29/06/2014 Sunday Politics Wales

No surprise that Mr Cameron didn't get his way at the European summit.

But does it mean Britain has just moved closer to the EU exit?

Doctors want to ban smoking outright.

A sensible health measure or the health lobby's secret plan all

Wales' most high-profile Islamic politician on the role of parents,

the police and preachers in countering radicalisation.

And with me, as always, the best and the brightest political

panel in the business Nick Watt, Helen Lewis and Janan Ganesh.

They've had their usual cognac, or Juncker as it's known in

Luxembourg, for breakfast and will be tweeting under the influence.

He's a boozing, chain-smoking, millionaire bon viveur who's made

it big in the world of European politic.

I speak of Jean-Claude Juncker, the former Prime Minister of Luxembourg

He'll soon be President of the European Commission,

He wasn't David Cameron's choice of course.

But those the PM thought were his allies deserted him and he ended up

on the wrong end of a 26-2 vote in favour of Arch-Fedrealist Juncker.

-- on the wrong end of a 26-2 vote in favour of Arch-Federalist

So where does this leave Mr Cameron's hopes

of major reform and repatriation of EU powers back to the UK?

Let's speak to his Europe Minister David Lidington.

Welcome to the programme. The Prime Minister says that now with Mr

Juncker at the helm, the battle to keep Britain in the EU has got

harder. In what way has it got harder? For two reasons. The

majority of the leaders have accepted the process that shifts

power, it will not careful, from the elected heads of government right

cross Europe to the party bosses, the faction leaders in the European

Parliament and and the disaffection was made clear in many European

countries. Mr Juncker had a distinguished period as head of

Luxembourg, and was not a known reformer, but we have to judge on

how he leads the commission and there were some elements in the

mandate that the heads of government gave this week to the new incoming

European Commission that I think are cautiously encouraging for us. The

Prime Minister talked about those that not everybody wants to

integrate and to the same extent and speed. Let me just interrupt you.

What is new about saying that Europe can go closer to closer union at

different speeds? That has always been the case. It's nothing new.

Indeed there are precedents, and they are good examples of the

approach as part of the course and one of the elements that the Prime

Minister is taking forward in the strategy is to get general

acceptance that while we agree that most of the partners have agreed to

the single currency will want to press forward with closer

integration of their economic and tax policies, but not every country

in the EU is going to want to do that. We have to see the pattern

that has grown up enough to recognise there is a diverse EU with

28 member states and more in the future. We won't all integrate the

extent. It is a matter of a pattern that is differentiation and

integration. I understand that. John Major used to call it variable

geometry, and other phrases nobody used to understand, but the point is

that you're back benches don't want any union at any speed, even in the

slow lane. They want to go in the other direction. It depends which

backbencher you talk to. There's a diverse range of views. I think that

there is acceptance that the core of the Prime Minister's approaches to

seek reform of the European Union, for renegotiation after the

election, then put it to the British people to decide. It won't be the

British government or ministers that take the final decision, it's the

British people, provided they are a Conservative government, who will

take the decision on the basis of the reforms that David Cameron

secures whether they want to stay in or not. Is there more of a chance,

not a certainty or probability, but at least more of a chance that with

Mr Juncker in that position of Britain leaving the EU? I don't

think we can say that at the moment. I think we can say that the task of

reform looks harder than it did a couple of weeks ago. But we have do

put Mr Juncker to the test. I do think he would want his commission

to be marked and I think that there is, and I find this in numbers

around Europe, and there is a growing recognition that things

cannot go on as they have been. Europe, economically, is in danger

of losing a lot of ground will stop millions of youngsters are out of

work already that reform. There is real anxiety and a number of

countries now about the extent to which opinion polls and election

results are showing a shift of support to both left and right wing

parties, sometimes outright neofascist movements, expressing

real content and resentment at Howard in touch -- how out of touch

decisions have become. You say you are sensing anxiety about the

condition of Europe, so why did they choose Mr Juncker then? You would

have to put that question to some of the heads of European government.

Clearly there were a number for whom domestic politics played a big role

in the eventual decision that they took. There were some who had signed

up to the lead candidate process and felt they could not back away from

that, whatever their private feelings might have been, but I

think the PM was right to say that this was a matter of principle and

it shouldn't just be left as a stitch up by the European Parliament

to tell us what they do. He said, I can't agree to pretend to acquiesce.

They have to make the opposition clear that go on with reform. Are

the current terms of membership for us unacceptable? The current terms

of the membership are very far from perfect. Are they unacceptable? The

current terms are certainly not ones that I feel comfortable with. The

Prime Minister described them as unacceptable. Do you think they are?

We look at the views of the British people at the moment. If you look at

the polling at the moment, the evidence is that people are split on

whether they think membership is a good thing. I'm asking what you

think. David Cameron wants to in -- endorse changes in our interest, but

also because the biggest market is going to suffer if they don't

challenge -- grasp the challenge of political and economic reform.

Newsnight, Friday night, Malcolm Rifkind the former Secretary of

State said to me that even if the choice was to stay in on the

existing terms, he would vote to stay in on the existing terms. He

doesn't necessarily like them, but he would vote to stay in. That is

the authentic voice of the Foreign Office, isn't it? That is the

position of your department. Is it your position? Malcolm Rifkind is a

distinguished and independent minded backbencher. He's not in government

now. But that is your position. No, the position of the government and

the Conservative Party in the government is that we believe that

important changes, both economic and political reforms, are necessary and

that they are attainable in our interest and those of Europe as a

whole. Would you vote to stay in on the existing terms? That's not going

to be a question that the referendum. Really? I know that in

2017 Europe is going to look rather different to how it looks today. For

one thing our colleagues in the Eurozone will want and need to press

ahead with closer integration. That, in our view, needs to be done

in a way that fully respects the rights of those of us who remain

outside. Variable geometry, tackling things like the abuse of freedom of

migration. Those are all in the conclusions from the leader this

week and we should welcome that. Very briefly, finally, when will

you, as a government, give us the negotiating position of the

government? Will you give us what you hope to achieve before the

election or not? David Cameron set out very clearly in his Bloomberg

speech that he wanted a Europe that was more democratically accountable,

more flexible, more at it -- economically competitive. That is

all very general. When will you lay out the negotiating position? It's

not general. It is very far from general. We have seen evidence in

the successful cut of the European budget, the reform of fisheries,

those reforms have started to take effect. We have won some victories

and I'm sure the Prime Minister, as we get towards the general election,

will want to make clear what the Conservative Party position is, and

perhaps other political leaders will do the same for their party. Thank

you for joining us this morning. The harsh reality of this is that there

is a yawning gap between what the Prime Minister can hope to bring

back and what will satisfy his Conservative backbenchers. Yes, I

think the Parliamentary Conservative Party is divided into three parts,

those who would vote to leave the EU regardless, those who would stay

regardless, and a huge middle ground of people who want to stay in on

renegotiated terms. These are not three equal parts. Those who would

vote to stay in regardless are smaller and smaller. Compared to 20

years ago, tiny. But the people in the middle, generally, would only

stay in if you secure a renegotiation that will not be

re-secured. In other words, they are de facto, out by 2017 and the

referendum. This whole saga of the recent weeks has been the single

biggest economy in foreign policy under this government. That's not

what the voters think. -- single biggest ignominy. I mean the failure

to secure the target. The opinion polls show that standing up against

Mr Juncker has proved rather popular. I suggest that is not Mr

Cameron's problem. His problem is that, if in the end he gets only

because Medic changes, and if he says he still thinks that with these

changes -- cosmetic changes. And he says that they should stay in, that

would split the Tory party wide open. Eurosceptics say would be the

biggest split since the corn laws. He wants to protect the position of

coming out, and you might get that. He wants to crack down on abuse of

benefits, and he might get that. He wants to restrict freedom of

movement for future member states, and that's difficult, because it is

a treaty change. And he wants to deal with closer union, but that is

also treaty change. In the Council conclusions, David Cameron was

encouraged because it said, let's look at closer union, but it did not

say it would reform. All it said was ever closer union can be interpreted

in different ways. In other words, we're not going to change it. The

fundamental problem the David Cameron was that two years ago, when

he vetoed the fiscal compact, that showed Angela Merkel was unwilling

to help them and what happened in the last two weeks was that Angela

Merkel was unable to help him. There is not a single leader of the

European Union that once Juncker as president, and he doesn't want it,

he wants the note take a job at the European Council. But there was this

basic stitch up by the European Parliament that meant he was

presented, and when Angela Merkel put the question over his head there

was a huge backlash in Germany and she was unable to deliver. I

understand that, but I'm looking forward to Mr Cameron's predicament.

I don't know how he squares the circle. It seems inconceivable that

he can bring back enough from Brussels to satisfy his

backbenchers. No, you can't. Most of them fundamentally want out. They

don't want to be persuaded by renegotiations. Where it's hard to

draw conclusions from the polling is that if you ask people question that

sounds like, do you like the fact that our Prime Minister has gone to

Brussels and stuck it to the man, they say yes, but how many people

will go to the voting booths and put their cross in the box based on

Europe? We know mostly voters care about Europe as a proxy for

immigration fears. In ten people in this country could not tell you who

John Claude Juncker is Angela Weir is replacing. -- and who he is

replacing. And I'm joined in the studio now by

arch-Eurosceptic Conservative MEP, Daniel Hannan and from Strasbourg by

staunch European and former Liberal war? His declared objectives would

leave Britain still in the common agricultural policy, the common

foreign policy, the European arrest warrant, so the negotiating aims

which we just heard Nick setting out wouldn't fundamentally change

anything. It would be easy for the Government to declare war on any of

these things. The danger from your point of view as someone who wants

to stay in is that if David Cameron only gets cosmetic changes, the

chance of getting the vote to leave the European Union increases,

doesn't it? Hypothetically it probably does but we have two big

things to get through first in domestic politics before we even

reach a negotiation. One is are we going to have the United Kingdom

this time next year following the referendum in Scotland? Secondly,

are the Conservatives after the general election next year going to

be in a position to pursue a negotiation? In other words are they

going to be a majority government or even a minority government? For the

sake of this morning let's assume the answer to both is yes, the UK

stays intact and against the polls they were saying this morning, David

Cameron forms an overall majority after the election. There is a

danger, if he doesn't bring much back, that people will vote yes,

correct? There is that danger and I see a lot of the British press

comment this morning saying this could be a rerun of the Harold

Wilson like negotiation of the 1970s, a bit cosmetic but enough to

say we have got new terms and you should go with it. I think what is

different however, and this is really an appeal if you like, it

cannot just be left to the Liberal Democrats and coalition government

to make this case on our Rome. A lot of interest groups across the land

will have to start being prepared to put their head above the parapet on

the fundamental - do you want Britain to remain in the European

Union? Yes or no? Are you willing to put your public reputations on the

line? We are not getting enough of that at the moment and it is getting

dangerously close to closing time. Daniel Hannan, David Cameron will

not get away with this, will he? It will be an acceptable to his party.

If it is an acceptable to Tory backbenchers it is because it is

working and they are reflecting what their constituents say. A majority

of people in the country are unhappy with the present terms. They can see

there is a huge wide world beyond the oceans and we have confined

ourselves to this small trade bloc. There is a huge debate to be had

about whether we could be doing better outside. It is not danger, it

is democracy, trusting people. If the only person offering a

referendum at the moment is the Prime Minister, it has serious

consequences for his party, your party, that's what I'm talking

about. I am very proud of being part of the party that is trusting people

to offer this. If he only gets cosmetic changes he cannot carry his

party. But ultimately it will not be his party, it is the electorate as a

whole that has to decide whether the changes are substantive. Everything

we have been hearing just now is about staying out of future

integration, protecting the role of the non-euro countries. People are

upset about what is going on today with the EU. They can see laws being

passed by people they cannot vote for, friendships overseas are

prejudiced, and they conceive that the European Union has just put in

charge in the top slot somebody who wants a United States of Europe into

which we will eventually be dragged into as some kind of Providence.

Jean-Claude Juncker is a Federalist, you are Federalist, why did the Lib

Dems oppose him? We shared the view that whilst you take account of what

the members of the European Parliament say, ultimately the

choice of the presidency in the commission should be the political

leaders, the governmental leaders at a national level, and that's why we

went down the route we did. It was more to do with the system than the

individual. Although I would say that you need to bear in mind, I

mean Daniel, I respect him personally and the integrity of his

views, as I think he does mine, but to dismiss the European Union as a

small trading block globally, when you have got the United States of

America, China and other countries acknowledging its importance, it is

really Walter Mitty land. Are we closer than... Daniel Hannan, are we

closer to an exit after what happened last week? Yes, because the

idea that we could get substantive reforms, gets a mythic and powers

back and be within a looser, more flexible European Union has plainly

been closed off. We have to face up to the actual European Union that

has taken shape on our doorstep. Are we going to be part of that or are

we going to have a much more semidetached, looser relationship

with it which we can either achieve via a unilateral system of power or

another way. This debate is never-ending, it is going on and on

and has bedevilled British prime ministers for as long as I can

remember. Shouldn't the Lib Dems change their stance on the

referendum yet again let's just have this in-out referendum and have it

sided one way or another? Our position remains clear. If there is

a constitutional issue put before us in terms of treaty changes then we

will have a referendum. Why not now? I am probably the wrong person to

ask because I argued and voted for a referendum on Maastricht because I

thought that was a constitutional treaty. Anything that makes the

Queen a citizen of the European Union surely has constitutional

implications. Anyway, 20 years on we are where we are and we need to

established common vocabulary. You talk about federalism. What do we

mean? Most of the people operating in the European Parliament and the

institution across the road, the Council of Europe, they mean by

federalism decentralisation of powers, not a Brussels superstate

but actually the kind of decentralisation that maintains

national characteristics and pools resources and sovereignty where it

makes sense. Mr Juncker, who is now going to be in charge of the

Brussels commission, he believes in a single EU reform policy, an EU

wide minimum wage and EU wide taxes. You said this week that you

liked the sound of Juncker federalism. Does that sound good to

you? No, and I think the new president of the commission will be

disappointed if he puts forward these views because although we only

had Hungary voting with us, I think if you go to other countries,

France, Poland, Scandinavia, they are not going to buy that kind of

menu. What they mean by federalism is the continental concept, also the

North American concept, that we can sit very happily... They have an

army, a federal police force, federal taxation. Yes, but in terms

of the political institutions which is what we are discussing here, you

can have the supranational, the European level, whilst still having

the very vibrant national, and indeed as we are practising in the

United Kingdom the subnational. A very brief final word from you,

Daniel. That is ultimately going to be the choice. The European Union is

an evolving dynamic, we can see the direction it is going in. Do we want

to be part of that? I suspect Charles Kennedy would have loved a

referendum. I cannot help but notice his party is going downhill since he

was running it. It is illegal to light up in the workplace, pubs and

restaurants. Now the British Medical Association has voted to outlaw

everywhere but not everybody at once. It would apply to anyone born

after the year 2000. In a moment we will debate the merits of those

plans but first he is Adam. There was a time when to be British

was to be a smoker. 1948 was the year off peak fag with 82% of men

smoking mainly cigarettes but it was a pipe that Harold Wilson used as a

political prop to help with the hard-hitting interviews they did in

those days. The advertisements make out pipe smokers to be more virile,

more fascinating men than anybody else. Do you thought -- have that

thought anywhere in your mind? No. It changed in 2006 when smoking in

enclosed places was banned. I would rather be inside but unfortunately

we have got to do what this Government tells us to do. I think

it is good, it is calm and you can breathe. Research suggests it has

improved the health of bar workers no end and reduced childhood asthma.

Now just one in five adults is a smoker. Coming next, crackdowns on

those newfangled e-cigarettes, smoking in cars and possibly the

introduction of plain packaging. There is still those who take pride

in smoking and see it as a war on freedom.

We're joined now by Dr Vivienne Nathanson

from the British Medical Association who voted for a graduated ban

on smoking at their conference last week, and Simon Clark

They're here to go head-to-head. There are plenty of things which are

bad for our health, why single out cigarettes? We need some sugar in

our diets but the fact is that we need to stop people smoking as

children because if we can do that, the likelihood that they will start

smoking is very small. In no circumstances is smoking good for

you. There are lots of smokers who live long, healthy lives but we

totally accept smoking is a risk to your health and adults have to make

that decision, just as you make the decision about drinking alcohol,

eating fatty foods and drinking sugary drinks. This proposal is

totally impractical. It will create a huge black market in cigarettes

which will get bigger every year. They say this is about stopping

children smoking but there is already a law in place that stops

shopkeepers from selling cigarettes to children. This target adults so

you could have the bizarre situation in the year 3035 for example where a

36-year-old can go into shops to buy cigarettes but if you are 35 you

will be denied that, which is ludicrous. The point is that the

younger you start smoking the more likely you will become heavily

addicted. I take the point, but the point he is saying is that if this

becomes law, down the road, if you go into shops to buy cigarettes you

would have to take your birth certificate, wouldn't you? We have

no idea how the legislation would be written but the key point is that if

we can stop young people from starting to smoke, we will in 20

years have a whole group of people who have never smoked so you won't

have that problem of people who are smokers and they are now in their

20s and 30s. Or you will have a lot of younger people who get cigarettes

the way they currently get illegal drugs now. They are already getting

cigarettes illegally and we have to deal with that. We have got to get

better. The Government has not been able to stop it. We know this is

going to kill 50%... When you are 15 you think you will live for ever.

Indeed but they also do it as rebellion and because they see

adults and it is remarkably easy to buy cigarettes. Whatever the case is

for individual choice, won't most people agree that if you could stop

young people smoking, so that through the rest of their lives they

never smoked, that would be worth doing? You get 16 or 17-year-olds

who already do that. Is it worth trying? When the government

increased the age at which shopkeepers could sell from 16 to

18, we supported it. We don't support a ban on proxy purchasing,

we support reasonable measures, but this is unreasonable. This proposal

says a lot about the BMA, because this week the BMA also passed a

motion to ban the use of E cigarettes in public places. There

is no evidence that they are dangerous to health, so why are they

doing that? They are becoming a temperance society. This is not

about public health, it's an old-fashioned temperance society and

they have to get their act together because they are bringing the

medical profession into disrepute. We were having argument is about

things that people buy large accept, smoking in bars or public places,

but the real aim of the BMA was the total banning of cigarettes

altogether. This would suggest that that was true to claim that. It's

not about a ban, it's about a move to a country where nobody wants to

smoke and no one is a smoker. But it would be illegal to smoke. It would

be illegal to buy, not smoke, and there's a difference between two. So

even if I am born in the year 2000, it would still be illegal to smoke,

just illegal to buy the cigarettes? Indeed. The point being that the

habit of smoking is very strongly linked to your ability to buy, so

that is why things like Price and availability and marketing are so

important. People will flood across the Channel with the cigarettes. One

thing you will find is that throughout the world people is

looking at -- people are looking at the same kind of measures, and

different countries like Australia, they were the first with a

standardised packaging. Other countries will follow, because all

of us are facing the fact that we can't afford to pay for the

tragedy. There will be people waiting to flood the market with

cigarettes. This is nonsense. Thanks for both coming and going

head-to-head. "Unless we have more equal

representation, our politics won't be half as good as it should be."

So said David Cameron back in 2009. So how's it going?

Well, you can judge the quality of the politics for yourself,

but we've been crunching the numbers to find out what

parliament might look like after the next year's general election.

Here's Giles. Politicians are elected to

Parliament to represent their constituents, but the make-up of

Parliament does not reflect society well at all the parties it. In 2010

more women and ethnic minority candidates entered Westminster but

not significantly more inner chamber still dominated by white males.

Looking at the current make-up of the Commons, Labour has 83 female

MPs, the Conservative have 47 women MPs, which is just over 47% -- and

the Lib Dems have 12% of the parties. All of the parties have

selected parliaments in those seats where existing MPs are retiring and

to fight seats at the next election, and they've all been

trying to up the number of women and ethnic minorities because discounts

and can be capitalised on. A picture tells a thousand words. Look at the

all-male front bench before us. And he says he wants to represent the

whole country. Despite the jibe, the Labour Party know they have a long

way to go on the issue of being representative. So we

way to go on the issue of being look at this particular area of lack

of women and ethnic minorities. Women first.

In the most marginal, 40 have women candidates, that would mean if they

got just enough to win power, they would have 133 women, which is 41%

The Conservatives currently have 305 MPs and their strategy

at the next election is to concentrate on their 40 most

marginal seats, and the 40 seats most mathematically likely to turn

In those 40, 29 candidates have been selected

If they kept hold of their existing seats and won those 29 new ones,

they would have 56 women MPs, around 17%, and up 2% from last time.

The Liberal Democrats are fighting to hold on to the 57 seats they won

at the last election, if they manage that, they would have

However all the indications are it could be

a bad night for the Lib Dems, if they lost 20 seats, on a uniform

swing it would leave them with just four women, 11% of the party.

One Conservative peer who thinks the party needs to look at all

options if it's female numbers go down in 2015, says Parliament is

The bottom line is, if 50% of our population is not being looked at

evenly, are we really using the best of our talent? And yes, women's life

experiences are different. They are not superior, they are not inferior.

They are different. But surely those life experiences need to be

represented here at Westminster. So that's the Parliamentary

projection for gender, According to the last census

in 2011, 13% of people in the UK Labour currently has 16 MPs from

black, Asian or minority ethnic backgrounds or just over 6%, if they

get their extra 68 seats that figure would go up to 26, 8% of their party

were from BAME backgrounds. The Tories currently have 11 BAME

candidates, or 4% of the party. If they get an extra 29 seats,

that would mean 14 BAME MPs, The Liberal Democrats

don't have any BAME MPs. If they manage to cling

on to their current number of seats they would have two,

giving them a proportion of 4%. If they lost

their 20 most vulnerable seats, But even if you changed the mix

of gender and ethnicity in Parliament would that solve

the problem? Probably not. Only 10% of us have gone to

a private fee paid school. A Quarter of all Mps went to Oxford

or Cambridge. Only a fifth

of us went to any university. There is a huge disillusionment with

the political elite due to the fact that these people don't look like

us. They don't speak like us, they don't have our experiences and they

cannot communicate in a way we relate to. If you look at the

turnout, at the moment, if you are an unskilled worker, you are 20

points less likely to turn and vote than a middle-class professional and

that is getting worse with single election.

And that's the key, evidence does suggest that if a

Party reflects the society it exists within, it is more likely to get

It's just gone 11.35pm, you're watching the Sunday Politics.

We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland who leave us now

Coming up here in 20 minutes, we'll have more from the panel.

Hello, and on the Sunday Politics Wales.

I've been talking to Wales' only Muslim AM or MP.

He says Imams must be able to speak English.

And a historic step, or a lack of ambition?

More powers for the Assembly clear the Commons and

Among the 100 AMs and MPs representing Wales,

The Conservative AM says Imams must be able to speak English

before they are allowed to teach in mosques in the UK.

He says foreign preachers who can't speak English are not

Nasser Muthana and Reyaad Khan from Cardiff, apparently in Syria,

Nasser's younger brother Aseel has also joined them.

Nasser and Aseel's father says police failed to win the trust

The police disagree and say countering radicalisation is

People are talking to us, people are reassured by us being here.

And what we are being told is that they have the trust in the police.

People recognise that this is several young men, for what could be

many, many men across the UK, we're talking about a couple of men.

I think people realise the police cannot keep hold of

absolutely everybody but they are doing the best job that they can.

At the mosque in his home city of Newport, I spoke to Mohammad Asghar,

He says Muslim parents must pay attention to what their children

are doing but other authority figures have a part to play too.

Imams come from all over the world in this country.

And one of the measures we may consider,

probably will be considered, their command in the English language.

Because when you teach, you must know the child's language first.

So they're coming from overseas countries,

and if their English is not up to standard, I personally believe they

So the standard up to a certain level, for each teacher,

must be crucial for anybody to come and teach in mosques for now on.

That is one thing which will be considered, because at

no point should the police come in and he or she is not able to speak

English, is not helpful, neither to the children, nor to Islam.

As it happens, this mosque is just around the corner

So how are relations between local Muslim people and the police?

I find police in Newport especially...

I meet Ian Johnson, the police commissioner, very regularly too.

So in my understanding, the police relationship with the mostly Muslim

It's estimated that up to 500 Britons have gone to fight in Syria

So how widespread is the phenomenon in Wales?

After all, we only know about a handful of young men

Friday prayers at the South Wales Islamic Centre in Cardiff.

Police say extremism is no more of a problem in the city than

In a joint statement, politicians and religious leaders

I don't think Cardiff is different from any other place in the country.

We've had a history of extremely tolerant

and excellent dialogue between faith communities and different

Clearly, there are some disturbing reports which have emerged over

the weekend, and over the past few months, and we've all got to work

Nevertheless, the UK government this week banned

two extremist groups, both are reported to have links to Cardiff.

The revelation that young Welshmen are joining jihadists in the

Middle East has given Muslims, the police and wider society plenty

Assistant chief Constable Nikki Holland of South

Wales Police, Cardiff South and Penarth MP Stephen Doughty were in

Joining me in the studio is Professor Martin Innes,

the director of the Universities Police Science Institute at

Cardiff University and Mona Bayoumi, a Cardiff-based Muslim barrister.

Thank you both for joining us. We heard there, that the present --

police prevent strategy is working. Perhaps you can explain what the

police are doing, what is their strategy. The prevent strategy has

been in place for ten years, and it has three key components. The first

is a counter radicalisation component, which is trying to stop

people coming into contact with extremist ideologists. There is a B

radicalisation component which is what you do with people who have

come into contact with it, and the third component is about community

resilience and capacity building, trying to empower community to play

a role. And does it work? One of the issues about terrorism and this sort

of thing is an ongoing process. It is a long-term problem that we are

drawn to face at the moment. We are hearing that police and politicians

agree that Cardiff and south Wales, there is no evidence to show there

is a worse problem here than anywhere at him Britain, Duke and

care? -- do you concur? I think anecdotage -- anecdotally, there are

fewer problems in Cardiff than the UK as a whole. There is no research

to suggest in the research that any of this purported radicalisation is

happening in our mosques here in Wales, and that is a very important

message to make the public aware of. With the type of coverage that there

has been of this incident and everything up leading up to it, the

first port of call would obviously be eyes on the mosques. And the

negative press that comes with that. So where is it coming from? How are

these young men being exposed? I do not think there is any particularly

clear findings on that. There have been some suggestions that these

people initially go out with a humanitarian ambition to, for

example, refugee camps on the borders of Syria and then

potentially get radicalised there. I think the use of social networking

and the Internet has a lot to answer for in that respect because the

young individuals are so much more accessible now to radical preachers.

This is not the first time we have seen a case like this. There were

reports of young men from Cardiff trying to get to Somalia and Kenya.

There is something here for the wider community in south Wales and

the Muslim responsibility -- Muslim community to respond to. Absolutely,

and it is a process. It is one where the community, families, parents, it

requires a multi-agency approach to ensure that these individuals who

appear to be disenfranchised from mainline society are brought back

in. It is a cliche, but bridges between the community and agencies

need to be strengthened. The role the media has to play is

particularly critical in my view. Talking about building bridges and

drawing young men back into mainstream society, is it a bit much

to expect the police to do that? I think she is quite correct when she

says it is a multi-agency effort. Fundamentally, police are reliant on

people telling them about individuals where they have concerns

also stations -- or suspicions that something is not right. That is one

of the things of the prevent programme, it has taken me

multi-agency policy quite seriously. It has been contentious? In what

way? Some people are saying that the problem has been overplayed and we

are making too much out of it. All of the research evidence that we

have says it is a problem in our major towns and city -- cities. The

dynamics of the problem are changing so we need to be clear about one

long to achieve -- what we want to achieve. Is there a danger that the

intense scrutiny on the Muslim community in South Wales, people

might be reluctant to cooperate with the police? There are clear examples

in the last five years in Cardiff and Wales where the community have

stepped forward and helped the police. I think what the police and

other communities and the government need to be doing is asking the

question, do we have the resources in place to allow this work to

continue and make sure people have what they need to help? Have they

got the resources, have cutbacks been a problem? I think Mona

mentioned, it has been a multi agency approach. We are not sure

what the agency approach. We are not sure

what cumulative impact has been all the cutbacks. I would certainly be

asking the question, do you have what you need? Picking up on

Corporation -- Corporation, does this feel like a community that has

been under pressure? The Muslim community has been under pressure

for some time, so that is not new. It is that much more intense now and

it will continue to be more intense. The risk that that poses is

that individuals within the community feel, when is this going

to end? Why is it we are being portrayed in this way? There are

individuals in the community that are doing things in the name of the

community and the religion in an entirely, entirely incorrect way.

Does that mean that the community as a whole has to suffer? In order to

encourage individuals in the community to cooperate with

authorities, the dialogue in the public domain needs to change in

order to feel, to allow Muslims to feel that they are not being singled

out. So do you worry that young men who, as we have heard, feel

dissatisfied or alienate it from society, that they do not have any

other outlet? I think lack of an outlet is an issue... They may have

a genuine grievance over British foreign policy or whatever, where'd

go with that? I am glad you have picked up on that, the issue in

Syria is unique because this has been a massacre that has been going

on for three audios, without there being any international

intervention. -- for three years. People feel helpless. You see

children dying on television and no one is doing anything about it. I am

not saying in any way, shape or form that that is the justification for

these young men to go and fight, but this has to be addressed. For

example, the recent murder of the young Saudi woman in Essex. The

media coverage of that, it should be on the part with the media coverage

that there was around this time last year with the tragic murder of Lee

Rigby. That is an act of extremism, what happened a few weeks ago in

Essex, it has not been labelled as that. We are out of time, good to

talk to you both. Thank you for joining me.

Tax-raising powers for the Welsh government are progressing through

An important step towards more accountable, devolved government.

That's how the Welsh Secretary David Jones describes the Wales Bill

which has completed its passage through the Commons.

Shortly we'll hear the Labour and Conservative views,

but first here's what Plaid Cymru and the Liberal Democrats say.

There are some significant matters in it, such as transferring minor

taxes and also the borrowing power that it gives the Assembly.

So it's a small step forward, I suppose.

I think it's a historic step on the journey of devolution in Wales.

Tax varying powers are very important because now the people

of Wales can hold the Assembly and the Assembly government to account

not only on how they spend money, but how they raise money as well.

I think the Lords will be looking at the lock step.

The Labour Party made a huge song and dance

about dual candidacy, and I won't go into detail about that, it seems to

be a personal obsession, nobody else seems to be bothered about it.

But taxation is a substantial matter and that's one

We'd be happier without the lock step, which is a process by

which you can't vary the difference between different tax rates.

If you want to put up taxes, then all the tax rates must go up.

And if you want to drop them, all the tax rates must come down.

Although we are disappointed the lock step is in place,

we think that because it's so important that the Assembly can

raise their own taxes, we will put up with it in the short-term.

We want to see reform of the Barnett formula, which is on the way as

well. Labour would postpone bits of the bill until it has been sorted

and we look forward to that. As we go forward into the Lords, it may be

that commitments will go forward into the reserved matters issue,

which sets out what powers are the responsibility of Westminster, and

what are the response pretty of the Assembly. I would like to see a good

discussion in the Lords about that and come back to the Commons for

further consideration. In the studio is the shadow

Wales Office minister, Labour's Nia Griffith, and the Conservative MP

for Montgomeryshire, Glyn Davies. Start with you, these income tax

powers, they will only happen after a referendum. How likely is that to

take place? I think the key thing is that if it were going to take place,

we would make certain it is going to work. First of all you need to sort

out the fair funding issue, if Wales is not being funded partly in the

first place, you could end up with people in Wales being taxed more

because they do not have enough from London. This is the Barnett formula,

your party has not committed to this. We have clearly said that we

have got to look at the issue of Wales, that is what Ed Miliband has

said, and made it clear. The Barnett boy there has served us -- formula

has served us up until now but there is an issue now. Secondly, we need

to make sure that any way that the income tax powers were to work would

be successful and work properly. There is no way you can go to the

Welsh people and expect them to once those income tax powers and have a

successful answer in the referendum if they are not clear those things

are being sorted out. Your party would have that referendum as soon

as possible and start cutting taxes, is that right? I think that would be

a matter for the group in the assembly to decide. I would like to

see an early referendum and the bill goes through, become an act. But

why, if not to cut taxes and therefore the Welsh government's

budget? The only logical position in Wales, if I listen to economists, is

attracting people to Wales to pay a higher rate of tax might be

sensible. The point will be that the Welsh government, if they do have

tax-raising powers, they will have to look at what is beneficial to the

Welsh economy and budget. I think I wanted to see that position so it

has a clear engagement with the people. What is your sense of what

people want? Do they want a Welsh government that can alter income

tax? It is a job to say, it will depend on how the question is

presented. To me, it is important, and I think, since 1999, a lot of us

against devolution and setting up the Assembly, I think it should be a

law making an tax-raising body. Until begets to genuinely raising

substantial part of contacts, people will not engage in the debate and

the decisions the pack, -- the assembly has to take. They said that

it lacks ambition, do you agree? There would be an opportunity to go

to a reserve powers waddle, saying that what we define is what

Westminster does and everything else... So it clear that up, we have

seen court cases. Yes, we would like to seek clarity, so we don't have a

situation where thousands of pounds are being spent on court cases

trying to sort out what the Welsh Assembly can and can't do. Why

didn't the UK government do that? The idea that it will clear up

disagreement about where power lies, this is not the case. I personally

think the reserve powers model is the right way to go. There will

still be disputes about what is reserved and not, afterwards, it

will not make any difference. It is going to the Lords, they make have a

debate and it will have another debate in the Commons. I think it is

a big step forward currently. It is incremental but a big step forward

in of devolution. This is not part of it, it might be part of the next

step forward. The government says this is all about making the

Assembly or making evolution more accountable. Why has it taken us so

long to get to this point? Devolution has been with us for 15

years. Why did Labour never take this step if, is the case, the Welsh

government wants these tax-raising powers? I think the key thing is

people's opinions in Wales have moved forward, since the referendum

in 2011, it is clear that people want certain lawmaking and

decision-making power to be in Cardiff. That would not have been

the case 15 years ago. What is important in this bill is the

borrowing powers it gives to Welsh government, because it was anomalous

that they did not have it before. It will be important for infrastructure

projects which can help the Welsh economy. Like the M4 relief road, is

that what you would spend the money on? Certainly road improvements are

needed, not just in the South at the North as well. You have got to have

connectivity if you are going to attract business and industry. We

have seen yesterday the education Ministry Hugh Lewis and the

education secretary for the UK government Michael Gove slugging it

out over, over education standards in Wales. Is it right for the, after

all, Michael Gove, the education secretary for England, intervening

in Welsh politics? He was expressing a view pretty forcibly as he often

does. Is it any of his business? I don't think there is a problem, I am

a Welsh MP and a Westminster MP, I have use what happens in Wales and

England and Scotland. It is a point of view. Expressed by other

Westminster -based politicians as well. I think Hugh Lewis, the

opposite assembly Minister is perfectly care -- capable of

slugging it out. And I like robust behaviour, that is part of what

British politics should be about. The Welsh government's record on the

health service has been criticised by David Cameron. And now on the

education service as well. What is going on? I think there is a

political motivation. I think what Michael Gove is trying to do is

deflecting from what is going on in England, where he set up free

schools where there are no minimum standards on buildings, food, the

qualifications of the teachers, and not even on the curriculum they have

to deliver. He is not even going to have any form of local inspector as

we have suggested to try and find out

we have suggested to try and find what is going on in these schools.

It could be too late when the Ofsted inspectors arrive. This week, we

have started hearing that Welsh private schools are going to offer

English GCSE courses instead of Welsh ones, they say the Welsh ones

lack portability and accountability. That is not a vote of confidence in

the Welsh education system. Conversely, the English boards have

expressed satisfaction here. The key thing that we need to make sure that

the Welsh standards are having portability and are of good

standards. The way that Hugh Lewis is going forward with the consortium

approach, making groups that are big enough to deliver school improvement

but small enough to be local, in other words, bringing together

schools across local authorities and implement in the School challenge

programme which was so successful in London which Michael Gove trying to

undo, these will deliver results. Is it all going too far? The first

Minister describes this as the Tory war on Wales, do think this will go

too far? No, I do not get involved in a war on Wales, it is the people,

what they tell me, they tell me what is happening. They look at the

results and what is happening in the health service. The people are

worried about what is happening, and Michael both's views, reflected by

an Westminster MP, but they -- expressed by Westminster MP, but

they reflect the views of the Welsh people. Hopefully the debate will

continue here on the show in the future. Thank you for joining us,

thanks again. That is all from me. We have the news at 7:10pm, new

again at 20 past. but I take your point. Thanks to

both of you today. Back to you, Andrew.

Now, there have been some less-than-helpful remarks

about the way the Labour party makes policy, and they've come

from the man who is heading Labour's Policy Review, Jon Cruddas.

In a speech to party activists he was recorded saying that,

"instrumentalised, cynical nuggets of policy to chime with our focus

groups and our press strategies, and our desire for a topline in terms of

the 24 hour media cycle, dominate and crowd out any

He added that Labour's election strategy was being hampered by a

The shadow chancellor, Ed Balls, was asked about what Mr Cruddas had

I talked to him a couple of days ago, and he's not frustrated, he is

excited about his policy agenda. He is frustrated that one report of 250

pages gets reduced down. So it's our fault? That is the way we live in

the world in which we live, but we have big ideas about devolution,

long term infrastructure spending and new manufacturing policy, new

investment in skills, big changes which, let's be honest, I'm really

on George Osborne's agenda. How serious is this? It is Wimbledon, so

let's call it an unforced error. You go to the party speeches, and you

don't know who is in the audience. There is no need for something as

serious as this to happen. It's hugely serious because it speaks

about something people have felt for a long time, that they have doled

out little nuggets of policy but no overarching story. There was a quite

saying the Ed Miliband has given as a shopping list, not a narrative.

When people in the party say things that are true, it's very difficult

for people to explain it away. Not sure Mr Miliband can win here. He

was recently criticised for not having policies. Now he's being

criticised for having too many. I think this line of attack is

particularly wounding because he prides himself on being a politician

of ideas. That is his unique selling point, and the weight that David

Cameron's prime ministerial nature is his selling point. So it is

wounding. If I was the Labour Party, before announcing any policy, I

would ask can help fix us on the economy? It might be radicalised

immolating on its own terms, but it's politically useless. -- radical

and innovative on its own terms. I don't think any member of the public

does not think they are not radical enough or creative enough. If

anything, it's the opposite. They are a bit nervous about what a

Labour government could do and nervous about the economic

reputation. Reassurance, caution, maybe a bit of timidity might be the

notions that inform their policies or should inform their policies in

night -- my view, not the opposite. I am worried for Jon Cruddas,

because anyone who questions the Labour Party are part of the nexus

of the banking industry who are terrified of a Labour victory. It's

interesting that this goes to the heart of the debate in the Labour

Party, at the highest levels, do they put a big offer to the British

people, or a little off, John Cruddas offer, or Douglas Alexander

offer? Ed Miliband says that his ideas about freezing energy prices

and rent controls are a big offer, but his policy chief clearly has

real concerns that they don't go far enough. How important a figure is

John Cruddas in the project? He is hell of the -- head of the policy

review and has a huge amount of power, and so him slagging off the

policy review is a bad moment. He is trusted in that inner circle and the

problem for Ed Miliband from the odd is that he has people with strong

opinions, Maurice clasping is another, big thinkers, but they

maybe don't have a precaution that a professional politician might have

in terms of giving bland answers. So, David Cameron had to apologise

after his former director of communications was convicted

of phone hacking. David Cameron's other former friend,

Rebekah Brooks, had a better day. At the same trial, she was cleared

of all the charges against her. I take full responsibility for

employing Andy Coulson. I did some on the basis of undertakings I was

given by him about phone hacking and those turned out not to be the case.

I always said that if they turned out to be wrong, I would make a full

and frank apology, and I do that today. I am extremely sorry that I

employed him. It was the wrong decision. I'm clear about that. When

I was arrested it was in the middle of a maelstrom of controversy,

politics and of comment. Some of that was there, but much of it was

not, so I'm grateful to the jury for coming to that decision. Not been a

great week for David Cameron. Andy Coulson found guilty, and another

person who had worked in Downing Street is also charged on an

unrelated issue. And he was 26-2 on the wrong end in Brussels, and there

is a poll this morning which no one seems to be talking about which puts

Labour nine points ahead. Before all that there was Dominic Cummings

criticising the Downing Street operation is being shambolic. Is Mr

Cameron's judgement becoming an issue? Yes, what often happens when

one leader is under pressure for long enough, as Ed Miliband has been

the six months, we get bored. We then switch the Gatling gun to the

other guy. So David Cameron going into the Conference season might be

the man under pressure. The whole Andy Coulson saga has raised

questions about his judgement and those around him, but any political

damage she was going to sustain over Andy Coulson and phone hacking was

sustained years ago -- he was going. It was Brother beyond the

date the News of the World was closed down three summers ago -- it

was probably on the date. As the hacking trial cut through to the

general public? Or is it just as media and political obsessives? I am

sure it has cut through in some way but it didn't necessarily happen in

recent days, more likely in recent years. It was some time ago that

Andy Coulson resigned in high profile circumstances. It has had a

slow burning effect over a few years, and the Prime Minister fears

the Big Bang. But there is one theme and words that unites this week with

Juncker and Andy Coulson, and that is that the Prime Minister can be

lackadaisical. He was lackadaisical in not asking big question is when

there was a lot in the public domain about what had happened that the

News of the World. And he was lackadaisical with Juncker. He made

a calculation that Angela Merkel would support him and it turned out

she couldn't. Maybe he needs to change. He was late in understanding

what was happening in Germany when both the Christian Democrats, her

party, wanted Juncker, and when the actual Murdoch press of Germany said

that they wanted him as well. He never saw that. He only looks at one

person in Germany, Angela Merkel, and it is a grand coalition, and the

SDP felt strongly about it. He is, in a sense, an essay crisis Prime

Minister. He is, in a sense, an essay crisis Prime Minister. He's

very good in an essay, and the SA gets a double first the essay. Is Ed

Miliband right to be angry? He has John Cruddas attacking him, and that

is the news leading in the Sunday Times, and has not been a good week

the Prime Minister and in which Mr Miliband has a bigger lead in the

polls than he has had some time, so he must be wondering why they are

having a go at him. He made a tactical error in Prime Minister's

Questions by asking all the questions about Andy Coulson. The

one at the end about what Gus O'Donnell said was rather hopeful in

the extreme. Politicians can be out of touch on all sides of the house.

The problem is, and there is a great quote by William Hague, is that the

Tory party has two modes, panic and complacency. At the moment they are

complacent. They think Ed Miliband will lose Labour election but I

don't know if they have a positive plan about how to win it. -- lose

Labour the election. Now, we knew Prince Charles had

trouble keeping his views about the environment

and the countryside to himself, but that's not the only thing he's

passionate about according to a radio four documentary to be

broadcast this lunchtime. Here's former Education Secretary,

David Blunkett on how the Prince had once attempted to influence

his policy on schools. I would explain that our policy was

not to expand grammar schools, and he didn't like that. He was very

keen that we should go back to a different era where youngsters had

what he would've seen as the opportunity to escape from their

background, where as I wanted to change their background.

And you can hear that documentary - it's called The Royal Activist -

Does it matter that Prince Charles is getting involved in this kind of

policy, released behind closed doors question mark on the issue of

grammar schools is not clear anybody listened to him. I think it is a

principal problem. I've spoken to form a government members, and

judging by what they say, if anything we underestimate how much

contacting makes with ministers. And how many representations he makes on

the issue that interest him. There has been an attempt to keep it

hidden. It's almost a theological question about whether the future

monarch should be involved in the public realm. If he wants to

influence policy, shouldn't we know what policy he's trying to influence

and what position he is taking? Sewer speech is better than private

one-on-one lobbying. Possibly -- so a speech. Prince Charles's views are

interesting. He's not a straight down the light reactionary. He makes

a left-wing case for rammer schools. There is an interview with him in

the Financial Times in which his argument in favour for architectural

development takes into account affordable housing in the wake which

no one would have suspected. He has interesting views, but I'm not

convinced on the point of principle whether someone is dashing his

position should be speaking. Your former employer 's famously

described him as the SDP king. You slightly feel sorry for him. He's 66

and still an apprentice. He's in a difficult position. We know what the

powers of the monarch are. They are to advise in courage and warned the

Prime Minister of the day. These in the difficult position where the

problem for him is that there is a line that isn't really defined, but

you slightly feel he just gets a bit too close to it and possibly crosses

that line with the lobbying that goes on. I think the worrying thing

is that at some point he will become King and will he know that he has

got to work within that framework? He is somebody that cannot win

either. If he doesn't take an interest in public policy, he will

be thought to be a bit of a waster, going round opening town halls, and

when he does have an interest we think, hey, you are in the monarchy,

stay out. There's an interesting parallel with first ladies who are

encouraged to find a controversial charitable project. Michelle Obama

has bought childhood obesity, and that is the standard thing.

Everybody knows that that is a bad thing, but you are not offering

solutions that are party political. I feel there must be a middle way

with what he should be able to do about finding big causes he can

complain about without getting stuck into lobbying ministers. Which can

become a party political issue. He has had some influence on

architecture, because the buildings we are putting up to date are better

than the ones we used to put up. The Daily Politics is on BBC 2

at 11:00am We'll be back here

at the same time next week. Remember if it's Sunday,

it's the Sunday Politics.