Jo Coburn and guest of the day Digby Jones discuss the latest political news including David Cameron's renegotiation letter, and the Trade Union Bill with the RMT's Mick Cash.
Browse content similar to 10/11/2015. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.
David Cameron sets out his EU renegotiation demands.
He says achieving them is not "mission impossible" and that he'll
campaign to stay in a reformed EU with all his heart and soul.
The Government's Trade Union Bill - which tightens up strike rules -
The leader of the RMT union joins us live.
The start of Sunday trading in the '90s.
George Osborne wants to see more of it, but his plans for further
relaxation could be in jeopardy, as the SNP decides it will join
Tory rebels to vote against the plan.
And as Finland adopts official national emojis -
including people in a sauna - to promote the country
on social media, should the UK do the same?
And if so, what images should we use?
All that in the next hour and with us for the whole
of the programme today Gordon Brown's former trade minister -
and a former head of the CBI - Digby Jones.
First, let's just take a look at another story around this morning,
that the head of the NHS in England, Simon Stevens, has apparently
warned George Osborne that he's in danger of breaking his pledge
According to the Times, Mr Stevens has told the Chancellor he needs to
stump up more cash for the NHS to make up for cuts to social care
Should George Osborne find that money? In the short term there will
be bankruptcy in the next two years. No politician in any party can
afford to have that on their watch. Should he telescope it forward so
over the parliament it is the same spend, but he brings it in now, I do
not think he will have a choice. The problem is it is hypocrisy from
everybody who always talk about how a bit more money will fix this and
the moment anybody talks about reform, anybody left of centre says
you want to privatise it. Whoever said that? All they say is it cannot
go on like this. There was a little girl born this morning at Saint
Thomas's over the river and she has got one in three chance being alive
in 100 years from today. If it is a boy it is one in four. You cannot
have a system that was created in a different world that the different
demographic, with different health care and different issues, and saved
through political ideology it will be OK if you give it more money. It
will not. You agree that we have to look at a different way of doing it
and it cannot be a purely taxpayer funded service? On Question Time,
people say tax the bankers, you could do that, but it will not be
sorted. It is an enormous shift in what is expected for how many people
in a competitive. Environment It cannot go on like this. Should he
fix it urgently now to get him over a hump? He has not got a choice, but
it does not fix the issue. One issue is about how we fund the NHS in the
long term and there are cuts to other departmental spending on
social care and public health campaigns to cut down on anything
from obesity and healthy eating which make the NHS's job more
difficult. It is a mix. If you are going to fix it, you have to fund it
differently. Secondly, prevention is better than cure. Get people
thinking more on health care, get a lot of public education out there.
The problem for the public sector and number 11 looking at the issue,
if you keep saying I will ring fence this and that and the cost of that
goes up, and you ring fenced it, everything else has to, by
definition, because you have only got a port of 100%... Hence the
After Xi Jinping's state visit to the UK last month, sales of what
At the end of the show Digby will give us the correct answer.
Oakbank you. You are welcome, we aim to please.
So the letter outlining the Prime Minister's demands
for reform of the European Union has arrived in Brussels.
David Cameron wants the plans discussed at a big summit in
December, but whether he's able to reach an agreement before holding
Mr Cameron will say the mission is big, but not impossible,
First up, he wants to boost Europe's economic competitiveness,
open up the single market and secure international trade deals.
Next up, the PM wants to exempt the UK from the concept
of ever closer union, have no more powers transferred to Brussels and
give national parliaments a bigger say.
Then David Cameron wants those countries like the UK who
don't use the euro to be protected from eurozone countries acting as
Finally the big one, which many believe will be
impossible, restricting EU immigrants access to benefits,
For many European nations this is a step to far, however with
the government publishing figures showing 43% of EU migrants receive
benefits in the UK, it's a seen in London as a crucial issue.
Earlier this morning David Cameron gave a speech outlining his plans,
afterwards he was asked about the timescale of the negotiations.
I have, since the election, been patiently meeting with European
But as well as patient, as well as wanting to get on with it,
Europe has got a lot on its agenda at the moment, not least the Syrian
crisis and all the ramifications that has, but I hope we can make
I have done everything possible to try and make that happen.
We don't have to hold our referendum until the end of
2017, but I am keen to secure these changes to get on with it and I will
Just on referendum timing to put the press out of their agony, I can
The first you will hear about the timing of the referendum is after I
Anything you write before then, you can write what you like, it might be
true, it might not be true, but the only time you will know is when
Let's talk now to our political correspondent Eleanor
Many critics of the Prime Minister, and Eurosceptics within the
Conservative Party, will say this is a figleaf from David Cameron
disguising the fact he cannot really negotiate anything substantial. Yes,
some are saying it will be easy for David Cameron to achieve all these
demands because they say it is a trivia list of demands that will be
easy to achieve. Some, whatever David Cameron once, for some it will
never be enough. There are some Eurosceptics he will never be able
to please. The criticisms are that in David Cameron's demands there is
no emergency brake, no cap on the number of EU migrants that can come
here, no opt out on specific policies the UK could opt out. Some
are saying it will be very easy for David Cameron. He himself is saying
it is a big, but not impossible task. He is going to approach the EU
referendum is the biggest question we will ever face at the ballot box
in our lifetimes. He is going to face it practically, not
emotionally, and he will be using his head and not his heart. After
the emotion of some of this or not, what about restricting EU migrants
access to in work benefits here in the UK. Is that the critical one for
most people? That is absolutely the critical one, but it is also the
great unknown. Will those demands to restrict migrant benefits make a
difference? David Cameron is making this the central plank of his
re-negotiation argument. The stakes are high on this and he is putting a
lot of eggs in this basket. Some are saying it will not make a
difference, it is not good enough and others are saying it is
important and it will be difficult for him to sell across the European
Union to those leaders from countries like Poland. They say it
discriminates against their own citizens. You could have a Polish
worker and a UK worker doing the same job in Britain side-by-side but
being paid a different amount because one would be able to get in
work benefits and the other would not be able to. David Cameron has
used a figure today and he says around 40% of EU migrants get
benefits and two thirds of them are getting in work benefits.
Interestingly, that figure has come from Downing Street and not the
Treasury and not the Department of Work and Pensions and it is a figure
we have been unable to clarify. We are trying to work out how they have
calculated it, but we have not had any luck. Experts are also
struggling. It is clear this will be the most politically divisive idea
and it will be the hardest to sell across the European Union. The
president of the European Parliament, Martin Schultz, has put
out a response saying he has strong doubts about the legality of a
four-year ban on access to benefits. He said he would wait to see what
specific ideas the British Government would come up with. The
stakes are high on this one and David Cameron is putting a lot of
We've been joined by the former Conservative MP Laura Sandys,
who chairs the European Movement,
and by Ukip's trade spokesman William Dartmouth.
Laura, even if the Prime Minister reaches agreement on all of these
issues, will anything have substantially changed with our
relationship with the EU? It will have, but it would not be just for
us. Some of these reforms are about changing other countries'
relationships with the EU as well. Some are specifically about the UK,
but others, on the democracy site and allowing greater power for
Parliament, will be for everybody in Europe. What will be so different
that I will be able to immediately tell, for example the protection of
the single market? Those things are not tangible in terms of a great
change in our relationship to the EU. They do not look fantastic on a
leaflet going through our door, the retail offer as such. But they are
important in shaping Europe so that it is a more inch in with our
political settlement and how we see the world going forward. We have got
Denmark and a huge amount of payment interests and the Dutch and the
polls and many of the Baltic states. Do you think it will be enough, if
not to satisfy you and your colleagues, but to satisfy more of
the British public? No, this negotiation is trivial. What he is
asking for does not amount to anything. This negotiation is a sure
ride which demeans the office of Prime Minister. I have to agree to
disagree with your colleague. Fiddling about with benefits is a
very little idea and it shows the paucity of the Prime Minister's
demands that he considers that fiddling about with the benefits can
be described as the little one. You are either in the political European
Union or not. A serious negotiation would ask for an end to borders and
repatriated. It was party policy before David Cameron became leader.
What do you say to that? For many of your conservative colleagues in
Parliament they will feel the same. There are people who whatever the
Prime Minister was either asking or getting would find it not enough. In
many ways this has been set up by those people who want out whatever.
It is not a problem. We are moving forward and every organisation
should be going through a reform programme. We should be demanding
the best in the institutions we sit at the top table with. We have got a
clear set of questions to ask the European Union and I hope we get
quite a lot of what we want. Listening to both you and Laura, who
is right? Is this shopping list meaningless? Or is it important in
the broader sense of changing the whole direction? It depends on the
Jewry that would judge the word trivial and reform. If this is a
party political exercise where you have the leader of the Conservative
Party trying to sort out his backbench, it is not trivial. How
does it look to you? The problem is I stand for business and we have got
the European Union that is marching forward by the day. You have got
India wanting your lunch and China wanting your dinner, you have got a
global competitive environment. You have got 520 million people living
in peace for the first time. You have got a democratic, capitalist
home for people who came out of the yoke of communism, a fabulous
achievement, and yet you have got economies inside the European Union
who think they can build a sustainable, competitive, global
economy by inputting BMWs and exporting a common farming policy.
If there was no reform whatsoever, I believe Europe is not fit for
purpose, for the United Kingdom and for medium and small business, but I
would vote to stay in a reformed Europe. A reformed Europe is not on
offer. Can I just ask, for business, we are
just about to finalise the digital single market. The service and
single market, totally to the UK. You guys always go polemic. You all
about either yes! No! Can't you understand, the average
businesswoman or businessmen in Britain actually looks at this
holistically and they look at this in competitive terms. There are some
great stuff going on. Can I just say that John Cridland, the head of the
CBI is all in and he thinks he represents the voice of business
people as well. You never bought a house by offering the vendors are
whole asking price on day one. The CBI have been engineered into that
is where they are. They need to take a deep breath, go back to their
roots and go back to when the democratically elected Prime
Minister of the country will come back to the people, he will tell you
what it is. Those who wish to leave the EU will often cite Norway as an
example to follow. But people do cite it. Maybe not you, but people
do. Do you accept that even from Norway's perspective, certainly at
an official level, the Foreign Minister wrote that Britain should
not choose his country as an example as they still have to accept freedom
of movement and accept directives from Brussels. This idea of being
outside the EU but still in the broader economic area, you would
still be subject to those restrictions. We do not put forward
the blueprint of either Norway or Switzerland or for that matter
Iceland. We are the fifth largest economy in the world and providing
we don't have politicians like David Cameron who sells the past before it
is begun, we would be able to negotiate a much better arrangement.
Can I answer your second question? The fact is, in the European Union,
we have 8.24% of the votes that the Council of ministers. If Turkey gets
what the Labour Party wants, it will be fewer. We have less than 10% of
MPs, we have one out of 28 commissioners. Also, in the councils
of the world, particularly in trade, our voice is muted as one out of 28.
The short answer to your question is, both Norway and Switzerland have
better arrangement than we did but we can do better than either of
them. What is extraordinary is the idea we are pushed around by the
dastardly foreigners when we are in the EU and the day we come out of
the EU, we are so strong, so powerful, have so much leveraged
that we will be able to get this phenomenal deal. One or the other.
First of all on day one we could reactivate our seat at the World
Trade Organisation. We no longer have to... One thing, on that, what
does make you think, and you're so convinced that Brussels would
negotiate for us such a great deal. Why would they, if we had pulled
out, which they don't want us to do. I would like to point out that the
three biggest exploits exporters to the UK do not have a trade deal. It
is not absolutely necessary. In practice, because we run a very
large deficit, it is about ?687 billion since we joined, trade deal
is not necessarily but it is absolutely inevitable because it is
in the economic interests of Brussels for there to be one. Let me
briefly move on to the issue of accessing in work benefits. You said
that as trivial. Is that important in your mind? Is in work benefits
could be limited to the four years? Reform should go further than this.
One of the companies I chair, we cannot get enough engineers. We have
job offers out to Indian university graduates, who cannot get a visa,
because the government wants to cut down on immigration. And yet we have
people from Eastern Europe who are sitting at our factory gates saying
give us a job. As they write. Yes, but the point is, if we are looking
at this as global competitiveness for the European Union, we should be
saying to those people who have no skill in Europe, I'm not going to
give you money to subsidise you for growing crops,
give you money to subsidise you for money to skill you up and then you
are fro welcome to come money to skill you up and then you
At the moment, you are not fit money to skill you up and then you
purpose. Is it achievable? It is not achievable under the
purpose. Is it achievable? It is not principal of European Union. It is a
cornerstone. It would be principal of European Union. It is a
discriminatory. Is David Cameron to get four years or
would he have to impose the same restrictions on British citizens? I
think those negotiations will restrictions on British citizens? I
to be had. The polls do not want a lot of those very talented skilled
people to come to the UK. We have to be clear about the migration issue
and that is Brexit will not be clear about the migration issue
barriers up. ... All you do is put a condition of immigration on skill
rather than nationality. Lord condition of immigration on skill
Jones made an important point condition of immigration on skill
is this, because we have opened doors to 450 million people
is this, because we have opened member states of the European Union,
it means the whole weight of immigration control. People from
outside the EU. For immigration control. People from
engineering graduates can either not get here or get hit with great
difficulty and that is a key point. In fact, that is why our slogan is
out of the EU and into In fact, that is why our slogan is
will have to end it there. Thank you.
Before Parliament takes a few day off for recess, MPs have a last
chance to debate the contentious Trade Union Bill today, as the
government legislation goes through report stage and third reading.
The Business Secretary Sajid Javid has said the Bill is necessary
to stop "endless" threats of industrial action.
But trade unions, civil liberties groups and even some council leaders
are against the measures - which include imposing a minimum
50% turnout in strike ballots and allowing employers to use agency
Labour is staunchly opposed - as Jeremy Corbyn made clear
when he addressed the TUC conference in September.
They are declaring war on organised Labour in this country ever since
they won the general election, albeit with 24% of the electorate.
We have to oppose it and recognise what they are doing. The burdens
they are placing, as one Tory MP admitted, are actually the strategy
which was used by General Franco in Spain on his control of the trade
unions in Spain. Trade unions are an essential and valuable part of
modern Britain. 6 million people voluntarily join trade unions and I
am proud to be a trade unionist. That is why we will fight this bill
all the way. We've been joined by Mick Cash,
the general secretary of and by the Conservative MP
Nadhim Zahawi. Aside from a few concessions, it
looks like these proposals are going through. You have lost the battle?
Not really. Yesterday we saw an announcement from George Osborne to
cut 30% from government spending and what we are trying to do is take
trade unions out. We are not going to stop here. We will continue
fighting. How will that fight manifested itself? I wouldn't rule
nothing out or rule nothing in. We are all working people, seeking to
defend jobs, security, safety and pensions and will become
increasingly angry at what the government is trying to do to
restrict their fundamental right to strike. Even David Davis your
colleague has called this bill over the top. He compared it to something
from General Franco's regime, oppressive? I don't agree with that.
Over the last ten Tube strikes, half of those would not have met the
threshold. Let me give you a quick example. This will hurt part-time
workers, shift workers, people on lower pay who would lose hold a's
work if Nick and his union, they have every right, but what we are
saying is, let's make this fair. If you reach the threshold, if you can
convince enough of your members to vote for strikes, not 11% or 10% at
times, where you actually disrupt the workforce, that is unfair. I
think this is about fairness and getting the trade unionists to work
really well and fairly, not calling strikes randomly and hurting those
on low pay, hurting those in most need who will lose a whole day 's
work because they work shifts or work night. You are not the only
workers involved in this debate. There are people who cannot get to
work because of strike action. But I will not take a lecture from a
millionaire. Answer the point about fairness? Take the latest situation
around London Underground and the tube strike. Boris Johnson announced
the night Tube in November 2013. In March 2015 he decided to come and
talk to us as a trade union and save from September 20 15th we are going
to introduce night to be. He didn't give us any time to talk about what
the real implications were. Your mate Boris had to turn round and
withdraw the deadline because he got it wrong, completely and utterly
wrong. He is now actually saying we don't need it in immediately. He
forced our members to have to go to industrial action to try and get a
decent set of worklife balance is sorted out where we didn't have to
do that. So don't lecture me when you have got the Mayor of London...
You have every right to withdraw labour. All we are saying is it has
to be fair and that has to be a threshold. In areas where it really
does matter. That Goldsmith has asked for it to be upgraded. It
really should work. You are hurting the whole of London. We turn round
and your threshold, we turn round and get 50% which we did with
Network Rail dispute this year, ... At this moment in time we have
reached the threshold. Why then in those circumstances have got a
mandate of over 50% of workers voting for industrial action? IE
then turning around and saying we will get agency workers? That is a
different point. We have a situation where we have a mandate, you have a
mandate, you have been elected by people... And they have got a
mandate. But then to turn round and say we should ignore that
mandate... The average person watching this will think you should
go into politics because you don't question. You immediately move to
the fact that you think this is wrong, they think this is right.
What you didn't answer was a question that the average person
watching this would want to know, which is, if you got over the 50%, I
think most people here would say, have your strike and have the row.
What really annoys people is when a very small minority of people, use
-- you cause staggering disruption. That is the person you annoy, the
average Joe out there who cannot get to work and finds it unfair. What
Joe asked is answer the charge that is not fair. You said I am not going
to take lectures from millionaires. Who said that you should? Let me put
one of the points to Nadhim Zahawi, on the 50%, that is one issue. You
put that in the manifesto and to one extent you have a mandate for that,
but why all the other parts of the bill which Mick was referring to.
Why bring in agency staff, why have rules that they have to tweak their
details of strike action weeks in advance. That then tipped it over
the fairness barrier? You have got to allow business and the
infrastructure of our country to be able to manage, if they can, through
agency staff then they should be able to do that. All of that. It is
in depicting code. Well putting it in legislation so we actually make
it rock-solid to the point that Digby is making, so the average
viewer sees this as being fair. It is all in the picketing code. Mr
McCluskey is prepared to agree plans for a double threshold strike
providing the government allows online voting. Would you agree to
that compromise? At the end of the day we have to look at the whole
package. That has been a sticking point when I have interviewed other
colleagues. Online voting is the key. That deals with one issue but
it does not deal with the other stuff you mentioned which is all
about trying to stop and new trusts and stop of having the right to take
industrial action. With all due respect...
Which bit is stopping you? If you get the 50% turnout, you can go
ahead with your strike. What is written into the bill is the legal
wording. What you can put on the ballot paper, what notice you have
to give. That is all in the picketing code. You know this. It
has allowed lawyers to turn round and in Judd the trade unions once
you have got a mandate. If you turn around and say we just won the 50%
stuff, that would be a different debate. You are putting other stuff
in. Is there room for compromise. ? If there was compromise on some of
the issues may be in the picketing code, then you would get the trade
union on board. Would you go to online voting? This is not like
Internet banking. If you make a mistake on Internet banking, your
bank can make recompense. If your boat goes, it is gone. We have to
make sure it is robust. I think we have got the right legislation. Once
we get it through we will find goods trade unions, and you have every
right to represent your members and people have every right to withdraw
labour, it will be a fair system for our country. We all want to do
better. I want to do better for those people who are working shifts,
who are taking low pay. Those people hurt the most when people go on
strike because they lose a whole day's wage packet. That is what this
is about. I will have to finish it you.
Might be worth checking, because the rules have changed.
Now people must register to vote individually rather than being
listed on a form filled in by one member of their household.
Anyone not on this new list by December the 1st could find they
Ministers say it's all about accuracy,
Labour say it's about something far more sinister.
You would think there was an election.
Actually, this Birmingham MP is knocking on doors worried
his voters might not have made it onto the electoral register.
In fact, nationally they say up to a million people could lose
their right to vote because they don't know the rules are changing.
If it carries on as it is going, we are going to find lots
of people lose out and it will be one of these great
post election scandals when we see what happens to the missing voters.
In England Birmingham has the highest number of names that
used to be on the electoral roll who are not on it now.
Nearly 57,000, more than 7% of the city's voting population.
It is more than 67,000 in Glasgow and just under 44,000
But the Government insists the new system will provide a more accurate
in particular are closely reflecting on what is going on.
That is because at the next general election the number
They will be using the new electoral roll to decide how
Here in Birmingham the constituency lines will look very different.
If the numbers of voters in a particular constituency are deemed
artificially reduced, because people have wrongly been removed from the
register, then that will affect the calculations for boundary changes
and those will work in favour of the Conservative Party.
That is not about improving or extending democracy,
that is about rigging an election system to favour one party.
The government says it will have given local authorities
an extra ?3 million to help with registration and every household
will have been contacted nine times by the local council.
Ten if you include Labour who do not want to leave anything to chance.
And we've been joined by the minister for constitutional reform
John Penrose, and by Labour's Gloria de Piero,
who is the shadow minister for voter registration.
John, let's look at the figures. As of May when the figures were last
collated there were 1,000,858 322 missing voters, voters who had yet
to put themselves through the individual register. What grounds
have you made since May to close that figure down? We have not got
official figures, but we are getting returns in and I cannot give you a
final number yet. Is it half? I cannot give you a fair answer, but
after all that effort which you just mentioned of contacting people nine
times, we will have worked out who has moved house or died, or who is a
genuine voter and they will be registered and they will be able to
vote in May. If they are not, we can reregister them online in three
minutes. It would be a huge failure if anything two that number remained
not on the register. It would be a huge failure if people were not on
the register. We have to find people who are not registered at all, it is
not a question of crossing them off, there are groups out there who need
to be persuaded to vote and to get on the register, otherwise our
democracy is not complete. They are making a huge effort. The
independent body set up by Parliament, and what is the point of
setting them up if you ignore at their advice, do not limit it and do
not bring forward the transition to individual registration until
December. They have said you would risk losing electors and those are
the figures you have seen. I have no doubt that those numbers have fallen
now. I was doing a quick search on Google and in Camden there are only
ten days left for inclusion and there are 8000 missing. My own
constituency is about 650. But it is people in private, rented housing
and people who moved on a lot, often people who Abu Ghraib because they
can get mortgages because they are at risk. Why did you bring it
forward because you did not have to and you were advised not to? You
already mentioned the Association of Electoral Administrators, they
thought it was a good idea. There are important elections coming up
next year, the London Mayor, the Scottish parliament, local elections
in England and the Welsh assembly. We need to have an accurate register
for those elections as much as anything else. After you have
contacted people for nine times... How many times can you contact
people? I moved house in London where I am in the private, rented
sector. I started paying my council tax in July. There was a reasonable
time to data match me and nobody contacted me, I never saw a letter,
I called them a couple of weeks ago to check what was going on. I am a
living, breathing example, I am alive and kicking. We can testify to
that. No one contacted me. But you are not on the register at the
moment. You are a different kind of problem and we need to find people
like you who are not on in the first place. If you are not on it, I
cannot cross you off? What about the issue of ghost voters. A lot of
these people are bogus, so there will be appearing up of the
register. If you had given it extra year, you would have given it the
time to knock off the bogus ones, reregister the ones who were likely
to fall off. It is common sense. We do not want to lose people who want
to vote. We have had 18 months and we have had a long time. I think you
are confusing people who are on the register who might be wrongly
crossed off. You cannot cross them off because they are not on there in
the first place. I have spoken to Labour MPs and I have even gone as
far as saying gerrymandering. If Labour voters do not sign up, it is
good news for the Tories. It is bad news for any Democrat if the genuine
elector does not sign up. But the by-product would be a benefit
because many of these are in Labour constituencies. Kensington and
Chelsea is not exactly a left constituency and it is one of the
places with the top number missing. I know it is an fashionable to say
that the Lords have a say in this. I listen to the debate in the Lords
and they do know what they are talking about. They are from all the
different parties. Some of the speeches from the Liberals and
Labour were extremely good on this. I am crossbench, so I do not have
any political act in this, but the bit I could not understand was the
time issue. I cannot see why it has become party political. We want 100%
inclusivity. We want to stop people voting early and often. We want to
stop fraud and we want to make it as representative as possible. That has
to be in the interest of all Democrats. I cannot see why we have
now got this polemic situation where some people are saying the Tories
are doing this, it is disgusting. Others are saying you are not doing
this because you are a labour. Why can't we say, come together, we will
give you more time, and we will do this together. If you did that, and
you put some money into root it out to make sure those who were cheating
and pretending to be others go to prison, and the people who are lost
in this, I cannot imagine anybody would be lost in the system if they
were an MP, but there you are, I would like to think this is in the
interest of everybody. You would need more time, but in return you
ought to join together. Is this about the boundary review? This is
what Labour will be saying, that the outcome of the individual boat
registration drive determines the boundary review. To the extent we
want the boundary review to be based on accurate voter rolls, but it is
also about the elections next May. If we do not get this right... You
need to have a clean that list for those May elections which are
important for Jeremy Corbyn. So, give them extra time. We will lose
voters. There were 7000 in Camden. It is just not good enough. You
could register students in halls of residence, another problem. We have
pushed out quite a lot of money to help everybody do the checks.
Everyone could take a box in the halls of residence. We have run out
Now, should shops be allowed to stay open for longer on Sundays?
The Government thinks so, but about 20 Conservative MPs
are unhappy with the idea of any relaxing of Sunday trading hours.
The proposed changes would only affect England and Wales,
but the SNP, who are concerned about what that could mean for the wages
of UK company staff in Scotland, have now said that they would vote
And that's potentially a problem for David Cameron
Here he is answering a question to Labour's Susan Elan Jones back in
Let me just give the honourable lady and the House
two examples of where I don't think the current situation works.
You have got these restrictions on opening hours for many stores,
somebody is shouting what about families, many stores that families
would like to shop in and you have to go to these stores and you have
to walk around for hours before you are actually allowed to
The second point I would make is that you can shop on Sunday.
You can shop anywhere on Sunday, you can do it on the Internet and I
think it is time to modernise our approach,
to give families more choice and to help create jobs at the same time.
And we're joined now by Conservative MP Philip Davies,
And we did ask the SNP for an interview, but they weren't
And by Hannah Bartel from the SNP. You are now opposing plans to relax
Sunday trading hours. Do you sense and government scalp? What we send
is an issue that shows shop workers need to be protected and we are a
large group in the Westminster parliament and we were elected by
the Scottish people and we have been approached by people who have got
concerns about a creep on Sunday trading and it becoming
standardised. Shop workers will not be able to have protection for their
Sunday pay premium. This is only in England and Wales, what has it got
to do with Scotland and the SNP? If large retailers start operating as
normal on across Britain, it will become another day of work and there
will not be any protections. I do not see how it is, because they are
people. That is an excuse. My MP in the Midlands of England, would you
take exception to him coming up to Edinburgh and telling you what to do
with your shops. Answer the question. I take exception
with your shops. Answer the Answer the question. Hundreds of
thousands of people Answer the question. Hundreds of
tax credit cuts. What do you object to? Meet in Scotland telling you
what to do? to? Meet in Scotland telling you
the government and there is not a justifiable reason for the SNP
making mischief as the I have been very clear, as has the
SNP. We want to protect shop workers. The irony is, if the plans
had come in earlier, we would not have got to vote on this. This does
affect people in Scotland. have got to vote on this. This does
English votes for English laws which have got to vote on this. This does
has only just come into play. What say you, Philip Davies?
has only just come into play. What shameless. Basically, the SNP have
come with a game plan to Westminster which is to prove to the voters in
Scotland, that they are a more effective opposition to the
government and labour. That is their simple game plan. To be fair, they
have done a pretty good job of it so far. I'm just pointing out that is
absolutely shameless behaviour. They have looked at this and thought, we
will end up in a situation where Labour will favour had a chance to
defeat the government and they blew it. We have full deregulation of
Sunday trading hours in Scotland, absolutely full deregulation of
Sunday trading hours. In England and Wales, all we are asking for is to
give our local authorities the opportunity to vary them if they so
wish. The SNP with full deregulation are coming along claiming to be the
supporters of workers when workers in Scotland can work or through
Sunday without any restrictions. That is true. There is a different
system in Scotland and shop workers or big supermarkets and shops can
choose what they want to do. That retailers work across the UK. If we
move to a situation where we have Sunday trading and Sunday is just
another day and there is no protection for those workers... But
what is there in place now for that? We have paid protection for people
who work on a Sunday and a standardised system across the UK
with no protection and no legislation, if the Tories want to
bring forward paid protection, we willing to discuss that. It is not
just Hannah Bardell and those on the SNP dentures, there are those in
your own party who are not happy with this so you cannot lay the
blame with the SNP? There is a distinction between people having
objections and people acting shamelessly. They are shameless. You
are not arguing from a shop opening point of view. The 20 who are
betting against it have a legitimate objection to it. By the way, I'm not
need of your sides but I look at it and think you are doing this from
party politics. The 20 backbenchers who will rebel doing from principle.
The Conservatives have a consultation out at the moment which
makes a mockery of the system. We started sticking our noses into
every single thing which which you have full devolution rights over,
you would be in uproar over it. This was the Tories idea, English votes
for English laws, do you think it is working well? The system is flawed.
All it provides is an English veto for English laws. It does not stop
anyone else from voting on them. It stops people imposing things which
England doesn't like. This has illustrated the deficiency in the
English votes for English laws system because it does not deliver
what it does on the tin. This was not in the manifesto, the relaxation
of Sunday trading hours? I don't know. I am interested in what is
right and what is wrong. So you can understand why they met be against
it. The polling shows no demand. The bosses big stores and the
Association of convenience stores are opposed. Why you pushing this?
Look at Tesco. We have the Serbs situation that the Tesco express can
open any hours it likes because it is a small shop and the big Tesco
can only open for six hours. The workers being treated differently is
one thing but Tesco's don't mind because they charge customers more
in a Tesco express than they do in a big Tesco. Hannah who says she is
supporting working people and people on tight budgets, she's actually
making sure that those people have to pay more for their shopping they
otherwise have to if they could go to a bigger shop which charges a
lower price. It is about a package of measures which work. Many of
these people will be affected by the tax credits cuts. To then put in
place legislation which potentially means it will affect their Sunday
premium, and by the way, when USDAW did their survey 70% said they would
not work. But shops could stay open and compete, that is the reality.
The one thing the Prime Minister did say in that clip and he mentioned
the Internet, this argument belongs to the 19th century, because
actually, when you think about the Internet provides 24/7 access to
shopping, someone somewhere has to get globally competitive as --
competitive. There are people who think Sunday is a day of rest. There
is higher churchgoing in Italy, Ireland, all of these countries
which have deregulated Sunday trading. There is a discussion to be
had and the Conservatives are showing this through. It is ill
thought through. Have you had talks with the 20 Tory rebels? Not
specifically with myself. We are just aware that they are unhappy.
You will not join forces? Nope, we have made our position clear.
Now, What's the best way for a country to represent itself?
Many take great pride in their national anthem and flags.
We had our memorable display of hospital beds to represent
And now the Finnish government claims to be the first country in
the world to commission emojis to help with their national branding.
For those of you who haven't stepped into the brave new world,
emojis are images often used in text and online communication.
So let's take a look at how the Finns have chosen to
The first image isn't, before any of you suggest it, me and Andrew
According to wikipedia the sauna is a substantial part
of Finnish culture with over three million of them for Finland's five
Moving on, this is the headbanger, which pays tribute
Apparently, it is dark in Finland and so is the music.
There's a small headbanger living inside of each Finn.
And finally, there's the good old Nokia phone
Before the days of iphones and Galaxys it was the market leader.
To tell us why Finland's decided to do this I'm joined by
Pauliina Stahlberg, the Director of the Finnish Institute in London, and
on the internet though I'm afraid without any emojis, by Professor Vyv
Evans who's a Professor of Linguistics at Bangor University.
Welcome to both of you. What has prompted Finland to do this? Finland
loves Christmas. Santa Claus is from Finland. We love our Advent
calendar. Our emojis will be our Advent calendar this year. There
will be 24 of them being released on the 1st of December. To any of our
viewers who do not know, can you explain the origins of emojis?
Emojis started in Japan. They were released in 1999, 176 of them.
Initially, they were localised to the Japanese Internet mobile sector.
And then, in 2011, they became widely available globally, when
Apple first incorporated them as standard in the digital keypad in
mobile computing devices so smartphones, iPads and so on. In
2013 they became more widely available when they were installed
in android. I'm now about 6 billion of them incredibly are sent every
day by the world's 2 billion smartphone users. So why the choice
of symbols? It did make us laugh with the sauna symbols but obviously
very important to fins? Although we are seen as being very serious, we
do have emotions! Emojis portray emotions. Finnish people are very
tech savvy and we love texting. We do not love showing emotion so we
like to send text messages one-on-one intimately. So this is a
way of us getting deeper and getting to grips with our emotions and
sharing them with the world as well. You think they were apt, the
head-banger, the saunas and the Nokia? Gas. So they are
representative. What has been the response of your countrymen and
women? They love them stop they are releasing more and we are having
discussions about what they could be. There will be a very famous
novel winner, our Formula One driver who does not display his emotions
very much. I think I might know who that is! I cannot tell you. Are they
right to attach so much significance to these? Alike that they are
emotional but do not want show their emotions. 70% of the world's usage
on a daily basis relates to emotions. Big brands are using
emojis. They have a range of functions. Charities who deal with
abused children have bespoke once. They are used in video gaming. They
have a wide range of applications beyond mobile communication. And I
think they do have an important value in terms of branding. It is
clear from my research that it is the young really, the under 25 age
group, especially in the UK who are in the vanguard of emoji usage. That
doesn't surprise me. We will look at some suggestions.
We've also been asking our viewers for the best emoji representations
Let's take a look at them now and I apologise for the quality of these,
The weather, the Royal family. I was thinking about what I would do. The
Royal family, yes. I would not do the weather. We will pass over the
rugby and the cricket! The Premier League is the most successful soccer
so you would probably do something with that. And also individual
sports, cycling, rowing, we are brilliant at. Something in sport.
The weather features again. I cup of tea and the Union Jack. Patriotic.
And let's have a look at this one. And finally more to my taste
some beer from @alexjbutcher. I'm not sure about the TV. That is
universal. 60 or 70 years ago we would be talking about postage
stamps. People flocked to universities say something to do
with university would be a good one. And we do have the three-time world
champion Formula One driver Lewis Hamilton! Let's not have aroused
about who has the best Formula One drivers. They have better rally
drivers. They do. And emoji suggestions
on facebook included a sinking ship, There's just time before we go to
find out the answer to our quiz. I was the Minister of
have to quickly pick an answer. I would say Manchester City. No, it
was the ear. Goodbye. Join us on BBC One for a truly epic
night of entertainment,
Jo Coburn and guest of the day Digby Jones discuss the latest political news including the PM's renegotiation letter and the Trade Union Bill with the RMT's Mick Cash. Also on the programme, why the Finnish government is adopting emojis and what symbols best represent the UK.