:01:30. > :01:40.The Conservative MEP who has defected to UKIP faces his critics.
:01:40. > :01:40.
:01:40. > :31:49.Apology for the loss of subtitles for 1809 seconds
:31:49. > :31:54.Good morning. I have the Labour MP for North-East Derbyshire and the
:31:54. > :31:59.Conservative MP for Derbyshire South. Coming up, e-petitions were
:31:59. > :32:02.meant to make the Government listened, but why are they not
:32:02. > :32:06.working? And the pilot scheme that will give
:32:06. > :32:11.people the right to ask if their partner has a history of domestic
:32:11. > :32:16.violence. When Tory member of the European
:32:16. > :32:21.Parliament Roger Helmer announced he was quitting, we asked if he had
:32:21. > :32:27.any plans to leave the Conservative Party. No, I have no plans at all
:32:27. > :32:36.after I have retired, except to take a long rest. Then, lo and
:32:36. > :32:40.behold last weekend, he joined UKIP. Roger Helmer is with me now. One
:32:40. > :32:45.minute you say you're not going to leave the Conservative Party, and
:32:45. > :32:48.then next you move to UKIP. No wonder some of your former
:32:48. > :32:54.Conservative colleagues feel betrayed by what has happened.
:32:54. > :32:58.said I had no plans to leave, and that was correct, but I was allowed
:32:58. > :33:04.to make other plans later drawn. How long have you had the plan to
:33:04. > :33:09.join UKIP? Some months. You have not shown me when I made those
:33:09. > :33:15.previous comments. Probably five or six months to. That injury was five
:33:15. > :33:19.months ago. You said you had no plans to leave. At the time. Within
:33:19. > :33:25.a short space of time of that interview, you have changed your
:33:25. > :33:31.mind. I had been becoming more and more concerned about the position
:33:31. > :33:36.of the Conservative Party. I have been a party member for 40 years,
:33:36. > :33:42.and a Conservative MEP for 12 years, and I had been trying to work from
:33:42. > :33:46.inside the party to move it into a more Euro-sceptic direction.
:33:46. > :33:51.you say you have had all of this history but the party, and then you
:33:51. > :33:57.leave the people who voted UN as a Tory MEP, wondering what it was all
:33:57. > :34:01.about. The thing was, I had finally reached the conclusion that the
:34:01. > :34:05.Conservative Party was not going to deliver anything I wanted on Europe.
:34:05. > :34:08.In terms of the people who selected me three times as number one on the
:34:08. > :34:17.European list, they selected me because I like -- they liked what I
:34:17. > :34:22.said about Europe. Angela Conservative. -- and you are a
:34:22. > :34:26.conservative. Let me remind you what you said when your fellow MP
:34:26. > :34:36.quit the Conservatives for the Lib Dems. These are your words. He has
:34:36. > :34:37.
:34:37. > :34:43.abdicated his position and has upset for 2% off the people in the
:34:43. > :34:47.region who voted Conservative. Do you remember saying that? I believe
:34:47. > :34:54.that to be true, and I believe that a parliamentarian who wishes to
:34:54. > :34:59.change parties should leave. I announced my resignation in October,
:34:59. > :35:03.and I fully intended to leave the parliament on 31st December. The
:35:03. > :35:13.problem was that I was resigning in favour of the next in line under
:35:13. > :35:13.
:35:13. > :35:17.this European minis... But you have not resigned. I did resign. I then
:35:17. > :35:21.found it is a much more complicated process in the European Parliament.
:35:21. > :35:27.Then the party chairman said we are not sure about who we want to be
:35:27. > :35:32.next in line. What is your point to Roger? He is blaming the system and
:35:32. > :35:37.the rules. What do you say about that? Hugely disappointed. I was
:35:37. > :35:42.there 12 years ago when Roger was selected, and when he was selected
:35:42. > :35:46.eight years ago. I am hugely disappointed it has happened. I do
:35:46. > :35:50.not think there was any need for it. He feels completely betrayed and
:35:50. > :35:55.let down, and is that -- that is not how it should have happened. It
:35:55. > :36:04.should have been sorted out and of October. But that aside, should he
:36:04. > :36:10.just step down? I wish he had. I understand why he is hanging down,
:36:10. > :36:14.but I wish he had gone. But you understand why he is hanging on?
:36:14. > :36:19.is true to his principles. The system is ludicrous in Europe, and
:36:19. > :36:25.is another reason why we should get out. But isn't this about being
:36:25. > :36:29.true to the voters? I think I can deliver better on the policies and
:36:29. > :36:33.principles I set out when I was elected from my new position.
:36:33. > :36:37.should they not have been given the chance? You said you were
:36:37. > :36:47.conservative, now you have changed sides. I could not give them the
:36:47. > :36:49.
:36:49. > :36:52.chance to re-elect a particular Conservative, and the party
:36:52. > :36:56.chairman has said no. At a meeting on Wednesday, the party chairman
:36:56. > :37:01.was given a roasting about this. What do you think should be done
:37:01. > :37:06.about this, Natasha? It is really difficult. In European elections,
:37:06. > :37:11.even more so than in general elections, people vote on party
:37:11. > :37:15.lines. So people voted Conservative. I am sure many people gave you a
:37:15. > :37:24.personal vote, but people vote for the party. That is true of all of
:37:24. > :37:27.us. They will feel betrayed. Does that not prick your conscience?
:37:27. > :37:32.because I know the people I have represented for 12 years and they
:37:32. > :37:35.agree with me on Europe. They thought they were voting for a
:37:35. > :37:41.Euro-sceptic party, and it has turned out that the party they
:37:41. > :37:46.voted for is not a Euro-sceptic party. In my new position I can be
:37:46. > :37:50.a more effective Euro-sceptic. you be standing for UKIP at the
:37:50. > :37:53.next European election? It is too early to be talking about that, and
:37:54. > :37:59.I will be even older then, so I have no plan about staying next
:37:59. > :38:03.time. So you might come back and a few months and tell us? It takes a
:38:03. > :38:09.few months for you to decide. a shame to rule anything out. But I
:38:09. > :38:13.have no plans at the moment. Thank you.
:38:13. > :38:16.It was one of the coalition's their ideas. E-petitions that attracted
:38:16. > :38:25.the most support could get debated in the Commons, but that has not
:38:25. > :38:32.worked out. In 2009, these people tried to hand
:38:32. > :38:38.in a petition about CCTV. Things did not quite go to plan at Derby
:38:38. > :38:41.City Council. You can see why, from the point of
:38:41. > :38:50.view of government, submitting petitions online might be an
:38:50. > :39:00.attractive way of doing things. But are they making them two -- bar a
:39:00. > :39:01.
:39:01. > :39:06.e-petitions making them listen to us or fobbing us off?
:39:06. > :39:16.The inquiry into hills around looks as if it will be spared a, partly
:39:16. > :39:16.
:39:16. > :39:23.because of the e-petitions. And the rioting in August had more
:39:23. > :39:27.discussion because of this. But other e-petitions have
:39:27. > :39:36.struggled to get time in the Commons, including one on NHS
:39:36. > :39:40.reforms. The Government's e- petitions made 100,000 signatures
:39:40. > :39:44.before a debate in the House of Commons will be considered. The
:39:44. > :39:49.trouble is, just six days a year have been currently set aside for
:39:50. > :39:54.those debates. Since the National e-petitions sites went live last
:39:54. > :40:01.summer, nine have had that threshold. Then there is this
:40:01. > :40:06.process to go through before a debate takes place. If an MP does
:40:06. > :40:09.not support the petition, the issue could be completely ignored.
:40:09. > :40:15.Sometimes there are good reasons for the debate not happening. There
:40:15. > :40:25.is only a limited amount of time available. But I think there will
:40:25. > :40:29.be a popular backlash of the debates do not happen.
:40:29. > :40:33.The man who started the Citizen's Forum hopes this kind of event
:40:33. > :40:42.could come to be seen as a more effective way of talking to those
:40:42. > :40:52.in power. I think we can take some action, through the focus we have,
:40:52. > :40:54.
:40:54. > :40:57.we can invite experts to make a real difference.
:40:57. > :41:02.As the group continued debating, they got on to the subject of e-
:41:02. > :41:08.petitions. You end up disappointing the public that expect something to
:41:08. > :41:13.happen as a result of e-petitions. It does not tell people in the long
:41:13. > :41:17.run because people will be disappointed. You have one year to
:41:17. > :41:23.gather your 100,000 people, so if you gather them in one week, will
:41:23. > :41:30.the process be speeded up? If you don't have something that people
:41:30. > :41:34.can get involved in, you need a higher part of entry, if you like.
:41:34. > :41:39.You need to have the sense to see each other's point of view, and
:41:39. > :41:49.come up with a far better sustainable answer than sending any
:41:49. > :41:49.
:41:49. > :41:52.peers -- e-petitions about a pet subject. I groups like this one
:41:52. > :41:56.made give decision-maker something to chew on.
:41:56. > :42:00.Natasha, you chair the backbench committee that decides the fate of
:42:00. > :42:04.e-petitions. Clearly people feel disappointed and let down that you
:42:04. > :42:10.have failed to deliver and what you set out to do on this. And they are
:42:10. > :42:14.right to. I have always voiced by concerns about them. The problem is
:42:14. > :42:17.the government created the system then passed it to us to deal with.
:42:17. > :42:25.We do not have any control over the system itself, which is the first
:42:25. > :42:30.problem. Also, as you saw, it has raised people's expectations. The
:42:30. > :42:36.Government states it says something will only be eligible for a debate,
:42:36. > :42:40.but the expectation is that over 100,000 signatures, there will be a
:42:40. > :42:44.debate, and a change in law. But that is not necessarily what
:42:44. > :42:50.happens. Until we can get that across to people there will be no
:42:50. > :42:54.faith in the system. Heather, the committee has a hard job satisfying
:42:54. > :43:00.everyone, but where do you think the problem lies? It is with the
:43:00. > :43:03.perception. Because it is not what is meant to be happening. It is
:43:03. > :43:07.interesting of a group of backbenchers to appear before the
:43:07. > :43:12.backbench committee to put your case to have the debate. It is very
:43:12. > :43:15.exciting. I think those events should be broadcast. That should go
:43:15. > :43:21.on the Parliamentary Channel, so the public get to see this. Do you
:43:21. > :43:25.think that would engage the public? Absolutely. Is it three people with
:43:25. > :43:29.a pet subject, or 30 people clamouring to have a debate?
:43:29. > :43:33.there is a problem there, as we are a backbench business committee.
:43:33. > :43:42.Backbenchers come to us and ask us for time to debate an issue that
:43:42. > :43:50.they think is of importance. But with the positions, it is different,
:43:50. > :43:54.it is about us listening to the public. And we need to make sure we
:43:54. > :43:58.make this work because otherwise, the problem is not what we saw on
:43:58. > :44:05.the film, sometimes it is worse than ever having had that in the
:44:05. > :44:12.first place. Is it less likely to be debated if you do not think it
:44:12. > :44:15.will get through? No, it is actually the opposite. We have
:44:15. > :44:22.scheduled for debate almost every e-petitions that has reached
:44:22. > :44:26.100,000 signatures. We saw the one for Hillsborough. But debating the
:44:26. > :44:32.issue of bringing back hanging, corporal punishment, it is unlikely
:44:32. > :44:35.the law were changed, so wide debate this? That is the sort of
:44:35. > :44:41.petitions that have not reached 100,000 signatures, and I am
:44:41. > :44:45.surprised they have not. What are we afraid of? I am very much
:44:45. > :44:52.against capital punishment, but of people want that to be debated, we
:44:52. > :44:59.should make it clear why we think that we do not agree with it.
:44:59. > :45:03.have seen protest groups and camp set up in city centres, and maybe
:45:03. > :45:08.the public think that is a more effective way of getting the
:45:08. > :45:14.message across? They can see what the action will do, but in e-
:45:14. > :45:17.petitions, it may get lost in the system. The thing I find so strange,
:45:17. > :45:21.One Show have had all the passion and persuaded the backbench
:45:21. > :45:31.committee to have a debate, you then get to the chamber, and unless
:45:31. > :45:37.
:45:37. > :45:46.it is something bid ed loses interest. That does not happen in
:45:46. > :45:50.backbench debates. We have always had speech limits, which is what is
:45:50. > :45:54.unusual about backbench debates. When we have debates and backbench
:45:54. > :45:59.time, we are limited to a few minutes. And there are very few
:45:59. > :46:05.days where you can do this? Yes, I made a big fuss about this, we
:46:05. > :46:15.allocated a certain amount of time for backbench debates. The way that
:46:15. > :46:16.
:46:16. > :46:21.I would deal with it is, I would set up a dedicated the petition
:46:21. > :46:26.system. If you look at the system in Scotland and Wales, you have a
:46:26. > :46:32.dedicated petitions committee that works with people who want to set
:46:32. > :46:39.up committees, and it manages their expectations. The real problem is
:46:39. > :46:43.parliamentary time. It is a very precious thing. There is a review,
:46:43. > :46:48.there are some bits and pieces in a house on Monday as well, and I
:46:48. > :46:51.think it will be a very interesting discussion, to see how that works.
:46:51. > :47:01.Thank you very much. Time for a round-up of other
:47:01. > :47:06.
:47:07. > :47:11.Seven year-old Anthony can rest easy after being told to take down
:47:11. > :47:16.his powdered flag because it breached planning regulations. The
:47:16. > :47:21.council now admits it over-reacted. Latest figures show another drop in
:47:21. > :47:26.teenage pregnancies in Nottingham. 58, compared with 72 the year
:47:26. > :47:30.before. The Labour MPs says it is further evidence that the city's
:47:30. > :47:35.early intervention programme is working.
:47:35. > :47:37.A Labour MP once more plain packages for cigarettes sold in the
:47:37. > :47:46.European Union. She says it would make smoking less attractive to
:47:46. > :47:51.young people. And also, giving people the right
:47:51. > :48:01.to ask if their partner has a history of domestic violence.
:48:01. > :48:03.
:48:03. > :48:09.want us to follow that by looking at a specific offence on stocking,
:48:09. > :48:18.-- stalking, and make sure we act on domestic violence across the
:48:18. > :48:27.border. -- across the board are.
:48:27. > :48:30.Will this make a difference? Most people who are found guilty of
:48:30. > :48:35.hitting the partner do not have a history of domestic abuse. I think
:48:35. > :48:39.it will work. We will have to wait to see how it works out, but it has
:48:39. > :48:43.been needed for a long time, and the Government has listened, and I
:48:43. > :48:53.am delighted. If the Government is committed to reducing domestic
:48:53. > :48:53.
:48:53. > :48:57.violence, how come it is cutting down on legal aid? And it is also
:48:57. > :49:04.cuts to voluntary services that support women who have been victims
:49:04. > :49:09.of domestic violence, and I think Refuge have said they are very
:49:09. > :49:13.worried that this will focus attention elsewhere. It only gives
:49:13. > :49:20.women the right to ask about the background, and it may be that they
:49:20. > :49:27.do not have a recorded history of this. There is a complete
:49:27. > :49:35.misunderstanding about the legal aid. It was never our intention to
:49:35. > :49:38.cut legal aid for domestic violence, and we are not. Categorically not.
:49:38. > :49:48.What I would like to see is a proper audit of all those services
:49:48. > :49:51.that we have, provided for women suffering from domestic violence.
:49:51. > :49:58.Refuge centres are closing hand over fist. There is a different way
:49:58. > :50:02.of dealing with the Net -- domestic violence these days. I have a
:50:02. > :50:07.domestic abuse refuge in my consistency, because I had it built
:50:07. > :50:14.10 years ago. What we are actually doing, in the last year alone, we
:50:15. > :50:19.have put in rooms in people's houses. There is a complete change
:50:19. > :50:27.in how we can deal with this, and that is why this issue was a very
:50:27. > :50:31.important to us. You talk about some of the measures in place in
:50:31. > :50:37.your area, but is that enough? Clearly domestic violence is a huge
:50:37. > :50:44.issue. And it is rising. And it gets worse during times of
:50:44. > :50:49.recession. Every case is different. But all I am saying is we need to
:50:49. > :50:59.have an audit of all the services for women, and I think that this
:50:59. > :51:00.
:51:00. > :51:06.law, I supported, but it is not a silver bullet. And jail terms of up
:51:06. > :51:10.to five years? Does that go far enough? It does. Will it put people
:51:10. > :51:20.off? Of course it will. You would not want to go to prison for five