07/01/2014 Daily Politics

Good afternoon, and welcome to the Daily Politics.

A Strategic Defence Review lacking in strategy, and driven only by the

need to cut costs, says a committee of MPs. But, are more cuts heading

the MoD's way? European judges say whole-life

sentences for prisoners are illegal. The government must respond this

week. So, is it time to stand up to the European Court of Human Rights?

Want to see less immigration? Well, the government does. It's promised

to get net migration down to less than 100,000 a year. But its

Business Secretary says that target's unachievable.

And, looking for a party venue? Look no further, the Palace of

Westminster's for hire. But, should the right amount of cash really give

you the right to hold an event in the mother of Parliaments?

All that in the next hour. We're seven days in to 2014, and

look who's kept his New Year resolution to come on the programme.

Former Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy, welcome. Happy New

Year. Let's start with the Chancellor's

plans to cut ?12.5 billion from the welfare bill after the next general

election. He wants the cut to come from working age welfare recipients

rather than pensioners. And it's part of a ?25 billion package of

cuts designed to get the public finances back in surplus by the end

of the next Parliament. It's not a policy that George Osborne's

coalition partners are signed up to, however. Before we come to Nick

Clegg, is it feasible to cut another ?25 billion, is it desirable?

In terms of feasibility, it is a tall political order. We have seen,

even in the climate of austerity, and one hopes after the next

election it will not be as Diana, how difficult it was for the

government to constrain the growth of expenditure as opposed to real

cuts. ?25 billion is a very tall I -- order. All parties agreed there

will be a further squeeze of necessity. This is as much about

politics as economic. It is a gamble to delineate the tram lines for the

next election. Because George Osborne says it is

popular with the public to trim the welfare bill even further, that is

debatable, and also because he says it is not fair on working people to

subsidise those on benefits. But the people who would be vulnerable to

these further cuts are many people in work.

This is the difficulty. You might say, Nick Clegg would say that. That

Ed Balls would say that. It is the allies of Iain Duncan Smith, unnamed

in newspapers today, who are saying, we are going back to the

same people and penalising them again. Is this good electoral

politics? It is not clear cut who George Osborne is battling when he

talks about this. There is a legitimate argument, if you took

more working families out of tax as has been successfully at our behest,

or made them better off, that would reduce the welfare bill.

Is it a monumental state to state now, as Nick Clegg has said, ?12

billion coming from welfare? It is a monumental gamble on George

Osborne. He wants to set out these very clear distinctions across the

political spectrum early on. And put Labour in particular and ourselves

on the back foot, saying, here are the figures. Doesn't it put the Lib

Dems on the back foot? We have to turn this into an

opportunity. Which is what Nick was beginning to do. To say, you need to

constrain welfare but how do you do that? Surely by taking less people

off welfare dependency by making them better off. You can use money

more effectively. What about means testing pensioner

benefits? I always have been in favour. Not

just pensioners, it is ridiculous that people like us qualify, I speak

as a Scot, where it is more accentuated in Scotland, for

benefits you get for nothing. People... But the basic state

pension should go to everybody? Yes, a sense of social equity, that

has to be maintained. Now it's time for our daily quiz.

This man has just received an MBE in the New Year's Honours List. So, our

question today is, what service does he provide for the Prime Minister?

Is it: a) Chef. B) Security guard.

C) Hairdresser. Or d) Ski instructor.

At the end of the show, Charles will give us the correct answer.

I never know these ones. But today I do know the answer to this.

I won't divulge it. Keep the drama going.

What's the greatest threat facing our military? Is it terrorism? Is it

cyber attack? You might be surprised to learn that, in fact, it's you.

Specifically, it's the lack of public understanding about what our

armed forces are for, that represents one of the greatest

strategic threats to Britain's military. That's the view of a

report published today by the Defence Select Committee. The

committee's chairman, James Arbuthnot, also said the government

lacks a clear defence strategy, and that the last Defence Review was

dictated more by the need to cut the deficit rather than a proper

assessment of what our defence needs should be.

The proper process to take place needs to be a discussion in the

country of what this security strategy should be. Followed by a

process of a defence and Security review, hand in hand with a

comprehensive spending review, so that they work out what the wish

list is, and if it is necessary to change the security strategy of the

country, then we need to be open about what we are giving up, and we

need to say how we are going to give that up, rather than pretend we can

do everything. In the last review, the government said we were going to

do more with less. There comes a point where we can't do that, that

point has been reached now. With me now are the former Defence

Minister Gerald Howarth, the Shadow Defence Minister Gemma Doyle, and

Charles Kennedy is still with us. Welcome to the programme. Do you

agree with the committee the review was governed by the overriding

objective of reducing the UK budget deficit?

In part, that is correct. The nation faced a catastrophic situation with

a budget deficit of ?160 billion, the MoD accounts were in turmoil

with a ?38 billion black hole. So sorting out those finances is a

continuing issue. But I think it is quite a tribute to the MoD and

national-security council, which came out of the Strategic Defence

Review, that they were able to produce a number of strategic lines.

The committee is being unfair. They are contradicting that by

saying it was a botch job because of the overriding objective of cutting

costs which took away the element of strategy.

I would answer that by reference to a number of specific things we did.

We only had five months in which to do it. Was it rushed? Was there an

alternative? Absolutely no choice. The Chancellor had to produce a

comprehensive spending review by the 20th of October 2010. If he failed

to do so, the international capital markets would not have believed in

Britain's credibility. That would have stuffed us on a gigantic scale.

We did not want in opposition to do this in months. We were denied the

opportunity of longer. But I think that the establishment of the

Council, a new institution, the decision to bring back our troops

from Germany, the decision to prioritise current operations in

Afghanistan. To look to future Force 2020, and create a template for our

Armed Forces, that stands today. What you say about those priorities,

bearing in mind the economic backdrop. Did they do a good job?

The report does back up what we said, the strategic part was missing

from the review. And strategy? The decisions about aircraft carriers

which were reversed. Very little mention of certain regions. And,

things to do with Nimrod. Really, we need, the next review had to be much

more based on strategy. Of course you need a financial balance. That

?8 billion is not supported by anyone except by Conservative

defence ministers. It was far too rushed.

Proper consultation did not happen. Aircraft carriers, that was a

fiasco. The idea was that in the last Labour

government, it produced a new design for the aircraft carriers, 65,000

tonnes, the biggest built in British yards, capable of being retrofitted

with catapults and equipment. We decided in office it would make

sense to look at that possibility to be able to provide a propensity with

the US. We were told it was ?250 million. Then, we discovered, it was

?2.5 billion. Ministers are entitled to ask of those professionals in the

MoD what you think you're doing coming up with an estimate which is

one tenth of the ultimate figure. Do you think that the cuts that have

been taken to the defence budget will lead to a disproportionate

decline in Britain's place in the world?

Yes, I do. That the cuts were too big? That is what I argued at the

time. But, effectiveness possibility, let's call priorities.

We were in coalition. Defence was not as high a priority. The Defence

Review... And we are getting a 2015 review because what came out of our

non-strategic defence review was we should as a nation review every five

years. So it's all your fault!

I was going to become symmetric until that last bit. It's not a

priority for the Lib Dems and as a result the cuts were much deeper,

the government perception changed? No. That was a telling example,

commemorating last week the sad passing of John Fortune. I once

asked him about biting comedy and he said the easiest comedy sketch ever

is anything to do with defence. Because you don't have to crack a

joke. You just tell the story. As they would at home if they were not

outraged by ministers being told something would cost a certain

amount but it was ten times the amount. What on earth are the civil

service doing? It is laughable were it not so serious. The main point,

it is very different focus? It's not a priority for the Lib Dems?

We have had our differences with the Conservatives on items like

Trident. That would have a massive effect within any defence budget. I

think also, there is a question to be asked. We have been in Parliament

long enough. I have never been satisfied as an onlooker we have had

a proper assessment of what kind of nation are we? Principally maritime?

Do we need land forces for future conflict? More into peacekeeping? I

don't think so, incidentally. Speak to the Canadians and Irish.

Looking to the future, should defence spending be ring-fenced?

I think Charles is right and we do have to have this conversation.

There is no minister in that department any more and that is

very, very sad. When you are looking at spending across government

departments, I don't think you can say defence should be treated in a

different way. So there would be more departmental cuts to MoD

spending? In 2015? From our point of view, we would need to see what the

books are going to look like in 2015. It is not going to be

protected as it is not protected in the way health is, so there will be

further cuts? Well, we will try to persuade the Prime Minister, as I

have been trying to do privately and publicly since I left office, that

we make sure defence delivers security and protection of our

interests in the times we live. I want to see an increase in defence

expenditure, in fact. Is that really realistic? I don't know, Jo. But I

believe in defence of the realm and I'd believe defence leverages

influence. One of the key thing is this report questions is, what does

the Government think, what do the parties think Britain's role in the

world should be? David Cameron has made it clear and William Hague said

in 2009 that Britain intends to help shape the world in which we find

ourselves and I'd believe defence can help us shape the world. Does

Labour accept Britain would have to have a smaller role on the

international stage in a defence capacity if it will not spend the

money? I think the world is changing and I think actually we are playing

catch up a bit at the moment with the changes taking place in the

world in a defence sense. I think we need to look more at how we prevent

conflict and work to strengthen other nations' security. Thank you

to you all. Now, it is just a few days since

restrictions on Bulgarians and Romanians working in Britain have

been lifted. We will not know exactly how many have come. And

time. The Government has said it wants to cut net migration to less

than 100,000 a year and a survey for a BBC documentary on BBC Two tonight

indicates just over half of Britons want to see immigration cut by" a

lot" . Nick Robinson is fronting that documentary. Welcome to the

programme. One you are very familiar with! I am sorry I cannot be with

you. Priam here finishing it off! -- I am. The truth about immigration,

and I suppose the truth is, -- the question is, whose truth do you

believe? That is right. People might say, who the heck do you think you

are to pretend you know the truth? It was my view there had not been a

proper political debate about this for many, many years and that those

people, which ever side of the debate they are on, have for not

being candid with the public about the downsides of their views, so on

the one side, I think those who have argued for cuts in immigration has

not really been pressed to think, what is the economic consequence of

that? Would we be poorer as a result? And those in favour of

immigration have not been pressed to say, what are the consequences for

communities and individuals who find greater competition for jobs, wages,

driving wages down, and also the change to the social fabric of Great

Britain. So that was the purpose of doing this documentary. And what

about views within government? Because we know they have had

differences of opinion, the Lib Dems and the Conservatives. But that

quite controversial target that was set - is it now unachievable? I

think it looks increasingly likely, and, more importantly, Vince Cable,

the Business Secretary, has talked about its importance. The net

migration is the difference between those coming into the country and

those going out. David Cameron said he would get it below 100,000. I'd

put it to the Business Secretary tonight that it might prove very

difficult, and he agreed. It is not sensible to have an arbitrary cap

because most of the things under it cannot be controlled. It involves

British people emigrating and you cannot control that. It involves

free movement in and out of the European Union. It involves British

people coming back from overseas who are not immigrants but are counted

in the numbers. So setting an arbitrary cap is not helpful. It

almost certainly will not achieve the 100,000 level the Conservatives

have set anyway, so let's be practical about it. That was Vince

Cable, Business Secretary. For many years, it was considered something

politically they to abuse object, immigration. -- politically

controversial. Yes. He persuaded some people it was too dangerous to

talk about it because it was somehow linked in with the issue of race and

racism as well. -- it persuaded. But immigration is not about racial

difference or religious difference. There are plenty with Asian

backgrounds and Caribbean backgrounds who are just as

concerned as those with white heritage as well. It has made it

easier to have that conversation again. The leader of UKIP, Nigel

Farage, says Enoch Powell distorted that debate, although he agrees with

many of those warnings. I'd put it to him that he wasn't really being

upfront with people and unless he was willing to say to them, yes, I

am against immigration, but that will actually make you poorer. He

replied he was willing to say it and then added this. I don't want to

live in a country whose population is heading toward 75 million people.

There are some things in a society and the community that matter more

than just money. Quality of life. Overcrowded Britain. Back of social

housing. Youth unemployment. These are very real issues. Very dramatic

comments there from him. When is it on? 9:30pm, BBC Two, and even your

viewers want just politics. There are lots of real people in this and

you can have a laugh at me running a pie stall trying to illustrate that

people don't actually know the numbers of those coming into the

country with a pie chart. Get it? Yes! I am joined by Tim Aker, Head

of Policy at UKIP, and Charles Kennedy is still with us. Charles

Kennedy, you said immigration is not something a Dutch auction on the

back of UKIP should be indulged in. Are you out of step with the public

mood? I would say by the records of public opinion, yes, but in

politics, you have to be prepared to be that. Politics is the business of

trying to persuade and change public opinion to what you think is a

better viewpoint. I think we are all in the business of that. Where we

find ourselves in a minority occasionally. It also has to be

about reading public opinion. This debate, and are largely agree with

Nick Robinson, it is a bit like Europe. The establishment did not

want to discuss these matters. Well, in a healthy, vibrant democracy, you

need to. And I think it is good thing we are. Those who take a

different view from the Nigel Farage Outlook need to make that case

robustly. There is conflicting research, as you know, but there is

return should that -- research in the short term that indicates that

there is a problem with low-wage and low skilled workers, those who were

migrants themselves in the first place. Yes. You can argue this both

ways. I think the key thing is, are we better in the internationalised

world we live in as a multicultural society functioning well? I think we

are and I think that is something to celebrate, quite frankly. What is

wrong with that? I think it is a question of numbers and we made a

promise we would cut immigration from hundreds of thousands down to

tens of thousands. You are not going to achieve that, you? We have

actually made a lot of restrictions... It was part of the

agreement made with the EU, but just go on, are you going to achieve this

net migration target of tens of thousands? We may do. It is a

challenging target. I've thought we were on target six months ago and

I'm worried we have been knocked off that target cause of problems in

Europe with the currency and the numbers from Bulgaria and Romania.

But think it is essential we deliver on that promise for migration. But

you cannot do anything about it, Mark Reckless, because other member

countries around the EU, we have free movement of people. Are you

worried it is something you couldn't deliver? What is happening is,

because of the problems controlling EU immigration, we are having to do

more on non-EU immigration. And I say, why are we allowing... ? I

don't think it helps our graduates domestic lead to let EU graduates

stay on and get jobs after their graduation, constituting a third of

graduate employment in London, or why we let some come and work for a

very short time or why we allow domestic servants in from the

European Union. Certainly the rhetoric from David Cameron and the

Government, notwithstanding the Lib Dems, the Conservative side of the

government, has been to try to limit in some way net migration and they

are now at 182,000, I think. And though it may not be achievable,

they have gone to some way to doing it and trying to restrict access to

benefits for new immigrants. So in a way, they are doing the sorts of

things you are promising. Well, we are shaping the agenda on this. IDSA

without UKIP, we wouldn't have been having this discussion now. -- I'd

dare say. It is continuity blow. We have had ten years of this. Ten

years. And we have only been able to discuss it in the last two because

of a political class and the cosies -- cosy consensus where they would

not discuss it. When did you find out UKIP wanted a five-year

moratorium on immigrants settling in the UK? We have been discussing this

for a while. We discussed policy all the time at UKIP. Do you think that

is a good idea? I don't think it is fair to say it was a reaction to

UKIP. We promise to... Under the Conservatives we never had that and

we promised we would cut it back from the quarter of a million year

we had under Labour to under 100,000. But you know as well of

idea, Mark, that the only way to do that is to bring forward the debate

now. Your leader is only prepared to kick the can down the road. The only

way we can get control back of our borders is with this. So why are you

supporting kicking the can down the road? To do this, we need a

Conservative government to give a referendum... We must have a

referendum. They need a Conservative government that will give them the

referendum. Do you feel you are on the outside looking in? Yes! I am

delighted and relieved! This is a clear blue and deeper blue water

flowing through the studio! Support a referendum. I am very happy with

the referendum. I would have had it 20 years ago for a start! We have a

referendum this year on the future of one union, the United Kingdom,

and after the May 2015 election, we will have another on the European

Union, and that is, to me, seems sensible. Is the debate you have

heard here about two parties trying to buy who will be tougher, is that

identifying it as far as you're concerned or do we need to be

discussed in detail policy about whether immigrants should be

restricted from accessing benefits or whether we should have a

moratorium? It is perfectly reasonable to have a debate on the

specifics of policy and it isn't -- insulting to people's intelligence

not to. It is as legitimate to express these who is as it is to

rehearse my view. That's pick up on the point of Nigel Farage, that it

would be better to be poorer because there is plenty of research which

states from the GDP growth point of view that the country is actually

better off as a result of immigration. It is one view put out

by the national in shoot for economic research that says without

immigration GDP will come down. -- national institute. I think the

impact of immigration on the GDP per head tends to be quite small but

lots of people who are perhaps better off benefit from employing

cheaper immigrants, cheaper labour, and then those people look down on

the rest of the population and said they were racist for not agreeing

with them, and the rest of the population are very often competing

with those people in the labour market and therefore are not as

supportive of immigration as those who are better off. But it suggests

it is short-term and long-term, more people in the population would

benefit. How do you counteract that argument if the research states that

in terms of GDP, which the Conservatives have made accordance

stone of their policy, how does it work if Nigel Farage says we are

going to be poorer? We are having these debates now, so let's have

more research. Let's find out. The research now says that, but let's

look at this. We have school place shortages, communities that feel

uncomfortable. We are having this discussion now because three

quarters of the British public want immigration reduced and we have 1

million young unemployed people in this country, and that is a

disgrace. But do you accept, as Nigel Farage does seem to, that we

would be worse off from a GDP growth point of view if we don't have

continued immigration of some sort? Statistics mean little to someone

who has gone through Christmas without a job.

Economically, it is arguable, but socially there is a big impact when

it comes to hospitals, school places. This country doesn't have

the room for these, for a lot more immigration?

I do not accept that statement. If you look at the NHS, if it wasn't

for a lot of labour at all levels within the NHS, then what is a

creaking edifice would be in a state of genuine crisis.

The reason so many people from Europe are coming to the UK is

because our economy is doing better compared to the massive problems in

the Eurozone. I think we can cut immigration to below 100,000 while

still making it beneficial. We should have in people who we would

benefit from, not those competing disproportionately with those

struggling to get jobs. Vince Cable would argue by

restricting non-EU immigration... Should life mean life for murderers

and other serious offenders? It's an issue the government is having to

grapple with, after a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights. And

it's just the latest example of the court in Strasbourg putting itself

at odds with the British government. There are currently 52 criminals in

England and Wales serving whole-life prison terms, which allow no

possibility for parole. Different rules apply in Scotland. Judges in

Strasbourg found in favour of three of those prisoners, all notorious

killers, when it said their sentences breached human rights

rules because they were not allowed a "right to review". David Cameron

said he "profoundly disagreed" with the decision. But it looks like the

government could try to comply with the ruling by replacing whole-life

tariffs with US-style 100-year prison sentences. That would

potentially allow offenders to have their sentences reviewed and

reduced. The government is already considering how to respond to

another ruling from the ECHR, after it said the UK's ban on prisoners

voting is unlawful. For many, all this adds up to proof that the court

in Strasbourg is overreaching itself. The former Lord Chief

Justice, Lord Judge, said last month it threatened the sovereignty of

Parliament, warning, "this is a court which is not answerable to

anybody". The period for the government to decide what to do

about whole-life tariffs runs out this week. And the Ministry of

Justice says it will respond "shortly".

I'm joined now by the Conservative MP and member of the Home Affairs

Select Committee Mark Reckless, and of course Charles Kennedy is still

here. Ian Brady, Rosemary West, Jeremy

Bamber, notorious killers, are they being denied their human rights?

It's not a matter of releasing them, but having a review after 25 years.

They could be released. It's not for politicians to take

that judgement. But there should be a right to review. This is

misunderstood. This is not about opening cell doors to notorious

people who need to be locked up for their own safety as well as others.

You should have a review process. Interestingly, the European Court,

again much misunderstood, is talking about an automatic right of review

after 25 years. In English law, the standard is in fact 16 years. What

the court is talking about is more punitive than the working practice

in England. For many people, life should mean

life. For those notorious killers, they should stay, they should die in

prison. Life should mean life, but that doesn't mean an independent

judge or panel should be able to review after a quarter of a

century, the individual circumstances.

An example, hypothetically, suppose somebody is terminally ill and have

served 30 years. Suppose there is a prison riot and they save a

warder's life, and they only have a few months left of their own knife.

A judge might take that into account and say they should serve that, the

rest of their term in liberty. Should there be some sort of legal

right to a review? It sounds like when the Scottish

government sent al-Meghari back to Libya.

We come in Parliament, should decide. Ultimately, our top judge

said this was quite compliant with the European Convention on Human

Rights. Our courts have interpreted it that way. They only had to have

regard to Strasbourg, they do not need to follow it. We should respect

our own top judges. Personally, you would like to see

them stay, regardless of who decides whole-life tariffs. Why shouldn't

somebody as stated by Charles Kennedy, no matter how hard they

work towards rehabilitation, their punishment should not change?

The Lord Chief Justice looked at the case of David Oates, a cold-blooded

murder of his former partner and daughter. It was planned. The judge

said he took pleasure in the killing. There was no mitigation.

The worst possible murder. It is important society has the ability to

sake you must go to prison for the rest of your life. Belief in our

criminal justice system would be undermined if that principle were

bitten away. 2011, in England, 160 people were

released for murder, of those, 26 had served less than ten years. That

is nothing to do with Strasbourg, or the European Court, that is what is

happening in domestic law. Why isn't the same outrage about that, if what

Strasbourg is saying is invidious. I think Parliament should decide.

You are happy with those decisions that Parliament has made leading to

those statistics? I would like to see tougher sentencing more

generally. And the issue life must mean life should hold. I believe we

should... Given what is happening in our country, nothing to do with

Strasbourg, why don't we abolish the court system in England? There is

the European Convention, and the question of who decides. We have a

mess where both of us are deciding. It is not clear. Other countries...

Our judges have a better record than those European judges. We should

follow our Lord Chief Justice and allow them to make decisions. As a

country governed by our Parliament, that is a better system than one

which this European court decides. There is a contradiction. If you

pulled out of the European court, you would still have cases where

people who should stay for life could be released. Our Lord Chief

Justice upholds what Parliament passes. We only have two have regard

to Strasbourg. Our Parliament doesn't even have two have regard.

What about the compromise? We shouldn't be dancing around to do

what the European Court says. Ministers may be trying to obey

international law because the Prime Minister has issued a ministerial

code. Under our system, you should only have two obey the law as

determined by Parliament. How dangerous would it be if Britain

pulled out of the European Court and convention? A disaster, we are a

founding member. I like the phrase, our judges are better than anyone

else. I am a member of the all party Parliamentary assembly of the

Council of Europe. The one important vote I have is I get to vote for who

these judges are from all other 46 countries. All the more reason for

not following this decision. And I pay great attention... I was there

when David Cameron addressed the Parliamentary assembly last year. If

he had used phrases like, our judges are better... I said they were

better than judges who had not been judges in their own country or had

no legal experience. Let us leave it there.

The general election of 2015 promises to be fascinating. And,

less than 18 months out, there's still no clear indication of how any

of the main parties will fare. It will be particularly crucial for the

Lib Dems. Not only will they be going to the voters on the back of

five years in coalition with the Conservatives, a significant number

of their big beasts, people like Menzies Campbell, will be standing

down. That in itself could have an effect on their chances of holding

onto seats, as familiar faces are replaced with relative unknowns. So,

five years on from Clegg-mania, just what might it mean for the party?

Here's David. A changing of the guard, as familiar

faces give way. They have seen hard times and glory days, what will

their departure mean for the future of the party? The Lib reckon they

have a secret weapon in a general election campaign, it is called

incumbency. Once they get in, it is tough to get them out. They become

familiar faces. With more than 10% of their MPs standing down and

having been in coalition, will it still work in 2015? Big names

standing down will have an impact on the Lib Dems. Essentially, they are

based on the local relevancy of their MPs. Looking at inheriting

seats, with the national polls showing them on just 8%, having been

in government, they are going to struggle to hold onto seats,

particularly Liberal Democrat- Labour seat where Labour can play

that anti-government card. If that holds true, they could lose more

than 30 seats. There are concerns about the big names who have been

the face of unpopular policies. Being an AA Minister does have its

benefits. Someone like Danny Alexander is aware of the

difficulties that come from being the man in charge of the public

purse strings. He is making sure there are sweeteners going the way

of his constituents. He is being careful to play that game well. Even

those standing down think the Lib Dems have brought benefits in their

time at office. We all know government is a process

of compromise particularly in a coalition. At the same time, you do

get things done which you have been trying to do for many years. You are

able to keep those promises to your electorate. Let me tell you, if you

have the choice, then being in government enables you to deliver in

a way you will never do in opposition. You can talk a lot, but

you can't get things done. Could the Lib Dems's best hope be pride in

their time in office? I don't think you can wash your

hands of the coalition, but playing for the next three months they will

be authentic. 2015 will be new territory for

everyone but it could be toughest for the Lib Dems. They hope will be

locally and nationally some of the achievements of their past will

still be standing the day after they next go to the polls.

Charles Kennedy, what you think of your electoral chances?

Very tough. Excuse me, I am croaking a bit. Have some water. They were

bound to be tough from the moment the coalition decision was taken.

That would have been the case whatever way that had gone. Had

there been a coalition or arrangement with labour. You'd

probably have had a shot at Polmont but it would have been tough. I

didn't support it at the time, I would have stayed in opposition.

Most of my Parliamentary colleagues took the view understandably they

didn't want that but wanted the long haul. I was never any doubt the

press underestimate the resilience of this party. They don't understand

this party. But, despite all the ups and downs, there have been plenty,

once the ink was dry, this deal would see its way through.

But you lost seats after the Cleggmania and there was talk of the

Lib Dems being wiped out. Can they hold the same number of seats they

have now? I think we can do that because if you look at the pattern

of results, sure, we have had very bad set acts, but in areas where we

have Parliamentary representation, we have been bucking that trend. In

the main, that is. So we can certainly do that but there is a

big, big communication job for us to do in the next 18 months in

particular. We have two, possibly three big opportunities to do this.

The Scottish referendum campaign in the autumn, between now and

September, for once we are on the side of something which the polls

suggest has majority support and we very much have to be in the vanguard

of that. Secondly, on the European elections, which will be very tough

indeed, with UKIP... You could do very badly there as well? Well, when

I was leader, I remember one weekend we came fourth in the European

elections, which was a disaster. We came second on the same day of

polling in the English local elections and beat Labour and we won

one if not two sensational Parliamentary by-elections, so we

can survive bad results but the challenge is, to be pro-, and

unambiguously pro-European, because that is our niche market. What about

the brand? Because the editor of the magazine says it is a toxic brand,

partly because of tuition fees but other things as well. He uses the

evidence that you have not been able to, as the party, select all your

candidates, and by now normally that would have happened. This is for the

next election. Groves of people have gone to Labour since 2010 and that,

in the end, will inhibit you having anything like a strong performance

as you did in 2010. -- droves of people. Well, if you remember, we

were due to be in the process of a very controversial people with the

new Parliamentary boundaries, which got scrapped last year because of

all sorts of internal Parliamentary vaccinations. On the brand issue,

yes, we took some very big knocks. Tuition fees, in my view, was the

biggest, and Nick Clegg has apologised for it. However, I was

interested looking at some of Lord Ashcroft's most recent polling,

where it showed, and this is where we can work and we have potential to

work with the grain here, is that we are still trusted on things like, if

you ask the question, is the heart in the right place? Largest single

group of respondents say yes. But the polling figures are terrible.

Yes. We have to translate those value judgements about us into

practical support but we have campaign opportunities to do it.

Just to confirm, you are standing, are you? I have been reselected! The

electorate willing, my hat will be in the ring next time and eye will

be back! Thank you for clarifying that. -- I.

Ed Miliband's described them as spreading like an epidemic, and

tomorrow Labour will use an opposition day debate to discuss the

regulation of fixed-odds betting terminals. Currently, bookmakers are

allowed up to four of these machines per branch on which punters can bet

up to ?300 a minute. But Labour argues this is causing more and more

bookmakers to open on the high streets. They want councils to be

given powers to limit the number of bookmakers allowed to open in an

area and regulate how many machines are allowed on the premises.The

Government is waiting for a study into the machines' effects before

deciding on the matter. Joining me from Birmingham is the Labour MP Tom

Watson, who's campaigned on the issue.

Tom, why not wait for that study to deliver what the impact has been of

these machines? Well, Jo, the problem with the study is, it is

like waiting for the polar ice caps to melt! We have been waiting years

for this. And the Government, in their tri- annual review of stakes,

has decided the simple way to deal with these machines to reduce the

stakes from ?200 down to ?100, that is not the way to do it. Give local

authorities the power to rule that if there is anti-social behaviour

problems, give them the powers to ban them. That is the debate

tomorrow. What impact do you think, anecdotally, if the study is still

looking at it, and I am told by Charles Kennedy that the review

should be concluded early 2014, so you should be expecting it fairly

soon, but what sort of impact is it having on communities? It is great

to have Charlie Kennedy back, by the way! He talks so much sense. And

what the resolution tomorrow is about is he is probably inspired a

bit by the Lib Dems, whose own conference past policy in this area

in September, so the Lib Dems have made their mind up on it and I'm

hoping we can unite around the issue of a resolution tomorrow, though I

have not seen it yet. I'm hoping my front bench will be clever in the

way they word it so it gives the Lib Dems an opportunity to express their

support. The real argument is, there is an emerging body of evidence and

it doesn't need a gambling charity report to see that these machines

are being used for money-laundering, that there is an increasing amount

of violence within bookmakers and nearly 180 callouts to the police

every week from bookmakers, predominantly from gamblers smashing

them up who have lost too much money. And there is also a body of

evidence that says these machines are creating gambling addicts and

that is something Parliament should act on. And we never should have

licensed these machines in the way we did in 2005 and we should put the

matter right as quickly as possible. So that was when Labour

was in power, then? Yes. I'd feel duty bound to continue with this

campaign because I was on the bill that allowed the licensing of these

machines to go through. And it is time all MPs -- at the time all MPs

let these machines go through sort of on the nod. We basically drop the

ball on this one and didn't understand the impact this

technology would have on the high street. Now is the time to put it

right. Thank you. Charles Kennedy, you woman should there. Are the

Liberal Democrats going to support this? Tom is so kind and it seems

dishonourable to not go along with him! He is right, the 2005 act is

what gave life to this problem. But we do have the review. Don Foster,

the Lib Dem government minister, and onto recently he became our Chief

Whip and the deputy Chief Whip, he set up the review and a flow was

pointing out, it is reporting early this calendar year. -- and as I was

pointing out. I hope the review will endorse it and it seems this is

slightly putting the cart before the horse. It is procedural rather than

any other sort of disagreement. Thank you.

Now, would you like to get married in a neo-Gothic palace on the banks

of the River Thames? As long as you don't mind the odd MP photo-bombing

the wedding pictures, that is. Or perhaps you're a business wanting to

hire out a function room in the heart of Westminster to really

impress your clients? Well, it's all now possible thanks to the House of

Commons authorities, who have begun renting out a number of the historic

rooms in Parliament for the first time.

But what exactly is on offer? Well, members of the public can hire the

Pugin Room, which seats 30 people for just ?900 an evening.

Or for a bigger gathering, you could opt for the vast Portcullis House

glass atrium, which can be rented for ?9,000 on a Saturday and can

hold up to 450 people. And what food's on offer? Well, a

Westminster cream tea will set customers back ?24 a head, or for

the more extravagant, there's House of Commons champagne available at

?40 a bottle. The idea behind all of this is for

the Commons to generate more revenue to pay for repairs and upkeep of the

buildings, but some argue it's just commercialising a public institution

to the highest bidder. I'm joined now by the Labour MP Paul

Flynn, who's in favour of the hiring-out of Parliament, and by the

Conservative MP Robert Halfon, who opposed the commercialisation of

Parliament when it was proposed in 2012. What is wrong with it, Robert?

Welcome. Well, they wanted to originally charge for going up Ben

and I'd put a stop to that because the first issue is about respect and

equality and we should have respect for Parliament. It is at the base of

our democracy and it should be equal to all citizens, not just if they

are rich enough to hire it out. And also, there are savings that can be

made elsewhere as well. Thirdly, I think we are in danger of making

Parliament a theme park. We are opening a Pandora's box. Why not

have roller-coaster 's and other things? This is central to our

country and I have a rented view about Parliament. We are the

greatest Parliament in one of the greatest countries in the world and

we should treat it as such. Robert, what do you say to that? It is

deserted. Members are not there on Tuesday evenings or Wednesday

evenings, nothing happening at the weekend. We have this huge asset and

we should be doing it in a democratic way. Prices should be at

a level where everybody can have a go and there has to be some kind of

lottery to have a go. It should be used by everyone. It is a marvellous

place to have a wedding, for instance. And everyone should have

at least a chance, then paying costs which would be similar to a

first-class hotel. In terms of the practical level, the building is

crumbling in parts, as I am told. If it is not being used to its full

capacity and you want to retain and maintain it, then isn't that a

sensible way just to make some money and allow people to use it

recreationally? But the reality of this if there will be some people

who use it for having a cream tea and weddings, and good luck to them.

But the majority who can afford to hire it will be corporate and it

should be for the people. It should not be for big business by big

business. MPs have been dodging this and they are underused in

Parliament. People use it to the greatest extent for big business and

lobbyists and it should be open to the public and everyone should have

the chance to use it. It is a wonderful building. It should be

open to the public and it should be free to walk around. They are even

talking about charging... But if they want to have their wedding...

The public already pay taxes for Parliament should be able to walk

around it. This is not a museum or hotel. It is the place of our

democracy. On the sort of romantic notion it should be for the people

and of the people, what do you think? I am genuinely sitting on the

fence listening to the argument. Hate to be a traditional Liberal

Democrat! When I assumed the capitalist Conservative would be all

in favour of opening up the place to maximise the profit and then my good

socialist friend here from the Council of Europe would be against

it. I think I'd tend towards the more romantic view, have to say,

because Paul's argument is interesting but the same argument

should apply to Buckingham Palace as well, shouldn't it? Indeed. There

was the suggestion that the royal palaces, there are eight of them,

and one of them has 600 rooms, that they should be open to the public.

Very quickly, the answer to our quiz, the man who received the MBE

in the New Year's honours list, what service does he provide for the

prime minister? He is Sweeney Todd! A close shave! Not quite Sweeney

Todd! But he is the hairdresser. Many thanks to all of you,

particularly you, Charles Kennedy. The one o'clock News is starting on

BBC One now. Goodbye.