12/01/2014 Sunday Politics East Midlands


Andrew Neil and Marie Ashby with the latest political news, interviews and debate.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 12/01/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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.


Download Subtitles