional trade bloc in an era of global trade. It is a

20th-century political project designed to prevent conflict in

Europe that is now reawakening old hostilities. It is an attempt

force on the European people European this as their primary

collective identity. It has hollowed out British democracy and now we do

not even control our own borders. That is why you should vote UKIP.

That is the opening statements. Let's get on with the debate. Why

should people vote in the selections? If you vote UKIP, we can

deliver an earthquake that will rock the foundations of British politics

and the European political class. We can send a signal to Europe that

Britain has had enough, that Britain wants to retain its nation state

status and regain political power and the ability to forge trading

deals across the world. Britain leading Europe to freedom twice in

the last century through bloodshed. We feel that a UKIP win in those

elections could help Britain set an example to lead European nation

states back to free assembly again. Syed Kamall, isn't it the case that

many Tory voters will vote you clip to keep you honest, to keep your

feet to the fire? Whatever you think of the European Parliament or the

EU, the fact is that the European Parliament as equal power with the

28 governments of the EU. When David Cameron delivered the first cut to

the EU budget, the first ever cut, he needed a strong team of

Conservative MEPs working alongside him. But many of your supporters

will vote for UKIP for the reasons I gave. Many will vote Liberal

Democrat. Not very many. gave. Many will vote Liberal

supporters will vote for us because we are the only party trying to

change the EU and offer reform. We have offered renegotiation and a

referendum. And how would you vote in such a referendum? We have no

idea whether he would vote yes or no. Let him answer. I will answer

that question. If the EU continues on this road, towards a United

States of Europe, and if there was no change at the time of the

referendum, then I would probably vote to leave. You have no

confidence in David Cameron? We Javier Culson opportunity to read

negotiate our relationship with Europe and the Conservatives are at

the forefront of that agenda. David Cameron have not given a list of

demands. He said that if things do not change, he will probably vote to

leave, is that right? If at the not change, he will probably vote to

of the referendum, things had not changed, I would vote to leave and

we have a golden opportunity to perform the agenda. Richard, the

last time the British people had a say on this was over 40 years ago.

Under a Labour government. Which was deeply divided on the issue. And

that was a say on the common market. Today's EU is a very different

animal from the common market. Why can we not, under another Labour

government, have another vote? First of all, we want it to be more than a

free trading area. We make no apologies about that. But in the

elections because this is half of Britain's exports and investment. If

you care about your job and business, you cannot hear from the

party of government that they probably want you to leave because

the CBI, the engineering employees in Federation and the chimp of

commerce, 80% of them say it is necessary to stay in. So why not

give us a vote? When David Cameron says he wants to repatriate social

powers, he means takeaway maternity rights and holidays. If the case is

so strong, why not give us an in-out vote? David Miliband has said that

there will be a referendum if there was a proposal to change powers. Why

wait? This is based on a series of reforms. Labour has a set of

reforms. David Cameron is silent about what they would be. That is

because he knows that if he put them forward, they would either be

unsatisfactory to his Eurosceptic backbenchers and he would be out of

a job, or they would be backbenchers and he would be out of

to European leaders. Why is your leader missing in action? Ed

Miliband is unable to say even the positive things that you are saying.

He has run away from the argument. He actually said there would not be

a referendum in his time. For a conservative to say they will

have a referendum but not give the reforms, it is a mistake. Nick Clegg

gave Nigel Farage a huge opportunity in that debate. He said that the

Eurosceptic view was to leave Britain like Billy no mates. I can

say that he is the best qualified person to say that. Sarah Ludford,

you have said that lots of people are going to vote Lib Dem but that

is not what the polls are saying. You are 7% in two polls this

morning. Eclectic's decision to champion Europe has been a disaster

for you. You face wet out. We swayed a lot of people our way with Nick

Clegg's debate. Where is the evidence? We are the only party that

is completely united, saying that we are wanting to stay in. It is

essential because formally and jobs are supported by our trade with the

EU. Linked to the EU. We are finding a lot of moderate conservative

voters are actually fed up with the Tories being split and divided all

over the place. Syed Kamall saying that we might vote in rout. -- in or

out. We are consistent. A poll in London showed that 18% would vote

for us. I am delighted about that. London is not the whole

for us. I am delighted about that. may surprise you. We need to move on

to immigration, an important issue. We are a member of the EU and the

rules say that with a few caveats, our fellow EU citizens are free to

come here if they want. Why can we not just accept that? Britain has a

proud record when it comes to immigration. We have been open to

people across the world for centuries. But we welcome people who

come to our country to contribute to pay taxes and two wards are a

society positively. But there are three real concerns that we have to

address. The first one is numbers, and secondly people who may come

here not to work but for benefits, and thirdly, getting a hang of the

numbers. I think it is shameful that only this week the office for

National said that they did not collect sufficient figures under a

Labour government. 350,000 collect sufficient figures under a

people came in and they did not count the numbers. That is the size

of a city like Cardiff. That is shameful. 350,000 came from all over

the place. Do you accept the free movement of peoples within the EU? I

accept and am open to people who want to come here and contribute. In

the same way... Do you accept the free movement of peoples within the

EU? In our manifesto, we have said EU? In our manifesto, we have said

it is an issue for reform. We have to make sure that people are coming

here to work and contribute positively, not simply to come here

and take advantage of the system. I will tell you what else is

shameful. What is shameful is David Cameron making a pledge to the

British people on an issue that they really care about, to bring net

immigration down to the tens of thousands a year, having no means of

fulfilling that pledge. And we see now it is back up to 212,000 a year

because we have no volume control and no quality control from

immigration from our neighbours. And that is a disgrace. How could UKIP

address that issue? Because we would leave the EU. How? Tell me how. You

do not have a single member of Parliament. He will not get a single

member of Parliament. How are you... ? TUC are hoping to get an

MEP. What do you say? -- he is here today hoping to get an MEP. All of

-- almost 2 million Brits live and work in the rest of the EU. Is that

worth having? The majority are wealthy, retired people. Why do not

object to bilateral agreements with countries with similar living

standards to us. France, the Netherlands, that works fine. But

these three people want Turkey to join the EU, 75 Na Li and people

running our country, only 10% of which... Syed Kamall is Michael year

to say whether they are in favour of free movement for work, not for

benefits... That is what I'm saying. You said you were unable to

be clear. That leaves 2 million British people absolutely unsure as

to whether they would have a right to continue to live in other

countries. It is a two-way street. You are putting those people in a

state of uncertainty. EU migrants have been good for the British

economy and contribute far more than they take out in services and

benefits. One in seven businesses were founded in -- by migrants. And

they cannot just turn up and claim benefits. The coalition government

has legislated to make sure that they cannot claim for three months.

They will not be able to claim for more than six months. Richard

Howitt, Jack Straw said it was "A spectacular mistake for Labour to

allow EU migrants from Poland and Hungary to work in the UK from

2004." Why should we trust a party that makes spectacular mistakes and

hasn't apologised for it? We accept it is a mistake and I apologise. We

make a firm commitment for new EU states we will put down transitional

controls. When I listen to the Conservatives and UKIP trying to

re-write history, saying immigration was out of control, uncontrolled,

open door, we hear it over and over again. It is not true. Anyone who

was around at the time... Come on, Richard. Hold on, you undercounted

by 350,000. You were letting 2 million in over the years, an

under-counted by 350,000 people you didn't know came in. You should have

tightened the benefit rules. The Conservative MEP today has, in four

years in government in Britain, is trying it blame the previous Labour

Government over the fact they won't count people in or people out.

Yvette Cooper - it is not easy for people to come to the country and

benefits are changing, changing the habitual residence test and we are

going to say that migrants can't come and claim child benefit if

their children are outside the country. Labour a has shown they

have listened to concerns but we say it is a stronger, better, country

because it is diverse and multicultural snoo.d this is fantasy

politics from all the Peters. They are committed to a system with no

volume control and no quality control. You talk about benefits as

if it is only out of work benefits. In work benefits cost a lot of money

for the British taxpayer. Big businesses bring in minimum wage

workers. It is ?5,000 per perschool place What are you going to do? Have

all the pensioners come back to Britain? How will will you fund the

health care? Do you really think Spain and pour tu ghal their current

situation, are going to turn their backs on British property owners

with wealth? -- Portugal. They might not wanting pensioners to use their

health service. Pensioners often come back to Britain to use the

health service. You have shown it represents wealthy people's

interests. A second Conservative Party. Hang on a minute... Blue

collar wages were down. They want it character for the National Health

Service, have cuts that go farther and comprehensive education. This is

a debate on the wider politics between Conservatives and UKIP and

Labour will... You can't both talk time. UKIP - they haven't thought it

through, thousand they will have trade access in the EU, hasn't

thought how they will have trade deals that the Liberal Democrats

support, like with the United States: Would you have a cap on

non-EU immigrants? We are not in favour of a cap. No cap on either.

No. Well it is a target. It is a moving feast, as it were. Would you

have a limit on non-EU limits? We have limits on quality. We have

people who are skilled migrants coming in. Lip its? . By quality,

not by quantity. -- Limits. How do you do that? We need to move

on to foreign affairs. Should we pool more sovereignty to

give the European Union more clout in foreign and defence matters? I'm

Labour's defence and foreign affairs spokesperson. No we don't need to

pull more powers into Europe. As we undertake this live debate there are

guns being fired in Ukraine as we speak. Europe is facing, for the

first time, since the end of the Second World War, Armies crossing

national borders and floatening peace. Doesn't it -- threatening

peace. Doesn't it need to come together of the We don't need more

powers. We need political will. With Vladimir Putin, in my view, he has

-- we have fallen short in the sanctions. But it is Europe, not

Britain. Remember Putin calling Britain little England a small

island with no influence. Labour doesn't agree with that. But if

that's the mindset that allows someone like Vladimir Putin to send

troops across borders threatening peace, it is worrying. And when we

have, in UKIP a party that say they admire Putin and support his

policies, that is no recipe for how Europe should be wrong. I was

waiting for that. Let me ask him. We don't admire Putin as a leader...

Oh. No we don't. What Nigel Farage said, was he admired him as a

political operator. Testifies Franklin D Roosevelt who said a good

foreign policy was speaking softly but carrying a big stick. The EU

shouts its mouthed off while carrying a matchstick. It is fantasy

that you wiebl it stand up to Putin over the Ukraine. -- that you would

be able to stand up. Do you admire what Putin is doing in the Ukraine?

No. What matters in foreign policy is the outcould. We have a terrible

outcome in the Ukraine, like Syria, and Georgia... What would UKIP do?

What u skip would do, would be to keep our people safe -- UKIP.

How? And not commit our Foreign Office and troops Foreign wars.

Patrick O'Flynn. You brought up this issue of foreign wars. Now Nigel

Farage said in previous debates that Britain should leave the EU because,

"We have had enough of endless foreign wars." Which wars has the EU

taken us into? The EU has ban very important factor in the push towards

trying to get military intervention in Syria, for example. What wars has

the etch U taken us into it -- EU. Fortunately the EU doesn't have its

own army yet. It has wanted to sign up to an expansionist agenda. Did it

want Iraq? No, that was Labour. UKIP want Iraq? No, that was Labour. UKIP

opposed Iraq, so did most of the mainline Europeans. Germany was

against Syria and Libya. No EU policy. We had an Anglo French deal

on Syria. A by lateral deal. A European dimension. No, buy lateral.

We have a European Union that wants to expand ever-more into other

people's spheres of influence. If we are going to stand up to what Putin

is do, which obviously Nigel Farage has no intentions of doing, you have

to get your act together on economic sanctions and diplomatic force and

in trade matters, in supporting eastern European countries. Sayeria,

who and whose army? And NATO and working transatlanticically, is

important through NATO. I will come to you in a moment. Nick Clegg said

that the idea of an EU Army was, "A dangerous fantasy that is simply not

true ""Why then, are we already working on etch U-owned and

controlled drones -- EU-owned and the President of the European

Parliament has said that the majority of MEPs want the EU to have

"deployable troops." He is not speaking for me or Liberal

Democrats. The EU does not and will not have an army. Our defence is

mainly shaped through NATO. He is President of the Parliament What we

must do is to get equipment which can operate together. We waste an

awful lot of our spending in Europe because we duplicate equipment. We

don't get the bang for our bucks that we should. It is a useful role

for the EU, to get equipment working together. That doesn't make sense.

You say military equipment, a NATO job. No, the EU, there is a kind of

dimension of the EU members of NATO, in working together on a common

quument o o so they can talk to each other -- on common equipment, so

they can talk to each other. The EU has a role but not an army. So a

European defence agency, that helps our defence industries and those

jobs are extremely important and would be threatened if the

Conservatives and UKIP took us out of Europe but it is 100 years since

the start of the fist world war. Remember that Europe was set up to

try to get a secure peace within Europe T succeeded. Now look on

Ukraine but also on the southern borders to the Arab Spring countries

in North Africa. It is more important than ever that we work to

keep keep peace and stability on our borders. Can I say to Syed and the

Conservative MEPs. You talk about the three Rs, I have a fourth,

retreat. If you take us out of the European Union, it will be the worse

retreat by Britain since Gallipoli. Let him answer If he wants answers

-- the British Parliament is the right place with a British Foreign

Secretary to decide our foreign policy. You say that, but can I

quote David Cameron, this is germain to what you are saying, David

Cameron said "There is no doubt that we are more powerful than

Washington, Beijing and Delhi, because we are a powerful player in

the European Union." Do you agree? He is saying that there are times

when it comes to international foreign affairs when you have to

cooperate with partners. Often they are EU partners but often they are

not. The problem we have... Washington have made it very clear

that it wants Britain to talk through Brussels. No, not at all.

Talk through the French and Italians, come on, wake up? Through

the EU collective. I'm vice chair of the EU delegation. I hear it from

the American counterparts. They want the EU to get itself together and

not least on Ukraine. Why should our sovereignty be at the behest of... ?

I want to hear from Syed calm amplgts the British Parliament is

the right place to decide our foreign poll sinchts sometimes we

work with our European partners, sometimes we work with our

non-European partners. It is our choice to pull sovereign trito work

together. G, we move on to our foirt area. We hear a lot in this country

about MPs expenses. Snted the real scan dalt MEPs gravy train. -- isn't

the real scandal, the MEPs gravy train? You all have your snouts? The

trough? I don't think so. There is transpancy. The way we use our

expenses is online and anyone can expenses is online and anyone can

ask to examine those. We have actually voted to reform MEPs'

allowances. We regularly vote but unfortunately the majority in

Parliament don't. Have you voted to cut them? Yes. By how much? About

5%. A 5% We hoped to have economies I never fly except across the

Atlantic. Difficult to do it any other way. I didn't swim.

But we voted for economy flutes. We voted for European Parliament policy

of transparency which other groups haven't. UKIP don't turn up to vote.

They don't earn their salaries. Dhoent do anything. They should hand

their salaries and allowances back. You can't ause UKIP of being on the

gravy train and the other that we don't claim our attendance allowance

because our MEPs are not there. Your attendance allowance is if you are

there, you are saying we don't turn up You are in the building and claim

the allowances. You are not an MEP, UKIP are so ashamed of what their

MEPs have done in Brussels, they didn't field a sitting MEP for

today's debate. I think each party decides who it wishes to field. I

have the honour of being the UKIP representative. I would say by going

in the past few weeks, xeeming to me saying - we are sick of the others.

-- people saying to me. : We are quite excited. Can I ask Patrick

O'Flynn. He says he touched a chord and his party is strong in the

O'Flynn. He says he touched a chord today, between 18% and 20%. Haven't

you also struck a chord with hip crasscy. Two of your MEPs were

jailed for expenses and benefits' fraud. Two more asked to pay back

?37,000 for using European funds. Nigel Farage has boosted about

getting ?2 million in expenses and he went on to employ his wife as a

secretarial allowance after telling other members not to People who do

wrong and break the law, go to ja. I have no time. -- go to jail. People

who spend money they are not entitled to should pay it back and

that's right. But what UKIP does and the good UKIP MEPs do, is use the

allowances they are given to pursue the political agenda they put up

when elected which is to get Britain out of this superstate. Instead of

using it for parliamentary work. Very interesting. Richard Howitt. We

were the first British political party to have independent audits of

our MEPs' expenses, from 1990, way before the expenses crisis blew up.

The Maria Miller scandal has of course hit David Cameron and the

Conservative Party hard as it should do. But you are right, even in my

own region you have UKIP candidates and councillors who have been

charged with fraudulently filling out election papers and other shot

lifting. Another independent inquiry found he made racist comments. We

had a European candidate last week in Hertfordshire who got a parking

ticket from the police and called the police fascists. These people

aren't here. I'll let you have a quick reply. We

can bring up parochial cases. Let him answer. Not so

can bring up parochial cases. Let Liberal Democrat councillor was sent

down for firebombing, I don't say they are a bunch of arsonists, but

now I think, Nick Clegg might have burnt some cactuses, once. I'm glad

you pronounced that word carefully. Syed Kemal, the EU's auditors, they

are strongly critical of the EU's financials saying "Errors permist in

all main spending areas", the financials are poorly managed. It is

a shambles And that's something that all parties agree on. As we agree on

expenses, the British parties are at the forefront of transpancy. Every

year when we vote for the discharge of the budget, the Conservatives

also vote for it but we don't get enough MEPs from other countries to

investigate in favour. The Liberal Democrats have put forward to make

each Finance Democrats have put forward to make

Osborne and his counterpart to sign a declaration to say all EU money is

properly spent in my country. Funnily enough they don't want to do

that but I look forward to you confirming that George Osborne will

sign it. All the time we hear it is about the money we pay in, about

?150 per family per year. What about the money that comes back? ?1. 5

billion that comes to Britain's regions because of being in Europe.

I myself helped to negotiate a fund to help Britain's food banks to

ensure so. Poorest and most destitute people... Isn't it our

money that went there first. Can I destitute people... Isn't it our

tell you the Conservative-led Government have blocked us from

claiming that money. If you want to have the clearest choice at these

European elections, it is between... Tell us why. It affects our rebate.

Tony Blair gave away our rebate. He is quite right. Lib Dems fought to

make sure that we apply for money to help with flooding. That is what the

Tories were blocking. If you want the clearest example at the European

elections, the Conservative Party and MEPs blocked the cap on bankers

bonuses, and then blocked a Labour victory to get money for free

banks. We need to move on to the future. It is important and people

are watching. The EU's Justice Minister says that we need to build

a United States of Europe with the commission as its government. Is she

right? Not at all. But the future, if we take the next ten years,

thinks about climate change and the fact that we are not going to hit of

the two degrees target. Europe has led and needs to lead towards

getting a new sustainable world. It is the political will to use these

powers, so she is wrong. It is about the threats from abroad. Labour

reforms like getting a commissioner for growth and rebalancing the

budget, reforming the common agricultural policy, all of those

things will need to happen to make Europe more democratic and open. But

against the rise of Brazil and China... We do not need more

treaties and powers. We need more action with more Labour MEPs. Sarah

Ludford, you would sign up to that? No. Unless they do not think that

should concentrate on institutional matters. What we need to do is

concentrate on making Europe progrowth and competitive and create

more jobs in a competitive world. We need more trade deals to open up our

exports, we need to streamline the EU. We need less red tape and

Liberal Democrats have done a lot on that. We need better scrutiny of EU

legislation at West Munster because the national parties... More powers

or less for the EU government? In some areas, I would like to see it

slimmed down. Including, I am not sure whether the EU should be

funding food banks. I think that is a national responsibility. Dearie

me. The EU have to concentrate on the economy and climate change. This

is the coalition talking. If we want to fritter away political capital on

things which are interfering in national matters, then we do not

have the support to tackle those big challenges. Would you still want to

join the Euro one-day? Now is not a good idea. We wanted the Eurozone to

still be sound, which is why... Did not ask you that. Do you want to

join the Euro one-day? If it is a success and it did the economy. Now

is not the time but in principle, the idea of a single currency has

advantages. That was a yes. We are not ruling it out for ever but not

in the foreseeable future. It is not on the horizon. What would our

relationship be with Europe in the future if UKIP got its way and we

left? We would be trading partners with Europe and we would seek

partnership in specific serious. I'd tell you what, can I just say...

Would we be Norway? We would be stronger than Norway because we are

the biggest export market in the Eurozone. We can negotiate a bespoke

trading agreement reflecting our enormous importance. Not on

services, which make up 80% of the economy. We are the biggest export

market in the Eurozone. Our biggest exports are services and they would

have to agree to free trade and services. They still have not. Can I

read you something? Let me read you something. There would be a free

trade agreement in place the day after our exit. Germany would demand

no less. Who said that? Not somebody from UKIP, but Digby Jones. Mr

business. He is talking about goods, not services. Norway has that

and they have no say. You would have to accept the EU rules without any

say. No MEPs are commissioners. Let me give you another. Enough. One is

enough. Syed Kamall, is it not looking forward pretty much Mission:

Impossible for Mr Cameron to get anything like the repatriations of

powers that would satisfy your irreconcilables? My father was a bus

driver in the 50s and one of the reasons I am here today is because

he told me that you can achieve anything if you work hard. He said

to me, do not listen to the doubters. When people tell you that

something cannot be done, it is a sign of their limitations, not

yours. They said that we could not pull Britain out of the bailout

mechanism but we did it. He said we could not be to a -- veto European

treaty and we did that. They said we would never cut the budget and we

did that. The first ever. But overall, we are paying more into the

European budget. And they are not sticking to it. More, not less. They

say that we cannot achieve reform but we have achieved reform and we

are at the forefront of that. Science's father came to Britain

because Britain was open and looking outward. What the Conservatives now

have, with leaderless Cameron, is an inward looking attitude. They are

allowing the rise of UKIP. They are putting so much at risk. People

should vote Labour. We are going to have to stop now. No point talking

because we are about to finish. I have to stop now. No point talking

think you all for a spirited debate. I'm sure Nigel Fries and Mr Clegg

will have learned a lot about how to debate. -- Nigel Farage.

It's just gone 3pm, and you're watching the Sunday Politics. We say

goodbye to viewers in Scotland who leave us now for Sunday Politics

Scotland. Coming up here in twenty minutes, the

Coming up today: We report on the backlash coming up because of this

TV programme entitled Gypsids On Benefits And Proud plus the energy

boss who says people in this part of the world should be less negative

about wind turbines. My guests today are Jason McCartney and John Healey.

We are the recorded this wedk and by the time this goes out you will have

just finished the London Marathon, Jason. You'll macro I am running for

the second time for the children's hospice. Good for you. I am one of

the few MPs not running. Yot may have finished by the time this goes

out but I don't know if it `ll is well have done. Some great stories

to come out the marathon as always. The title of the programme was that

bind `` designed to be provocative, we suspect. But Channel fivd's

programme about gypsies on Friday night has caused a fierce b`cklash

in the other, we're part of it was filmed.

The programme starts in Rom`nia to find out why one man wants to head

to the UK. We then get taken to Rotherham to meet this Roma Slovak

family, one of many who havd settled in this district in recent xears.

When I visited the area the community were trying to send out a

different message. We need ` group of people to go with Shirlex. This

letter Peck is about more than simply cleaning the streets. This

part of the town has a largd immigrant population and with that

can come a reputation which takes hard work to overcome. Work the

community says is easily undone The family featured in the programme did

not want to speak to others but I have spoken to other members of the

Roma community here who havd genuine fears this could sure just one story

which could play on people's prejudices and have disastrous

effects. Many agree it could put pressure on already strained

community relations. Do you think a programme like this could c`use

problems in this community? Yes I do. A lot of problems. They are on

about pro testing about it. As English. It is going to kick off

right around here. I will tdll you. So who really benefits from this

kind of programme? One Labotr councillor is critical of the

programme's content and timhng. It does nothing to help the situation

we have got. It is sensationalising things in a bad week and is touting

everybody with the same brush. It has a political slant on it which

seems to be the flavour of the month just before the elections. There are

no complaints from the UKIP camp. We will use it to get into powdr so we

can prove what we are capable of. We are seeing`macro what 99% of the UK

public are seeing`macro. It will give the gypsy families the unique

opportunity to tell their stories. Many see that benefits do not come

that easily. It is clear thhs is not a place without its problems. Ideal

filming here and egg was thrown from nearby. One community told le it is

the media portrayal of placds like these that needs to come under the

spotlight. At the South Yorkshire MP would you say this programmd was

helpful in highlighting the issues concerned? The programme asks who

benefits from this, clearly it is the TV company. It is obviotsly made

for the drama and with the drama of PV comes distortion. It is not about

facts or truth or a sensibld debate. Were you surprised that the UKIP

reaction? They claim they are the only party that their talk `bout

issues like this. It is to start up hatred and prejudice. It was good to

see at the end of the clip that actually explains there are measures

in place that people cannot come en masse from Romania and just live a

life on benefits. New rules have come in, you need to be looking for

work, you can look for work for three months. People coming here to

work will not be able to get child benefit or child tax credit for the

first three months and therd is even language requirement. There is a new

rule that after six months they will be able to be removed as well.

Measures are in place. People who want to come here to work and

contribute to our communitids are welcome but they cannot comd and

live a life on benefits. I hope that is clearly explained in the

programme. You said earlier Labour had underestimated the thre`t from

UKIP in working`class places. Is this an example where places are

generally bothered about people coming in from other countrhes and

they see as milking the system? It is a problem that bothers them when

they are finding it difficult to get work and they are using `` seeing

the employers undercut them by employing immigrants who will work

for less. It does risk distorting the picture. Do you know how many

white gypsies are in Rotherham? In the last census, just two ydars ago,

there were 126. We are an area of 250,000 people. This progralme will

not give a proper picture lhke that. It will be used by UKIP, he was

quite open about that, we whll use this in the local election

campaign. The criticism abott the type of the report and the timing of

the report, I think, is well made. Lieber said there was a problem with

the Roma community, many of whom had failed to adapt to the Brithsh

culture. `` Lieber said. Thd government are tightening up the

requirement to learn English, to seek work, those kind of

requirements are important `nd could go further for some of what Labour

has been arguing for over the past year. We are people want to come to

work that is fine. I think the idea, and I hope this progr`mme is

not going to encourage this, that people can come here and live a life

on benefits at our expense. That must be connected. Why do you think

TV producers are so obsessed with people on benefits at the moment? It

is down to the common domin`tor I suppose it follows on from

Channel's for's Benefits Street I find myself improvising with a young

man who had got his first job, he went home in the evening and with

his partner put their child to bed. It surprised me in that programme,

it did not demonise people, a lot of them were striving for work. We have

seen some sensational clips there. It does show that if they are

seeking work they will have support while they do that but if they do

not and they do not find work they cannot just stay for a life on

benefits. Be spin offs with the regard to that are still a huge

issue for the electorate, isn't that right? Indeed. The problem for hours

as politicians is to conduct this debate sensibly. The latest figures

show that benefits are up. We have got to be honest and realistic with

people about the nature of our country. What we can do we should do

more to control it but let's not make promises we cannot keep. UKIP

like to pervade this myth that the vast majority of benefits and

immigration come from the ET. Rest assured we will put these things

under the spotlight needed the elections. Many conservativds want

the party to go into next ydar's general election with a firl pledge

to cap the number of onshord wind farms in future. MPs in manx rural

constituencies want to halt the spread of turbines across otr

countryside. However, the hdad of the European wind energy Association

has told the Sunday Politics in Yorkshire and Lincolnshire that

reports have a negative atthtude to wind power and we should le`rn to

love turbines. Sharon Edwards reports. While we should welcome the

investment by Siemens to invest in offshore manufacturing wind turbines

in the Humber it is the futtre of onshore wind energy that hangs in

the balance. Plans to build a wind farm of ten giant turbines xear were

recently rejected due to thd impact on the landscape. The energx giant

behind the application has said it will appeal against the dechsion

prompting a fresh battle by campaigners. It is industri`lised

and of the landscape, there is no question about that. These `re ten

turbines. To give you some hdea the main tower of linking cathedral if

you put one of these turbinds alongside, it is 140 feet t`ller

than the main tower of Lincoln Cathedral. They want to put that in

the countryside and the say it will have no effect! Many want a card or

new wind farm applications hn rural areas after 2015. `` curb. The macro

frankly the subsidy regime needs to be sorted out. The other thhng that

is being happening is that the costs are being passed on to the consumer

and industry. Unless somebody does something about it both will suffer

in the future. Watching the debate from the continent is the hdad of

the European wind energy Association. He says our politicians

are too negative toward wind power and Britain should learn to love

turbines. It has perhaps in the debate been a little overly

negative. Wind turbines, in my opinion, are all so very be`utiful.

You could have British wind serving British wind turbines giving British

electricity to Britain and the rest of the EU and you would havd the

technology with yourself and you would not be as dependent as you are

now or we are of the well`bding of Mr Putin and the Middle East. We

would also emit less CO2. Wd should be more negative about wind

turbines. They achieve nothhng. We should get rid of them. The sooner

the better. The stage is set for the battle in the run`up to next year's

general election as the battle for votes in the rural communithes. I

have been listening to my constituents and they are f`lling

out of love, if they ever wdre, with wind turbines. It is probably one of

the biggest issues in my mahlbag. There have been a number of major

projects including one for the turbines of 100 metres each.

Although the community group behind it want a community fund, pdople are

seeing these projects not actually benefiting the local lady. Laybe if

it provided free clean energy for that community people would think

about it differently but it is the landowners and the financial people

who are getting the benefit and or the community get are these ugly

monstrosities industrialising our beautiful landscape. What do you

say? I think they are quite beautiful to look at so I do not

have anaesthetic objection to them. Too often they are stitched up by a

combination of landowners and energy companies. Something could be done.

We it has worked well more has been done to bring in the local community

early in the discussions but in the end we have to have wind endrgy and

wind generation, including onshore, as part of our energy for the

future. There is an agreement between the parties and the

commitment from the countrids to see by 2020 at least 15% of our energy

from renewable resources. Wd cannot do that without wind. It is more

expensive to put them out at sea. Who will pay for that? It ndeds

investment. I was glad to sde you mention Siemens investing. There

have been more innovations `nd there are other types of renewabld energy.

Some people ask if you are for or against onshore wind but I think

renewable energy is so much more than that. Is the conservathve tough

policy on onshore wind about our future energy needs or trying to

stop votes haemorrhaging to UKIP? It is about doing the right thhng for

our constituents. The campahgns against these turbines in the

Pennines are being led by n`tural England and local heritage groups.

We have beautiful landscapes in our part of the world, the Tour de

France is coming here. I thhnk the investment should be offshore from

now on we need to be respectful of our beautiful countryside. Hs it

fair that people struggling to pay their energy bills should stbsidise

the green industry? If we are worried about energy tells the thing

to do is freeze them. That hs what Ed Miliband is proposing. I do think

this is the problem of the Conservative Party ducking `nd

diving, worried about losing support and members to UKIP. I would say do

not be tempted to do that. Think about what this country needs, think

of your kids and not UKIP. H think it is about thinking about our

countryside and where we live, listening to our constituents and

making investment in offshore wind. We need investment in new ntclear

power stations. We need to bring on more biomass. There are lots of

things we need to do. My constituents who want more dnergy

bills will find this reduces them. David Cameron said he would lead the

greenest government ever. At the first side of pressure he h`s sided

with the big energy companids and slashed the green levies. Wd have to

have this investment. We want to move it offshore. We have m`naged to

avoid the F word today, fracking! Now here's our round`up in 60

seconds. The government offdr of ?10 million for a phased closurd of

these pets was met with dislay by the National union of Mineworkers

this week. They are due thehr continued operation is viable.

Michael Fallon says that is not the case. There is no other intdrest in

prolonging the life of thesd mines beyond 2015, it is not a vi`ble

proposition. Meanwhile Labotr says outlying areas are missing out on

investment in London. David Cameron's welcome news that Leeds

`based Asda says it will crdate 12,000 new jobs over the next five

years, he said the move would give people financial security for the

future. Shops that sell alcohol in Hull are being asked by the police

to stop selling super`strength alcohol and cider. Clearly not the

cafe culture they are looking for in Hull. It is time for two except what

many are seen as inevitable, these collieries are not going to be

saved? I do not see it like that. The ?10 million loan seems to be

about reducing costs to the taxpayer which the country wants to charge

for the redundancy payments. What I would like to see energy ministers

do is work hard to find and work with potential investors to keep

these pets going. It seems to me `` that we have such a wealth of call

in this country and we are `ctually ending now that the mind industry. I

would like to see serious study on how we use this call for our future

and long`term. To do that wd have to mine it, use it to power our power

stations but do it cleanly so we do not have a carbon problem as well.

We are importing more from other countries, many would say that is

crazy. I know our local MP hs working his socks off to get a good

deal and they hope the lot can be done to keep on growing energy

supplies. That is what we are talking about when we talk `bout

renewables. People need to think about energy security as well as

cost. I'd macro why do we nded regional ministers? We saw hn the

last report about Siemens m`king this big investment in renewable

energy in the eastern part of the region. That was because of our

development agency in the rdgion. Unless you have got ministers

speaking up in government and agencies in our region able to make

decisions on investment, it will not happen. Who is batting for Xorkshire

at Westminster? I think I mdntion Yorkshire all the time when I am

down in Parliament. What it needs is Yorkshire MPs who live in Yorkshire

banging the drum for Yorkshhre the in and day out in Westminstdr and in

their constituencies. We have a very successful all`party group for

Yorkshire and Lincolnshire. We meet with ministers and the Chancellor

banging the drum for the re`l investment as well and we nded more

of that. I agree and we shotld be doing more of that but in the end we

should not be going to Whitdhall or Westminster for some of these

decisions over transport, skills, job programmes, we need those

decisions taken in Yorkshird for Yorkshire. We have to leave it

there. Jason will be in training for next year's

Andrew. The sun's out, Ed Balls has run the

London Marathon, and MPs leave Westminster for their Easter break.

Let's discuss what's coming up in the Week Ahead.

We will get more of what we have just seen. Let's look back on the

debate. What did we learn from the argument is? That it is going to

bore and irritate whole lot of people, this election campaign. Four

parties shouting at each other about things that most people do not know

much about. They know very little about how the European Parliament

works, what an MEP is supposed to do. A lot of heat and not a lot of

light. I've updated well, all of them, but the net effect is not

going to encourage people to go out and vote and not many do. One thing

that struck me was that on Europe, the Labour and Lib Dem positions are

not that far apart. They are pretty much the same. And yet the knocks

lots of each other. I suppose they feel that they had to do that

because that is the format. I'd agree with Polly. Their word UKIP

and the Tories to attack two we try to make it exciting, and we know the

issues are important. But people out there have not heard of these

individuals. It is not very exciting. That is worrying because

these are huge national questions for us. We need to find a way of

making it more fun. People may not know these MEPs, they may not know

the detail of the debate, but it is an issue on which people have strong

opinions. It is a visceral thing for many people. Especially on the

immigration issue. The debate took off and became more vociferous at

that point. To a large extent, you wonder whether not only this

European election but the eventual referendum will be a referendum on

the issue of immigration and free movement. If we did not learn much

from the argument, the thing we did learn is that the structure of these

televised debate influences the outcome. One of the reasons that

Nigel Farage did well in the debate is that in a two-man debate, each

man has as good a chance as the other. If it is four people, one man

can be ganged up on. Patrick O'Flynn did well for a man who is not an

elected politician yet. At times, 40 came under attack and did not hold

the line as well as you would expect. Does that create a perverse

incentive for the main parties to agree to a four way debate before

the general election? I do not think the David Cameron has nearly as much

to worry about from a televised debate in the run-up to the

elections than his spin doctors believe. When you put him up against

Ed Miliband, and we have not actually seen Ed Miliband in that

format, I think he will come off all right. This is an election which the

polls would have us believe that the battle for first place is between

UKIP and labour. It certainly is. Obviously, it is neck and neck and

we will not know until we are closer. And it matters a lot to both

of them. If Mr Miliband does not come first, that is not good news

for the main opposition at this stage. Except to some extent all of

the people will put it to one side and say that this is a bizarre

election. A plague on both your houses, let's vote UKIP. It is not

clear how much that translates into the next election. It is not too

disastrous for Labour. It would be better if they came first. If Mr

Miliband comes first, not a problem, but it becomes second and UKIP soars

away, what are the consequences I think there is a widespread

expectation already at Westminster that UKIP is very likely to come

first. If Ed Miliband fails to come first, there will not be a great

deal of shock in the West Mr village. Else think what is

remarkable about Ed Miliband is that despite consistently poor personal

leadership approval ratings, the overall Labour poll is consistently

very high. We have seen that budget blip, it seems to have taken us back

to where we were before. Leadership is not everything. Mrs Thatcher was

miles behind James Callaghan but in the end, it was the party politics

that mattered more. If Mr Cameron comes third and the Tories come

third, maybe a poor third, is it headless chicken time on the Tory

backbenchers? It has often been said that the Tory Party has two modes,

complacency and panic. You will see them shift into panic mode. By June,

I think. Many of the stories in the sun will be about David Cameron s

personal leadership and his grip on the party. There will be pressure on

conference by the time that comes around. It is a natural consequence

of being the incumbent party. The Lib Dems are 7% in two of the polls

today. It was widely thought that in the first and second debates, Nigel

Farage won both. In retrospect, was the challenge strategy a disaster

for Mr Clegg? I do not think it was because he had nothing to lose. But

he is lower in the polls than when he started. He has not lost a great

deal. The polls were quite often that low. I think it was a good

thing to do. It raised his profile. It made him the leading party in.

That may be a difficult place to be. That is how you end up with 7%

in the polls. The reason he is fighting with Labour is that he

knows very well that all he has to do is to get his votes back that

have gone to Labour and labour have to fight hard to make sure that they

do not go back. Every party looks to where it is going to get it

support. If it is a wipe-out for the Lib Dems, and they lose all their

MEPs, not saying that is going to happen but you could not rule it out

for, are we back in Nick Clegg leadership crisis territory? One of

the astonishing things about this Parliament is the relative absence

of leadership speculation about Nick Clegg will stop at the first couple

of years, his position seems tricky, but maybe that is because

Chris Hughton is gone and he was the only plausible candidate. This cable

is not getting any younger, to put it delicately. That was not delegate

at all! And we have reached a desperate stage where Danny

Alexander is talked about as a candidate. That was not delegate

either! Maybe he is holding onto power the lack of alternatives. If

they ended up with no MEPs at all, and a less than double digits

score... With Danny Alexander, it is clear that Scotland, one way or

another, will be moving further away. You could not have the leader

of a national party be a Scot. But he does not have the following in

the party. I'm glad you're liberal attitudes to immigration extends to

me. I would not have been here for 43 years. There will be leadership

talk after that holes. It has been bubbling in the background, but you

have to talk to the grass roots activists. -- after the polls. The

grass roots activists are despairing. If things are bad, they

lose their network of activists who they need to fight the next

election. I think you mean, not that you could have a Scot, but that it

would be more difficult you could have a Scot, but that it

Scot from a Scottish constituency. Absolutely. I think a Scottish

constituency, so many things will be different. Or to hold the great

offices of state. Let's come onto the Crown Prosecution Service is. It

is an English institution. Where does the CPS and after losing yet

another high-profile case come this time Nigel Evans? They had nine

counts against him and they did not win on one. It is obviously very

embarrassing. They will have a bit of explain to do but I guess the

threshold for bringing these cases is high. There has to be considered

at least a 50-50 chance of actually winning the case. We do not know

what went on behind the scenes when they weighed up whether to bring the

case. Nigel Evans makes an interesting point about whether it

is legitimate to bundle together interesting point about whether it

number of stand-alone relatively weak accusations, and when you put

them together to militantly, the CPS uses that to make a case. Is that a

legitimate thing to do? He was a high-profile figure, not just

because he was a Tory MP. He was the deputy speaker of the House. And yet

the CPS are certainly the police, to begin with they did not have that

many people to testify against him. And then they trawled for more. You

wonder if they would have done that if it was not for the fact that he

was a public figure. The trouble is, they are dammed if they do and

dammed if they do not. Particularly with politicians and the reputation

they have these days, if there is any suggestion that they let

somebody off because they are a high-profile politician, and they

are saying that about Cyril Smith, that is the accusation. A strange

story. Most unlikely and very bizarre. But that is the accusation.

If there is any with of that, I can see why the CPS says, we better let

the courts try this one. Also, they are in trouble overrated cases

because their success rate on bringing people to court for rape is

so thin. When it looked as if his accusers were not really accusing

him, it looks quite weak. You cannot help but feeling that they are

falling over backwards now in high-profile cases because of their

abject and total failure over Jimmy Savile. I think this is exactly the

kind of case that happens when you are trying to make a point or redeem

a reputation or change a culture. All of these big things. As opposed

to what criminal justice is supposed to be about, which is specific

crimes and specific evidence matching those crimes. The CPS has

no copper a fleet joined in this list of public and situations that

has taken a fall over the past five or six years. We have had

Parliament, the newspapers, the police will stop I think this is as

bad a humiliation as any of those because it is Innocent people

suffering. You are the most recent, being a lobby correspondent in

Westminster, and we now see on Channel 4 News that basically,

Westminster is twinned with Sodom and Gomorrah. Yes. I know. Is this

true? It is all rather the red. I do not move in those circles. And you

were in the lobby at one stage? Not that long ago. Is it right. Is it

right to be twinned with Sodom and Gomorrah? I'll ask him for his

opinion. Being technically a member of the lobby, I can observe some of

this stuff. And what surprises me is that journalists, when the complain

about Sodom and Gomorrah, write themselves out of it. It is as if it

is just MPs. We are unalloyed and unvarnished. Actually, the fact is

it has always been a bit like Sodom and tomorrow. Of course it has.

Think about how we have had wave after wave of stories and scandals.

But less of it recently. It was I think that attitudes have slightly

changed. I'll also think that if you get 650 people in any organisation

and you put that much scrutiny on them, you will find an awful lot

going on in most people's officers of a scurrilous nature. Even in the

BBC In 2013, the public voted for

a portrait of At times he's interesting,

at times he's very funny, My life is a very happy life

and I'm a very happy person. Will you feel nervous

when this is unveiled? I suppose being the centre

of attention but for ever. You're wanted, you're needed,

so everything is not over. which has been voted one of

the coolest towns to live in. I wonder how cool our teams

are going to be today