12/01/2014 Sunday Politics East Midlands

Good morning, welcome. 2014 is barely under way, and the

coalition is fighting over cuts. Nick Legg says Tory plans to balance

the books would hit the poorest hardest. He will not say what he

will cut. That is the top story. Chris Grayling called for a

completely new deal with Europe as he battles will rings from the

European Court of Human Rights. He joins me.

Labour promises to shift house-building up a gear, but how

will they In the East Midlands: the man who

lost ?20,000, gambling on be serious. Have cuts left to the

service being overstretched? With me for the duration, a top trio

of political pundits, Helen Lewis, Jan and Ganesh and Nick Watt. They

will be tweeting faster than France or long scoots through Paris. Nick

Clegg sticks to his New Year resolution to sock it to the Tories,

the is how he described Tory plans for another 12 billion of cuts on

welfare after the next election. You cannot say, as the Conservatives

are, that we are all in it together and then say that the welfare will

not make any additional contributions from their taxes if

there is a Conservative government after 2015 in the ongoing effort to

balance the books. We are not even going to ask that very wealthy

people who have retired who have benefits, paid for by the

hard-pressed taxpayers, will make a sacrifice. The Conservatives appear

to be saying only the working age pork will be asked to make

additional sacrifices to fill the remaining buckle in the public

finances. Nick Legg eating up on the Tories

a, happens almost every day. I understand it is called aggressive

differentiation. Will it work for them? It has not for the past two

years. This began around the time of the AV referendum campaign, that is

what poisoned the relations between the parties. They have been trying

to differentiation since then, they are still at barely 10% in the

polls, Nick Clegg's personal ratings are horrendous, so I doubt they will

do much before the next election. It is interesting it has been combined

with aggressive flirtation with Ed Balls and the Labour Party. There

was always going to be some sort of rapprochement between them and the

Labour Party, it is in the Labour Party's interests, and it is intent

macro's interests, not to be defined as somebody who can only do deals

with the centre-right. A colleague of yours, Helen, told me there was

more talk behind closed doors in the Labour Party high command, they have

to think about winning the election in terms of being the largest party,

but not necessarily an overall majority. There is a feeling it was

foolish before the last election not to have any thought about what a

coalition might be, but the language has changed. Ed Miliband had said, I

cannot deal with this man, but now, I have to be prismatic, it is about

principles. Even Ed Balls. Nick Clegg had specifically said that Ed

Balls was the man in politics that he hated. He said that was just a

joke. Of course, it is about principles, not people! When Ed

Balls said those nice things about Nick Clegg, he said, I understood

the need to get a credible deficit reduction programme, although he

said Nick Clegg went too far. The thing about Nick Clegg, he feels

liberated, he bears the wounds from the early days of the coalition,

liberated, he bears the wounds from the early days of the coalition and

the early days of the coalition, and maybe those winds will haunt him all

the way to the general election But he feels liberated, he says, we will

be the restraining influence on both the Conservatives, who cannot insure

that the recovery is fair, and the Labour Party, that do not have

economic red ability. He feels relaxed, and that is why he is

attacking the Tories and appearing pretty relaxed. He could also be

falling into a trap. The Tories think what they suggesting on

welfare cuts is possible. The more he attacks it, the more Tories will

say, if you gave us an overall majority, he is the one it. He keeps

taking these ostensibly on popular positions and it only makes sense

when you talk to them behind the scenes, they are going after a tiny

slice of the electorate, 20%, who are open to the idea of voting Lib

Dem, and their views are a bit more left liberal than the bulk of the

public. There is a perverse logic in them aggressively targeting that

section of voters. In the end, ten macro's problem, if you do not like

what this coalition has been doing, you will not vote for somebody who

was part of it, you will vote for the Labour Party. The Tories are too

nasty, Labour are to spendthrift, Lib Dem, a quarter of their vote has

gone to Labour, and that is what could hand the largest party to

Labour. That small number of voters, soft Tory voters, the problem for

the Liberal Democrats is, if you fight, as they did, three general

elections to the left of the Labour Party, and at the end of the third,

you find yourself in Colour Vision with the Conservatives, you have a

problem. Chris Grayling is a busy man, he has

had to deal with aid riot at HM Prison Oakwood, barristers on strike

and unhappy probation officers taking industrial action.

Prison works. It ensures that we are protected from murderers, muggers

and rapists. It makes many who are tempted to commit crime think twice.

Traditional Tory policy on criminal justice and prisons has been tough

talking and tough dealing. Not only have they tended to think what they

are offering is right, but have had the feeling, you thinking what they

thinking. But nearly two decades after Michael Howard's message, his

party, in Colour Vision government, is finding prison has to work like

everything else within today's financial realities. The Justice

Secretary for two years after the election had previous in this field.

Ken Clarke. Early on, he signalled a change of direction. Just binding up

more and more people for longer without actively seeking to change

them is, in my opinion, what you would expect of Victorian England.

The key to keeping people out of prison now, it seems, is giving them

in a job, on release. Ironically, Ken Clarke was released from his job

15 months ago and replaced by Chris Grayling. But here, within HM Prison

Liverpool, Timpson has been working since 2009 with chosen offenders to

offer training and the chance of a job. Before you ask, they do not

teach them keep cutting in a category B prison. The Academy is

deliberately meant to look like a company store, not a prison. It

helps. You forget where you are at times, it feels weird, going back to

a wing at the end of the day. It is different. A different atmosphere.

That is why people like it. Timpson have six academies in prisons,

training prisoners inside, and outside they offer jobs to

ex-offenders, who make up 8% of their staff. It has been hard work

persuading some governors that such cooperation can work. I have seen a

dramatic change positively, working with prisoners, particularly in the

last five years. They understand now what business's expectation is.

Timpson do not just employ offenders, but as one ex-prisoner

released in February and now managing his own store says, the

point is many others will not employ offenders at all. From what I have

experienced, on one hand, you have somebody with a criminal conviction,

on the other, somebody who does not have one, so it is a case of

favouring those who have a clean record. Anybody with a criminal

conviction is passed to one side and overlooked. That, amongst myriad

other changes to prison and how we deal with prisoners, is on the desk

of the man at the top. Ever since Chris Grayling became Secretary of

State for Justice, he has wanted to signal a change of direction of

policy, and he is in a hurry to make radical reforms across the board,

from size and types of prisons to probation services, reoffending

rates, legal aid services, and there has been opposition to that from

groups who do not agree with him. But what might actually shackle him

is none of that. It is the fact that he is in government with a party

that does not always agree with him, he has to abide by the rulings of

the European Court of Human Rights, and in those famous words, there is

no money left. We would like to go further and faster. I would like him

too, but we are where we are. If the Liberal Democrats want to be wiped

out at the next election based on what they believe, that is fair

enough. We accept there has to be savings, but there are areas where

we feel that there is ideological driven policy-making going on, and

privatising may not save any money at all, and so does not make any

sense. The question is, we'll all of that means some of Chris Grayling's

reforms need closer inspection? Chris Grayling joins me now.

Welcome. We have a lot to cover. If you get your way, your own personal

way, will be next Tory manifesto promise to withdraw from the

European Convention of human rights? It will contain a promise

for radical changes. We have to curtail the role of the European

court here, replace our human rights act from the late 1990s, make our

Supreme Court our Supreme Court, Supreme Court our Supreme Court

they can be no question of decisions over riding it elsewhere, and we

have to have a situation where our laws contain a balance of rights and

responsibilities. People talk about knowing their rights, but they do

not accept they have responsible it is. This is what you said last

September, I want to see our Supreme Court being supreme again... That is

clear, but let's be honest, the Supreme Court cannot be supreme as

long as its decisions can be referred to the European Court in

Strasbourg. There is clearly an issue, that was raised recency --

recently. We have been working on a detailed reform plan, we will

publish that in the not too distant future. What we will set out is a

direction of travel for a new Conservative government that will

mean wholesale change in this area. You already tried to reform the

European Court, who had this declaration in 2012, do you accept

that the reform is off the table? There is still a process of reform,

but it is not going fast enough and not delivering the kind of change we

need. That is why we will bring forward a package that for the

different from that and will set a different direction of travel. We

are clear across the coalition, we have a different view from our

colleagues. You cannot be half pregnant on this, either our

decisions from our Supreme Court are subject to the European Cup or not,

in which case, we are not part of the European court. I hope you will

see from our proposals we have come up with a sensible strategy that

deals with this issue once and for all. Can we be part of the

Strasbourg court and yet our Supreme Court be supreme? That is by point,

we have to curtail the role of the court in the UK. I am clear that is

what we will seek to do. It is what we will do for this country. But

how? I am not going to announce the package of policies today, but we

will go into the next election with a clear strategy that will curtail

the role of the European Court of Human Rights in the UK. The

decisions have to be taken in Parliament in this country. Are you

sure that you have got your own side on this? Look at what the Attorney

General says. I would be asking Strasberg a

different question to that. If the best in class, he is saying is

enough is enough, actually somebody in Strasberg should be asking if

this has gone the way it should have done. I would love to see wholesale

reform in the court tomorrow, I m reform in the court tomorrow, I'm

not sure it is going to happen which is why we are going to the election

with a clear plan for this country. Would you want that to be a red line

in any coalition agreement? My mission is to win the next election

with a majority. But you have to say where your red lines would be. We

have been very clear it is an area where we don't agree as parties,

have been very clear it is an area where we don't agree as parties but

in my view the public in this country are overwhelmingly behind

the Conservative party. 95 Conservative MPs have written to the

Prime Minister, demanding he gives the House of Commons the authority

to veto any aspect of European Union law. Are you one of the people who

wanted to sign that letter but you couldn't because you are minister? I

haven't been asked to sign the letter. We need a red card system

for European law. I'm not convinced my colleagues... I don't think it is

realistic to have a situation where one parliament can veto laws across

the European Union. I understand the concerns of my colleagues, but when

we set out to renegotiate our membership, we have got to deliver

renegotiation and deliver a system which is viable, and I'm not

convinced we can have a situation where one Parliament can prevent

laws across the whole European Union. So you wouldn't have signed

this letter? I'm not sure it is the right approach. I support the system

I just talked about. Iain Duncan Smith has suggested EU migrants

coming to work in this country should have to wait for two years

before they qualify for welfare benefits, do you agree? Yes, I think

there should be an assumption that before you can move from one country

to another, before you can start to take back from that country's social

welfare system, you should have made a contribution to it. I spent two

and a half years working in Brussels trying to get the European

Commission to accept the need for change. There is a groundswell of

opinion out there which is behind Iain Duncan Smith in what he is

saying. I think we should push for a clear system that says people should

be able to move from one country to get a job, but to move to another

country to live off the state is not acceptable. You are planning a new

2000 capacity mega prison and other smaller presence which will be run

by private firms. After what has happened with G4S, why would you do

that? No decision has been made about whether it will be public or

private. What do you think it will be? I'm not sure yet. There is no

clear correlation over public and private prisons and whether there

are problems or otherwise. Oakwood is in its early stages, it has had

teething problems at the start, but the rate of disturbance there is

only typical for an average prison of its category. If you take an

example of Parc prison in Wales a big private run prison, run by G4S,

when it was first launched under the last government it had teething

problems of the same kind as Oakwood and is now regarded as one of the

best performing prisons. Why would you give it to a private company

then? We have only just got planning permission for the so we will not be

thinking about this for another few years. Some of the companies who run

prisons are under investigation with dreadful track records. In the case

of G4S, what we have experienced is acceptable and they have not been

able to go ahead with a number of contracts they might have otherwise

got. They are having to prove to the Government they are fit to win

contracts from the Government again. They are having to pay compensation

to the Government and the taxpayer. What has happened is unacceptable.

So why would you give them a 20 0 capacity mega prison? Or anyone like

them? It cannot be said that every private company is bad. In addition

to problems at Oakwood, you are quite unique now in your position

that you have managed to get the barristers out on strike the first

time since history began. What happens if the bar refuses to do

work at your new rates of legal aid and the courts grind to a halt? I

don't believe that will happen. When the barristers came out on strike,

three quarters of Crown Courts were operating normally, 95% of

magistrates courts were operating normally. We are having to take

difficult decisions across government, I have no desire to cut

back lately but we are spending over ?2 billion on legal aid at the

moment at a time when budgets are becoming tougher. You issued

misleading figures about criminal barristers, you said that 25% of

them earn over ?100,000 per year but that is their turnover, including

VAT. 33% of that money goes on their expenses, they have to pay for their

own pensions and insurance. People are not getting wealthy out of doing

this work. I don't publish figures, our statisticians do, with caveats

in place explaining the situation. Where you have high-cost cases,

where we have taken the most difficult decisions, we have tried

hard in taking difficult decisions to focus the impact higher up the

income scale. But do you accept their take-home pay is not 100,000?

I accept they have to take out other costs, although some things like

travelling to the court, you and I and everyone else has to pay for

travelling to work. That is net of VAT. We have had a variety of

figures published, some are and some are not. Let's be clear, the gross

figures for fees from legal payments include 20% VAT. On a week when even

a cabinet minister can be fitted up by the police, don't we all need

well-financed legal aid? There is no chance that as a result

well-financed legal aid? There is no changes people will end up in court

unable to defend themselves. We have said in exceptional circumstances,

if you haven't got any money to pay, we will support you, but there is no

question of anyone ended up in court, facing a criminal charge

where they haven't got a lawyer to defend them. Let's look at how so

many dangerous criminals have managed to avoid jail. Here are the

figures for 2012. Half the people for sexual assault found guilty, not

jailed. I thought you were meant to be tough on crime? Those figures

predate my time, but since 2010 the number of those people going to jail

has been increasing steadily. If you put the figures for 2010 on there,

you would see a significant change. We will never be in a position where

everybody who commits violence will end up in jail. The courts will

often decided to his more appropriate to give a community

sentence, but the trend is towards longer sentences and more people

going to jail. That maybe but it is even quite hard to get sent to jail

if you do these things a lot, again and again. In 2012 one criminal

avoided being sent to jail despite having more than 300 offences to his

name. 36,000 avoided going to jail despite 15 previous offences. That

is why we are taking steps to toughen up the system. Last autumn

we scrapped repeat cautions. You could find people getting dozens. As

of last autumn, we have scrapped repeat cautions. If you commit the

same offence twice within a two year same offence twice within a two-year

period you will go to court. You still might end up not going to

jail. More and more people are going to jail. I cannot just magic another

34,000 prison places. You haven t 34,000 prison places. You haven't

got room to put bad people in jail? The courts will take the decisions,

and it is for them to take the decisions and not me, that two men

in a bar fight do not merit a jail sentence. These figures contain a

huge amount of offences from the most minor of offences to the most

despicable. Something is wrong if you can commit 300 offences and

still not end up in jail. That's right, and we are taking steps so

this cannot happen any more. Nick Clegg said this morning you are

going to make 12 billion of welfare cuts on the back of this, he is

right, isn't he? People on the lowest incomes are often not paying

tax at all, the rich... But these cuts will fall disproportionately on

average earners, correct? Let's look at the proposal to limit housing

benefit for under 25s. Until today, after people have left school or

college, the live for a time with their parents. For some, that is not

possible and we will have to take that into account, but we have said

there is a strong case for saying you will not get housing benefit

until you are some years down the road and have properly established

yourselves in work. And by definition these people are on lower

than average salaries. Give me a case in which those on the higher

tax band will contribute to the cuts. We have already put in place

tax changes so that the highest tax rate is already higher than it was

in every year of the last government. The amount of tax...

There is no more expected of the rich. We will clearly look at future

policy and work out how best to distribute the tax burden in this

country and it is not for me to second-guess George Osborne's future

plans, but we need to look at for example housing benefit for the

under 25s. Is it right for those who are not working for the state to

provide accommodation for them? Thank you for being with us.

All three major parties at Westminster agree there's an urgent

need to build more homes for Britain's growing population. But

how they get built, and where, looks set to become a major battle ground

in the run-up to the next general election.

Although 16% more house-builds were started in 2012/13 than the previous

year, the number actually completed fell by 8% - the lowest level in

peacetime since 1920. The Office for National Statistics estimates that

between now and 2021 we should expect 220,000 new households to be

created every year. At his party's conference last autumn, Ed Miliband

promised a Labour government would massively increase house-building. I

will have a clear aim but by the end of the parliament, Britain will be

building 200,000 homes per year more than at any time for a

generation. That is how we make Britain better than this. The Labour

leader also says he'd give urban councils a "right to grow" so rural

neighbours can't block expansion and force developers with unused land to

use it or lose it. The Government has been pursuing its own ideas

including loan guarantees for developers and a new homes bonus to

boost new house-building. But David Cameron could have trouble keeping

his supporters on side - this week the senior backbencher Nadhim Zahawi

criticised planning reforms for causing "physical harm" to the

countryside. Nick Clegg meanwhile prefers a radical solution - brand

new garden cities in the south east of England. In a speech tomorrow,

Labour's shadow housing minister Emma Reynolds will give more details

of how Labour would boost house-building, and she joins me

now. It is not the politicians to blame, it is the lack of

house-builders? We want a vibrant building industry, and at the moment

that industry is dominated by big house-builders. I want to see a more

diverse and competitive industry, where self build plays a greater

role. In France over 60% of new homes are built by self builders,

but small builders build more homes as well. 25 years ago they were

building two thirds of new homes, now they are not building even a

third of new homes. That's because land policies have been so

restrictive that it is only the big companies who can afford to buy the

land, so little land is being released for house building. I

agree, there are some fundamental structural problems with the land

market and that is why we have said there doesn't just need to be

tinkering around the edges, there needs to be real reforms to make

sure that small builders and self build and custom-built have access

to land. They are saying they have problems with access to land and

finance. At the end of the day it will not be self, small builders who

reach your target, it will be big builders. I think it is pretty

shameful that in Western Europe the new houses built in the UK are

smaller than our neighbours. But isn't not the land problem? France

is 2.8 times bigger in land mass and we are and that is not a problem for

them. There is a perception we are going to build on the countryside,

but not even 10% is on the countryside. There is enough for us

to have our golf courses. There is enough other land for us to build on

that is not golf courses. The planning minister has said he wants

to build our National Parks, I am not suggesting that. The single

biggest land border is the public sector. It is not. There are great

opportunities for releasing public land, that is why I have been asking

the government, they say they are going to release and of public land

for tens of thousands of new homes to be built, but they say they are

not monitoring how many houses are being built on the site. When your

leader says to landowners, housing development owners, either use the

land or lose it, in what way will they lose it? Will you confiscated?

This is about strengthening the hand of local authorities, and they say

to us that in some cases, house-builders are sitting on land.

In those cases, we would give the power to local authorities to

escalate fees. This would be the compulsory purchase orders, a matter

of last resort, and you would hope that by strengthening the hand of

local authorities, you could get the house-builders to start building the

homes that people want. Would you compulsory purchase it? We would

give the local authority as a last resort, after escalating the fees,

the possibility and flexible it is to use the compulsory purchase

orders to sell the land on to a house builder who wants to build

houses that we need. Can you name one report that has come back in

recent years that shows that hoarding of land by house-builders

is a major problem? The IMF, the Conservative mayor of London and the

Local Government Association are telling us that there is a problem

with land hoarding. Therefore, we have said, where there is land with

planning permission, and if plots are being sat on... Boris Johnson

says there are 180,000 plots in London being sat on. We need to make

sure the house-builders are building the homes that young families need.

They get planning permission and sell it on to the developer. There

is a whole degree of complicity, but is a whole degree of complicity but

there is another problem before that. That is around transparency

about land options. There is agricultural land that

house-builders have land options on, and we do not know where that is.

Where there is a need for housing, and the biggest demand is in the

south-east of England, that is where many local authorities are most

reluctant to do it, will you in central government take powers to

force these authorities to give it? We have talked about the right to

grow, we were in Stevenage recently. What we have said is we

want to strengthen the hand of local authorities like Stevenage so they

are not blocked every step of the way. They need 16,000 new homes,

are not blocked every step of the way. They need 16,000 new homes but

they do not have the land supply. What about the authorities that do

not want to do it? They should be forced to sit down and agree with

the neighbouring authority. In Stevenage, it is estimated at

?500,000 has been spent on legal fees because North Hertfordshire is

blocking Stevenage every step of the way. Michael Lyons says the national

interest will have to take President over local interest. Voice cannot

mean a veto. The local community in Stevenage is crying out for new

homes. Do you agree? There has to be land available for new homes to be

built, and in areas like Oxford, Luton and Stevenage... Do you agree

with Michael Lyons? The national interest does have to be served,

will put the five new towns? We have asked him to look at how we can

incentivise local authorities to come forward with sites for new

towns. You cannot tell us where they are going to be? I cannot. We will

have to wait for him. When you look at the historic figures overall, not

at the moment, Private Housing building is only just beginning to

recover, but it has been pretty steady for a while. The big

difference between house-building now and in the past, since Mrs

Thatcher came to power a and including the Tony Blair government,

we did not build council houses. Almost none. Will the next Labour

government embark on a major council has programme? We inherited housing

stock back in 1997... This is important. Will the next Labour

government embark on a major council has programme? We have called on

this government to bring forward investment in social housing. We

want to see an investment programme in social housing, I cannot give you

the figures now. We are 18 months away from the election. Will the

next Labour government embark on a major council house Northern

programme? I want to see a council house building programme, because

there is a big shortage of council homes. That is a guess? Yes. We got

there in the end. -- that is a yes? We will be talking to Patrick homes

in the West Midlands in a moment. You are watching the Sunday

Politics. Coming up in just over 20 minutes, I will look at the week

ahead with our political In the East Midlands: Does

technology make it too easy to gamble? We hear from a man who lost

bags and is using his mobile phone to place bets. I started gambling on

my phone. It meant betting was more available to me, any time of day.

We're talking between ?10,000 and ?15,000. And what do you want

politicians to concentrate on this year, for some it is the economy.

Trade is disappearing. We need help. We need a boost.

And sharing their resolutions with us, Conservative MP for Sherwood,

Mark Spencer, and Labour's Liz Kendall, the MP for Leicester West.

The New Year has kicked off as the old one ended with bad news from our

local councils as they look to balance their budgets. This week,

Leicestershire County Council announced 700 jobs would go and

Derby City Council says it was losing 350 staff. It comes on top of

planned job losses at Nottinghamshire County Council of

750 and unions warning up to 1500 could go in Derbyshire. The plans

also means severe cuts in services at all of the councils. Mark

Spencer, all of the councils, both Labour and Conservative, are blaming

cuts imposed by your government. Are you comfortable with this level of

job losses? It is huge. Some of those councils need to be smarter in

the way they approach this problem. They look `` they need to find

better ways of solving the problems they save `` face. Nottinghamshire

County Council is a good example, they are losing jobs but at the same

time, they have cut the number of council meetings. The councils have

not cut their allowances. I think we can get smarter and we can look at

the way they are doing those budgets. There are ways in which

they can mitigate some of the pressure they are under. But what do

you say to all of those thousands of people who are going to be losing

their jobs? Could these losses be avoided? Some of those losses could

be avoided if they were better managed councils, if I'm honest.

There are ways in which they can protect those front line services,

keep those jobs looking after my constituents and other people in the

East Midlands, if they just operate a little bit smarter. That is no

comfort to people who will lose their jobs. Absolutely. Every one of

those job losses is an individual tragedy. The good news is, the

economy is expanding and other people are finding jobs. If you are

losing yours, that is no consolation. Councils need to be

more efficient and that has got to be a good thing. Councils are

working really hard to try and make how they work more efficient, by

sharing backroom functions, by trying to change the way that

services are run, to try and keep up the quality to our constituents

would also try and make some personal efficiencies. They are

facing huge cuts from central government. One of the things that

many councils in this region think is unfair is that whilst some

councils like the Prime Minister's own council is seeing Benny any

cuts, we are having a much higher burden of cuts in this region. ``

barely any cuts. The South is getting off easily, compared to our

cats. You need to compare like with like. You need to compare per

capita, individual members or persons within that region and how

much they get each. If you compare them like that, actually, they are

much closer than the analysis shows. West Oxfordshire doesn't have

anywhere near the levels of deprivation or demand on services

that we have in this region. I think that is the wrong kind of cut that

the government is making. You can read more on those council cuts in

our political editor's blog on the BBC website.

I don't suppose our cash strapped councils would be tempted to turn

into gambling to boost their fans but it seems more and more people

are getting into debt because technology is making betting

easier. This week, the House of Lords will be considering the

gambling Bill. We've met a Derbyshire man who has lost

thousands of pounds using his mobile phone to place bets.

Admit it, we all like a little flutter from time, but what happens

when new technology like the mobile phone interactive television or the

Internet can transform that flutter into an addiction? Online gambling

on his mobile phone wrecked Adam's marriage and plunged into serious

debt this 24`year`old upholstery worker. I started gambling on my

phone. It meant betting was more available to me at any time of day,

it doesn't matter where I was either. If I was going out or

something, I didn't have to panic and think I need to be back by this

time or I need to get to the bookies for this time because I could just

flicked it on my phone and away I went. How much has that cost you? We

are talking between ?15,000 to ?20,000. What you need is our new

application. Have you tried live streaming? You will love it. The

seductive ease of betting online has transformed the gambling industry.

More of us are tempted, especially the computer savvy young. If I was

feeling a bit down or angry or upset, or anything like that, that

is when I turned to it as a release. There are an estimated 500,000

gabbling addicts in Britain and yet only 15% of online betting sites

come under UK law, because they are based overseas. It is called remote

gambling. Happier times, this is Adam's wedding day. He is no father

to a young son. I lost a lot of money and I knew was going to be

struggling. For some reason, it didn't seem to stop me. That is why

there is political concern. Labour want new curbs on high Street

betting shops. The government has introduced new laws to regulate

so`called remote gambling. If one I was gambling someone had been

ringing me up saying, we have noticed on your account in the last

two hours you have put ?100 on, is everything OK? I think that would

have embarrassed me enough to leave it for a little bit, thinking they

are watching what I'm doing. Do you feel as though you are out of that

addiction is now? There is always a chance you can slip back into it but

I do feel myself, but I do feel myself, that I am more of a

controlled gamble again, than a compulsive gambler. Adam watches

this week's Parliamentary debate on gambling regulations. He hopes, for

his sake and thousands of others, our lawmakers get it right.

We are joined by Doctor Mark Griffiths from Nottingham Trent

University. We heard Adam's experiences. Is this a common story?

I wouldn't use the word common. There are about ?500,000 `500,000

adults in the country with this problem. These problems affect other

people as well. Saying it is common, the good news is, it's under 1% of

the population. Politicians say they are going to address this problem

with the gambling Bill. Do you think it will go far enough? The thing

about the legislators, they are two steps behind the technology anyway.

We, as researchers, are trying to catch up with what the new issues

are going to be. There is a lot of debate about bookmakers and yet if

you have a mobile phone, you are essentially carrying around a

bookmaker with you anyway. Bookmakers are being unfairly

treated in the sense they are highly regulated environments and yet

online, we have most of the British operators not even operating in

Britain because they want to save on tax. What we should be doing is

tightening up regulations and making basic gambling safer. What we need

to be doing is encouraging the industry itself to do more

regulation and look after its customers. Just like the alcohol

industry spends a lot of money educating people who drink alcohol.

The gambling industry should be doing more to educate its punters.

That is happening. The Association of British bookmakers for instance,

I helped develop their code of conduct and what they are going to

do in bookmakers, they are going to give people the chance to set time

and money limits. This is great. You are pre`committing, saying that I

don't want to lose more than ?20 in this machine. Those are the things

that the operators can do. That is the thing. We worry about the

technology which is coming into our homes and workplaces but we can

harness the technology to actually help the people that are most

needed. Labour brought their own gambling motion into the Commons

last week, aimed at curbing the growth of fixed odds betting

machines. That was defeated. Yes, we are disappointed. We want to see

local councils have more powers to stop too many bookmakers and these

machines posturing. We also went to see some things that would do

exactly what Marcus talking about, these pop`ups which bring about a

stop. The important thing is, technology is developing all the

time and we are quite slow at legislators in keeping up with that

pace. Does Labour regret relaxing the laws on gambling, as you did?

Really, you let it get out of control, perhaps. We put in the

first`ever limits of the number of these fixed betting machines. We do

need to keep up with the pace of change and technology. We have seen

this with all sorts of things, whether it is rise about what is

said on Twitter, whether it is gambling, Internet is developing

quickly and it would be good to know, what is the next thing we

should be thinking about now, so that we can plan ahead? Any of us

with kids, all of their lives are going online now. I have three

teenagers who spend a disproportionate amount of time on

line. BCA convergence of these things. `` we see. I can see video

games where people will be gambling within the games. There will be

gambling on social networking sites. Parents have to become more

educated about what their kids are doing. My kids are the gamblers of

tomorrow. If you say that, what can politicians do? Anything... What we

have seen with gambling, be used to have dedicated gambling

environments. Then it spread to lottery tickets in petrol stations.

Now we have single site slot machines over the place. Now, what

remote gambling brings us is it takes out gambling, into the home

and workplace. It means that the jobs politicians get harder. We have

to try and encourage the industry to help us out there. If you are in a

bookmakers, you have someone behind the counter who can say, come on,

Jim, don't you think you've lost enough? The challenge will come is

the international element. Can you do anything with that? We have to

get the industry to step up to the plate and take it. I would say to

you, that is actually happening. If you look at the major players in

this country, they are taking this issue seriously. With technology,

particularly if you are using a smart card or online, we can track

every single bet that the gambler places. There are two things which

we need to do here. Part of the government's legislation that is

coming forward, and we supported this, you're trying to make

improvements to it is saying there should be a proper regulatory

framework, even if you are based abroad. Secondly, I think we do need

to educate our young people about what is coming up so they are

prepared for the future and parents as well. Nobody here is against

people having a bet but we've got to have a system where, if you start to

see this problem gambling happening, people can take it break out of it.

There is a pause so that... That is important. In academic terms,

teenagers are those people who've never known a world without the

Internet and they are the adults of tomorrow. As a parent who has been

studying this, you must be worried about the future. No, because I am a

responsible parent. When my children watch gambling type shows on

television, I can say, you've seen some body win but there are always

more people losing. What you've got is that this might be happening in

homes and parents are not saying anything to their kids. For me,

gambling is like... Gambling is off the radar. Kids have sex and alcohol

education. I'm saying we should have education about gambling and even

now, things like video gaming as well.

This New Year promises to be a crucial 12 months in politics with

more cuts to come. There is also the elections European Parliament and

the battle for votes in our marginal constituencies. So, what are East

Midlands politician... What should they be prioritising? We will hear

what you think in a moment. Let's hear from the Liberal Democrats in

the East Midlands. Residents across the East Midlands have seen Liberal

Democrats running councils and they have seen the difference we can

make. We've only got 2.2 candidates in Hinckley and Bosworth, it shows

the difference we can make. A lot of councils have been quite lazy and

they've taken the easiest option, particularly in terms of cuts. That

is not always the best. In fact, it is frequently the worst thing to

do. Looking at something with a fresh face in a creative way shows

that we can have investment and can protect services. To do that,

Liberal Democrats need votes. The East Midlands is a funny place was

because the Liberal Democrats are the only party that are not

represented at Westminster. We've had some recent past. If you look at

similar results in the county elections this year and the strength

we will have in the European elections, I think we will be back

with a bounce in 2015 and we will have MPs that prove that having

Liberal Democrats at the heart of government means that you've got a

fairer society and a stronger economy. People know you cannot

trust Labour with the economy and you cannot trust the Conservatives

to be fair. Mark, what will the themes before

the Conservatives in the East Midlands this year? For me, jobs,

jobs, jobs. People need jobs and we need to keep pushing to make sure

that the economic climate allows for businesses to expand and take more

people on. If you get a job, it changes everything. I think also,

flooding is quite an issue. We have been lucky this time that we've

escaped over the last couple of weeks but it keeps raising its head.

I'm concentrating on that. What are your aims, Liz? Tackling the

problems we've got with unemployment, particularly youth

unemployed and long`term unemployed in. We've got to get the banks

lending to local businesses again because that is what we really need

to drive growth in this region. Also, for us as a party, issues

around the NHS and care for the elderly. We've seen problems

building up there. We need to address them now. What kind of

problems? Problems with our accident and emergency waiting times. More

elderly people ending up in hospital when they don't need to. We need a

strong economy and a fair society. We got to do those two things

together. That could cost you votes, couldn't it? A strike me is

vital. You can only do these things if they are `` if things are moving

in the right direction. Going in a different direction would put all of

that in jeopardy. It is nice to talk about these things that we would

like to do but unless you have a strong economy, you cannot do those

things. What about the European elections? That is something that

Jason didn't mention. How important are they for us in the East

Midlands? I think they are pretty important for the media in the West

Midlands... You are not a fan? I am sure we will in the Westminster

bubble. It's a question of how effective our MEPs. The European

Union has a big effect on our lives. It's how effective our MEPs are in

dealing with that. I am pro`Europe but I am pro a youth reformed `` I

am pro a reformed Europe. I have lots of businesses in my

constituency which rely on the market. We need Europe to change to

make sure it focuses on the things that matter to people, jobs and

growth, and to cut out the waste that is there as well. It will be

important. I know people think it is a Westminster political bubble issue

but actually, jobs and growth in Europe really affect us all. We

heard from the politicians but what do you think? Des Coleman paid a

visit to our guests's constituencies.

It is a New Year so what do people want from the politicians in 2014?

What do you want from your politicians? Jobs. Leicester is a

black spot. A terrible place to find a job. What have you got to say? I

want the government to focus on community and look after the

community, where they have taken funding away from people like the

disabled and special needs. Just make sure that communities have

better unity and better looked after? Politicians don't preach what

they practice. They are on about people having a 1% rise and

feathering their own nests. I don't agree with that. We have to think

about our kids as well. They are growing up now. My daughter is going

to grow up and expense `` college is extensive. You don't see a sign like

that too often, beware the ducks. You can tell we have come to the

country. Two North Nottinghamshire, we have come. Let's find out what

people want from their politicians here. I think number one is

immigration. That is the thing. It does concern people. What do you

want politicians to do? All of the local businesses are constricted and

are disappearing. I service local businesses, cash registers, and

traders disappearing. We need some help, a boost. We need more jobs.

Since the pit closed in this time, nothing has replaced it, see we need

a replacement of employment so we can get these young children, young

girls and boys, back to work. It's important we do that. I've think we

`` I think we've extended your constituency boundary their

excavation mark that was a woman in your constituency. At the

politicians like you tackle this? We have to get to grips with it. It

comes up all the time. The state of the economy, welfare reform and

immigration are the three I hear on the doorstep. I think we are doing

fairly well on those but we need to make more progress as we go forward.

People are talking about jobs as well. Jobs are being created, as

we've heard this week, and the economy is growing quickly. I still

have over 800 young people unemployed and 500 long`term

unemployed. That figure is still going up. My recent jobs fair, I had

700 people through the door in the day. Jobs are an issue. So too are

people 's living standards. People are struggling to make ends meet. We

need to do more to get better paid jobs. I think crucially to make sure

our young people have skills for the future which they really need. I

have some real concerns that we are not focusing on the right things in

tins of what is happening in our schools. We need good quality

academic education. It's a long list! It is about dealing with the

problems and preparing for the future. This is one of the problems

of the Labour Party. They've got a long list of things they want to

spend money on but not a long list of how they are going to create that

cash. 1.3 million jobs since the election in the private sector have

been created. We are making good progress. If we followed the advice

of Ed balls, we wouldn't be in a position we are in now. We would be

in a worse position. `` Ed Balls. You have to have a strong economy to

do the nice stuff that we want to do. Heading in the right direction,

Liz? I really welcome any good news on jobs and growth. My concern is

that the government may be repeating the mistakes of the past because of

the growth is driven by debt and credit, not by jobs, in all parts of

the country that we need, that will cause problems in the future. Any

good news as well come but we have to make sure we have jobs and growth

in this region and that it is sustainable for the long`term. Time

for a round`up of some of the other political stories in the East

Midlands this week. Businesses in the East Midlands have

expressed concerns over plans to introduce a 60 mph limit on the M1

between Mansfield and Rotherham. The highways agency says it is needed to

cut emissions but local chambers of commerce say it will add to journey

times and increase costs. One of the regions campaigners as a

gong in the New Year 's Honours list. Marilyn Baldwin, who appeared

on the programme last year, is campaigning to stop scam mail being

delivered to our homes. She was awarded an OBE.

Our politicians have been busy bending ministerial years this week.

Anna Sebring met the Communities Secretary to ask him to review a

decision to allow opencast mining. And the Nottingham North MP, Graham

Allen, has met the Education Secretary to discuss what happens

next to schools in Nottingham. It comes after six of the city 's

secondary schools were found to be failing in a blitz by Ofsted.

And next week, we will be hearing from pupils and teachers at one of

those Nottingham schools, failed by Ofsted.

will not be revoked. And I wouldn't want it to go. Thank you, back to

Andrew. Can David Cameron get his way on EU

migration? Will he ever be able to satisfy his backbenchers on Europe?

Is Ed Miliband trying to change the tone of PMQ 's? More questions for

the week ahead. We are joined by Jacob Rees Mogg

from his constituency in Somerset. Welcome to the programme. You one of

the 95 Tory backbenchers who signed this letter? Suddenly. Laws should

be made by our democratically elected representatives, not from

Brussels. How could Europe work with a pick and mix in which each

national parliament can decide what Brussels can be in charge of? The

European Union is a supernatural body that is there for the

cooperation amongst member states to do things that they jointly want to

do. It ought not be there to force -- to enforce uniform rules on

countries that do not want to participate. It is the vision of

Europe that people joined when we signed up to it and came in in 1973.

signed up to it and came in in 973. It has accreted powers to itself

without having the support of the public of the member states. This is

just a way of preparing the ground for you to get out of Europe

altogether, isn't it? I do not big so. There is a role for an

organisation that does some coordination and that has trade

agreements within it, I do not think there is a role for a federal state.

Europe seems to be dominating the. I remember your leader telling you not

to bang on about Europe, your backbench colleagues seem to have

ignored that. Would you like to restrict the flow of EU migrants to

come to work in this country? Yes. I think we should have control of our

own borders, so we can decide who we want to admit for the whole world.

What we have at the moment is a restrictive control of people coming

from anywhere other than the EU. There is a big decrease in the

number of New Zealanders who came in the last quarter for which figures

are available, but a huge increase in people coming from the continent.

Does it really make sense to stop our second cousins coming so that we

can allow people freely to come from the continent? I do not think so, we

need to have domestic control of our borders in the interests of the

United Kingdom. There are still lots more people coming from the rest of

the world than from the European Union. That has been changing. But

there are still more. A lot more. The permanent residence coming from

the European Union are extremely high. In the period when the Labour

Party was in charge, we had to put 5 million people coming here, of whom

about 1 billion were from Poland. -- we had 2.5 million people coming

here. We have no control over them. Like the clock behind you, you are

behind the times on these figures. I have stopped the clock for your

benefit, because it was going to chime otherwise! I thought that

might be distracting! Only a Tory backbencher could stop a clock!

Helen, when you at this up, it is preparing to get out, is it not? We

have had this one bill about a referendum that seems to have tied

us up in knots for months on end. If Parliament could scrutinise every

piece of EU legislation, we would never get anything else done. It

would be incredible. Even Chris Grayling said earlier that you can

not have a national veto on anything that the EU proposes. I am surprised

that Jacob Rees Mogg is talking about dismantling one of Margaret

Thatcher's most important legacies, the creation of the single market,

and the person sent there to dream it up under Margaret Thatcher said

the only way you can run this sensibly is by not having national

vetoes, because if you have that, guess what will happen? The French

will impose lots of protectionist measures. It was Margaret

Thatcher's idea that national parliaments should never veto. How

could you fly in the face of the lady? Even the great lady makes

mistakes. Excuse me, Jacob Rees Mogg says even Margaret Thatcher makes

mistakes! No wonder the clock has stopped! Even be near divine

Margaret made a mistake! But on the single market, it has been used as

an excuse for massive origination of domestic affairs. We should be

interested in free trade in Europe and allowing people to export and

import freely, not to have uniform regulations, as per the single

market, because what that allows is thought unelected bureaucrats to

determine the regular vision. We want the British people to decide

the rules for themselves. If this makes the single market not work,

that is not the problem, because we can still have free trade, which is

more important. If David Cameron is watching this, I am sure he is, it

will be nice for you to come on and give us an interview, he must be

worried. He is beginning to think, I am losing control. It is a clever

letter, the tone is ingratiating and pleasant, every time, you have stood

up to Brussels, you have achieved something, but the content is

dramatic. If you want Parliament to have a veto, you want to leave the

EU, because the definition is accepting the primacy of European

law. The MPs should be clear about that. It is almost a year since the

Europe speech in which David Cameron committed to the referendum. The

political objective was to put that issue to bed until the next

election. It has failed. David Cameron is going to have to pull off

a major miracle in any renegotiations to satisfy all of

this. Yes, it makes me think how much luckier he has been in

coalition with the Liberal Democrats, because there is a bit of

the Tory party that is irreconcilable to what he wants to

do. The Conservative MPs are making these demands just as David Cameron

is seeing the debate goes his way in Europe. Angela Merkel has looked

over the cliff and said, do I want the UK out? No, they are a

counterbalance to France. France one the UK to leave, but they do not,

because they do not want to lose the only realistic military power Tom

other than themselves. Just when the debate is going David Cameron's way,

Jacob Rees Mogg would take us out. Let me move on to another subject.

That is nonsense. The debate is not beginning to go David Cameron's way.

We are having before us on Monday a bill about European citizenship and

spending British taxpayers money so that Europe can go and say we are

all EU citizens, but we signed up to being a part of a multinational

organisation. The spin that it is going the way of the leader of a

political party is one that has been used before, it was said of John

Major, it was untrue then and it is now. It is, for the continuing

deeper integration of the European Union. I want to ask a quick

question. Chris Grayling said to us that the Tories would devise a way

in which the British Supreme Court would be supreme in the proper

meaning of that, but we could still be within the European Court of

Human Rights. Can that circle be squared? I have no idea, the Lord

Chancellor is an able man, and I am sure he is good at squaring circles.

I am not worried about whether we remain in the convention or not.

I am not worried about whether we remain in the convention or not PMQ

's, we saw a bit about this week, Paul Gorgons had died, so the house

was more subdued, but he wants a more subdued and serious prime

ministers questions. Let's remind ourselves what it was like until

now. What is clear is that he is

floundering around and he has no answer to the Labour Party's energy

price freeze. The difference is John Major is a good man, the Right

Honourable gentleman is acting like a conman. Across the medical

profession, they say there is a crisis in accident and emergency,

and we have a Prime Minister saying, crisis, what crisis? How out of

touch can hate the? You do not need it to be Christmas to know when you

are sitting next to a turkey. It is not a bad line. Is Ed Miliband

trying to change the tone of prime ministers questions? Is he right to

do so? The important point is this was a special prime ministers

questions, because everybody was really sad and by the death of Paul

Goggins and in the country, the legacy of the floods. That was the

first question that Ed Miliband asked about, so that cast a pall

over proceedings. When it suits him, Ed Miliband would like to take a

more statesman-like stance, but will it last? That is how David Cameron

started. His first prime ministers questions, he said to Tony Blair, I

would like to support you on education, and he did in a vote

which meant Tony Blair could see off a naughty operation from Gordon

Brown. But it did not last, they are parties with different visions.

Jacob Rees Mogg, would you like to see it more subdued? I like a bit of

Punch and Judy. You need to have fierce debate and people putting

their views passionately, it is excellent. I am not good at it, I

sit there quite quietly, but it is great fun, very exciting, and it is

the most watched bit of the House of Commons each week. If it got as dull

as ditchwater, nobody would pay attention. Three cheers for Punch

and Judy. Ed Miliband is going to make a major speech on the economy

this week. You can now define the general approach. We had it from

Emma Reynolds, we have seen it over energy prices, this market is bust,

the market is not working properly, and that will therefore justify

substantial government intervention. Intervention which does not

necessarily cost money. It is the deletion and reorganising

industries. It constitutes an answer to the question which has been

hounding him, what is the point of the Labour Party when there is no

money left? He says, you do not spend a huge amount fiscally, but

you arrange markets to achieve socially just outcomes without

expenditure. It is quite serious stance. I am not sure it will

survive the rigours of an election campaign, but it is an answer. Is

that an approach, to use broken markets, to justify substantial

state intervention? Yes, and the other big plank is infrastructure

spending. The Lib Dems would not be against capital investment for info

structure will stop Emma Reynolds talking about house-building, the

idea of pumping money into the economy through infrastructure is

something that the Labour Party will look at. Jacob Rees Mogg, you once

thought Somerset should have its own time zone, and today, you have

delivered on that promise! Live on the Sunday Politics! I try to

deliver on my promises! That is all for today, the Daily

Politics is on BBC Two every day this week, just before lunch. I

aren't back next Sunday here on BBC One at 11am. -- I am back. If it is

Sunday, it is the Sunday Politics.