20/10/2013 Sunday Politics West Midlands

Good morning and welcome to The Sunday Politics. Alex Salmond says a

vote for Scottish independence would be an act of national self belief.

His deputy joins us live from the SNP conference in Perth. Is

Whitehall meddling too much in modern affairs? The Communities

Secretary, Eric Pickles, joins me for The Sunday Interview. Senior

coppers will be answering questions this

In the Midlands: Why people with Celsius.

In the Midlands: Why people with mental illnesses are treated like

criminals. London, does the London assembly

have one arm tied behind its back? All of that to come. And the Home

Office minister sacked by Nick Clegg, who says his party is like a

wonky shopping trolley, which keeps veering off to the left. He will

join us live at noon. With me to unpack all of this, Nick Watt, Helen

Lewis and Iain Martin. They will be tweeting throughout the programme,

using hashtag #bbcsp. It is the last day of the Scottish national party

conference in Perth. We have discovered that Alex Salmond has

been on the same diet as Beyonce. The SNP leader compared his attempts

to lose weight with the campaign for independence - lots achieved so far,

20 more to do. In a moment, I will be joined by the deputy leader of

the SNP, Nicola Sturgeon. First they report on the independence

campaign. September 18 2014, the date of destiny for Scotland, the

day when these campaigners hope its people will decide to vote yes for

independence. In a recent poll, only 14% said they knew enough to vote

either way. That is unlikely to change any time soon. I think the

Scottish people will be going to the polls next year still not knowing an

awful lot of stuff which is important, because the outcome, in

terms of taxation, debt, exactly what will happen to the allocation

of assets between the two countries, will come about as a result of

negotiation between a Scottish government and the UK Government.

That is not stuff which will be known year. At the moment, polls

suggest Scotland will decide to remain within the UK. A recent

survey found that 44% of those questioned planned to vote no, 5%

yes. But interestingly, the undecideds were at 31%, suggesting

that Alex Salmond's task might be tough but not impossible. There are

a number of reasons which make a vanilla campaign a good idea. It

does not put off cautious voters, it allows for people to imagine their

own version of what independence will be like, and crucially, it

allows for the yes campaign to take advantage of any mistakes by the no

campaign. In other words, the yes campaign are not out there with big

ideas, they are just waiting for the no campaign to trip up. What we do

know is that whatever happens next September, Scotland will be getting

more power. From 2016, a separate income tax regime will come into

force, giving the Scottish Parliament control over billions of

pounds of revenue. What we do not know yet is how the alternative

would pan out. There are issues which would be raised by

independence, issues about how the national debt is allocated, what the

currency will look like, how an independent Scotland would balance

the books, because it would have a bigger job to do, even down the

Whitehall government has to do. Those are really big issues, which a

Scottish government would have to face, on top of whatever negotiation

it had to have with the UK Government. The Scottish

government's White Paper on independence, two to be published

within weeks, should fill in some of the banks. But how Scotland votes in

September may yet be determined by what it feels rather than what it

knows. And joining me from Perth is Scotland's Deputy First Minister,

Nicola Sturgeon. Nicola Sturgeon, we meet again! Hello, Andrew. Former

leader of the SNP Gordon Wilson said, if this referendum fails, it

will fail on the basis that people put their British identity ahead of

their Scottish identity, so we have got to attack on the British

identity - what does he mean? Gordon Wilson is a very respected, much

loved former leader of the SNP. My view is that I do not think the

independence referendum is really about identity. I am secure and

proud of my Scottish identity, but this is a decision about where power

best lies. Do decision-making powers best lie here in Scotland, with a

government which is directly accountable to the people of

Scotland, or does it best lie in Westminster, with governments which,

very often, people in Scotland do not vote for? That is the issue at

the heart of the campaign. Let me just clarify, you do not agree with

him, that you need to go on the attack with regard to the British

identity of Scottish people? No I do not think we are required to

attack British identity. It is absolutely compatible for somebody

to feel a sense of British identity but still support Scottish

independence, because Scottish independence is about a transfer of

power. It is about good government, accountable government, ensuring

that decisions are taking here in Scotland, by people who have got the

biggest stake in getting those decisions right. I represent a

constituency in the south side of Glasgow, and if you speak to many

people in my constituency, if you ask them their national identity,

many of them would say Irish, Pakistani, Indian, Polish, and many

of them will vote yes next year because they understand the issue at

stake, which is the issue of where decisions are best taken. It looks

like you are changing tack ex-, you have realised the softly softly

approach, of saying that actually, nothing much will change, we will

still have the Queen, the currency, and all the rest of it, is moving

over towards voting for a left-wing future for Scotland... Well, I know

that what we are doing is pointing out is pointing out the choice

between two futures. If we vote yes, we take our own future into our own

hands. We make sure that for ever after, we have governments which

will be in demented policies which we have voted for. If we do not

become independent, then we continue to run the risk of having

governments not only that we do not vote for, but often, that Scotland

rejects. We are seeing the dismantling of our system of social

security. There are politicians in all of the UK parties who are

itching to cut Scotland's share of spending. So Scotland faces a choice

of two futures, and it is right to point out the positive consequences

of voting yes, but also the consequences of voting no. But you

are promising to reverse benefit cuts and increase the minimum wage.

You would renationalise the Royal Mail, though how you would do that

nobody knows. You are promising to cut energy bills. These are the kind

of promises that parties make in a general election campaign, not in a

once in 300 years extra stench or choice. Is the future of Scotland

really going to be decided on the size of the minimum wage? --

existential choice. A yes vote would be about bringing decision-making

powers home, but we are also setting out some of the things an SNP

government would do, if elected A decision on what the first

government of an independent Scotland would be would not be taken

in the referendum, that decision would be taken in the 2016 election.

And all of the parties will put forward their offers to the

electorate. We are setting out some of the things which we think it is

important to be prioritised. These are things which have a lot of

support in Scotland. We see the pain being felt by people because of the

rising cost of energy bills, there is widespread opposition to some of

the welfare cuts. So, we are setting out the options which are open to

Scotland, but only open to Scotland if we have the powers of

independence. Given that you seem to be promising aid permanent socialist

near Varna, if Scotland is independent, if you are right of

centre in Scotland, and I understand that is a minority pursuit where you

are, but it would be a big mistake to vote for independence, in that

case, wouldn't it? No, because the whole point of independence is that

people get the country they want, and the government a vote for. So,

right of centre people should not vote for independence? No, because

people who are of that political persuasion in Scotland get the

opportunity to vote for parties which represent that persuasion and

if they can persuade a majority to vote likewise, then they will get a

government which reflects that. That is the essence of independence.

Right now, we have a Westminster government which most people in

Scotland rejected at the last general election. That is hardly

democratic. It is right and proper that the SNP, as the current

government, points out the opportunities that would be opening

up. Can I just clarify one thing, when we spoke on The Daily Politics

earlier last week, you made it clear to me that Alex Salmond, we know he

wants to debate with David Cameron, but you made it clear to me that he

would debate with Alistair Darling as well, and Mr Carmichael... He

made it clear yesterday. Well, he said to the BBC this morning that he

would only debate with these people after he had had a debate with Mr

Cameron, so who is right? I was making the point last week, and Alex

Salmond was making it yesterday and this morning - let's have that

agreement by David Cameron to come and debate with Alex Salmond, and

then Alex Salmond, just like me will debate with allcomers. So if he

does not get the David Cameron debate, then he will not do the

others, is that right? Let's focus on is wading David Cameron to do the

right thing. So, in other words he will not debate, yes or no? Members

of the SNP government... We know that, but what about Alex Salmond?

He said yesterday, we will debate with all sorts of people, including

the people you have spoken about, but David Cameron should not be let

off the hook just putting aside the independence issue, energy prices

are now even playing into the SNP, so every political party has to do

something about energy prices. Yes, it is clearly it is interesting is

the difference between the SNP and the Labour approach. Ed Miliband

electrified the party conference season when he said he would freeze

energy prices for 20 months, seemingly having an amazing control

over the energy market, where we know that essentially what pushes

prices up the wholesale prices on world market. What Nicola Sturgeon

is talking about is actually saying, this amount is added to your bills

for green levies, and we are going to take them off your bills and they

will be paid out of general taxation in an independent Scotland. That is

a credible government, making a credible case, very different to

what Labour is saying, although playing to the same agenda. So,

Labour has got a populist policy, the SNP has also got a populist

policy, the one group of people that do not have a decent response to

this is the coalition? Exactly. What the SNP also have is a magic money

pot, so that speech yesterday, you are right, it was very left wing,

social democratic, but there was none of the icing like Labour has

been talking about, with fiscal responsibility. I think that is the

difference between the two. We know what the Tories would really like to

do, all of these green levies which were put on our bills in the good

times, when they were going to be the greenest party ever, the Tories

would like to say, let's just wipe out some of them, put the rest on to

some general government spending, but they have a problem, which is in

the Department of Energy and Climate Change. Not only that, they really

are stuck now. But there is something in the free schools debate

this morning, the parties are now determined to send a message to

their potential voters at the next election, that they are trying to

fight their coalition partners. Do not expected any change in coalition

policy or free schools policy before the election, but we can expect to

hear the parties try to pretend that they are taking on their coalition

partners. Mr Clegg has said, we would put this free schools policy

into our manifesto, so is it not possible that the Tories will say,

if you give us an overall majority, we will cut your electricity bill

because we will get rid of these green levies? I think that is

entirely possible. The Tories know that they are stuck on this, they do

not have a response to Ed Miliband. How much should ministers in

Whitehall medal in local decisions across England? In opposition, David

Cameron said he wanted a fundamental shift of power from Whitehall to

local people. He said, when one size fits all solution is...

Eric Pickles described it as "an historic shift of power". But the

Communitites and Local Government Secretary can't stop meddling. In

the past few months Mr Pickles has tried to ban councils from using

CCTV cameras and "spy cars" to fine motorists... Told councils how to

act quicker to shut down illegal travellers' sites... Criticised

councils who want to raise council tax... Insisted councils release

land to residents hoping to build their own property... And stated new

homes should have a special built in bin storage section. It seems not a

week goes by without a policy announcement from the hyper active

Mr Pickles. So is the government still committed to localism, or is

it all about centralism now? And Communities Secretary Eric

Pickles joins me now for the Sunday Interview.

Welcome. Nice to be here. You said in July you were going to give town

halls the power to wreak their local magic. So why issue diktats from

Westminster? It is not about giving power to local councils, it is going

beyond that to local people. If local councils refuse to open up

their books, we have to go straight to local people. You have attacked

councillors using so-called spy cameras to enforce parking rules.

Why is that your business? Because there is an injustice taking place.

You cannot use fines to raise money and that is plainly happening. If

you get yourself a ticket from a CCTV, it could be days or weeks

before that lands on your doorstep and you have virtually no

possibility to be able to defend yourself. But just leave it to

people to vote out the council then. We are trying to enforce the law and

it clearly states that you cannot use parking fines in order to fund

general rate. So why are you not taking them to court if they are

breaking the law? There have been a number of court cases taken by local

residents. I am there to stand by local residents. Your even trying to

micromanage, allowing motorist s to park for 15 minutes in local high

street. Why is that your business? I'm trying to ensure that local

authorities understand the importance of the town centre. If

you look at all opinion polls, right now there is a five-minute leeway

but there are many cases of people being jumped on by parking officials

for quite trivial things. It is about saying, surely I can go and

get a pint of milk. But a party that dines out on localism, that is a

matter for local people, not the men in Whitehall. I have to be on the

side of local people. That person who wants to go and get a pint of

milk. Ultimately it is a matter for them. It is a matter for the

council. But a little bit of criticism is not a bad thing. You

have now declared war on the wheelie bin and suggested that new homes

should have built in storage sections. You just cannot help

meddling! I suppose that is possible. You are a meddler! I am in

charge of building regulations and planning. So I may have some

responsibility there. Another one, interfering in local planning

decisions. A couple of places, you ruled in favour of developers. They

want to build over 200 houses against the wishes of the parish and

district councils. The local MP said the Secretary of State's decision

runs roughshod over any concept of localism. Now I have to be a

blushing violet because of course this is still potentially subject to

judicial review. I have to act properly. And Apple went is entitled

to justice. -- an applicant. A local authority has a duty to ensure that

is adequate housing for people in their area. This was not a decision

that I took as a personal decision, it was on the advice of an

inspector. But you contradict what David Cameron himself said in 2 12,

he spoke about a vision where we give communities much more say and

local control. People in villages fear big housing estates being

plonked from above. You have just done exactly that. After a proper

quasi judicial enquiry. What we have is planning framework which local

people can decide where it goes But they cannot say, nothing here. They

have to have a five-year housing supply. Previous to this government

decided exactly where houses would go, now local people can take the

lead. Anna Silbury said because of the way your department rules, local

authorities now have no alternative but to agree development on green

belt land. I do not accept that I think around Nottingham there are

particular problems with regards to the green belt. The matter has been

referred back. the green belt. The matter has been

want to see development on the green belt but on Brownfield site. We want

to see underused land. But you have to remember why we have the green

belt. Not to remember why we have the green

nice, it is their to prevent conurbations bumping into one

another. Your conurbations bumping into one

is vocal about the need to deal what he calls the historic under

provision of housing. Shelter says we need 250,000 new homes per year.

provision of housing. Shelter says Houston statistics are getting

there, but nowhere near that. - housing. You cannot

there, but nowhere near that. - localism agenda as well as meeting

housing demand. I do not accept that. We inherited a position where

the lowest level of building since the 1920s was in place. But it has

steadily improved. It does take a while. You cannot have a localism

agenda where people call the shots on housing as well as meeting the

housing demand. People have a duty to ensure that future generations

have somewhere to live. You cannot pull up the drawbridge. There is

nothing incompatible between that and localism. Because someone has to

be the voice of those people who are going to live there and to make sure

there is the proper amount. Plans now exist for more than 150,000

homes to be built on protected land, including the green belt. That will

mean riding over local concerns Each application will be taken on

its own merits. To suggest that there is an assault on the green

belt is as far from the truth as you can imagine. Should Andrew Mitchell

get his job back if the years exonerated? I would be honoured to

sit with Andrew Mitchell in the Cabinet. I have always believed his

version. But it is a matter for the Prime Minister who he has in

government. He would have no problem in seeing him back in Cabinet?

Absolutely not. Your mother answered Vulcan junior minister Nick balls

said about the Royal Charter for the press, there's nothing we have done

that troubles me as much as this. Is that your view? It is not. I accept

the compromise agreement put together. If the press want to have

an additional protection that the Royal Charter offers, then they can

move into the system. But if they want to continue independently that

is acceptable to me. But you previously echoed Thomas Jefferson,

you said for a free society to operate the river of a free press

has to flow without restriction That is what I said at the time We

had to find a compromise. And that seems to me to be a better

compromise. Let me just show you this little montage of pictures that

we have. I could not be happier Then you are in the Desert and there

you are in San Francisco. Then you are in the casino. That is my

personal favourite. These students took a cardboard cutout of you and

took it round the world with them. Did you ever think you would become

a student icon? I always felt secretly that that might happen one

day. But it came earlier in my career than I thought! Why would

they do that? I think they thought I could do with a bit of an airing! I

went to Norfolk earlier, but that looks better. Thank you.

On Wednesday senior police folk including chief constables, will be

questioned by MPs about what's become known as Plebgate. That's the

incident in Downing Street last year which led to the resignation of the

government chief whip Andrew Mitchell. Last week the Independent

Police Complaints Commission questioned the "honesty and

integrity" of police officers who met Mr Mitchell following the row.

So do scandals like this affect public trust in the police? Here's

Adam Fleming. It's a story of politics, the

police, and CCTV. No, not Andrew Mitchell, but an MP's researcher

called Alex Bryce and his partner Iain Feis.

It started on a summer night in 2011. They'd been in Parliament

After a few words with a police officer, Ian was wrestled to the

ground. Alex came to have a look and the same thing happened to him. Both

were arrested and charged. These pictures emerged on day one of their

trial. A trial that was halted because the police version of events

just didn't match the footage. A lot of people with incidence like this

which we experienced, people think there is no smoke without fire. So

when we said we did nothing wrong, people would think police just would

not do that. There is always that underlying view that some people

have. I think that has been challenged and people who know us

believe that. This year the Met apologised and paid compensation.

And it's led to an unlikely sort of friendship. When the truth came out

about the Andrew Mitchell story I actually sent him an e-mail to

congratulate him about the truth coming out. He did send a reply

acknowledging that. So where are we with THAT saga? Remember last

September? Andrew Mitchell had a row with police at the gates of Downing

Street about his bike. He lost his job as chief whip after accusations

he called the officers plebs. That, he's always denied. This week the

police watchdog the IPCC suggested that three officers may have lied

about a meeting with him at the height of the scandal. Add that to

the charge sheet of cases that haven't exactly flattered the

police. Like the revelation of a cover up over Hillsborough. The

prosecution of an officer from the Met over the death of Ian Tomlinson

during protests in 2009. Along with news that undercover officers were

told to smear the family of Stephen Lawrence. During Thursday's protest

by teachers in Westminster the police operation was really, really

relaxed. And recent scandals have done nothing to affect society's

view of the boys and girls in blue - or should I say hi-vis. About 6 % of

the public say they trust the police. And that's not budged since

pollsters started measuring it 0 years ago.

Of course, in Britain, crime is down, so the perception might be

that the police is doing a good job. And the rank-and-file recently

seamed pretty chipper at this awards ceremony. Is it a good time to be a

police officer? It is a good time. Despite all of the headlines? Still

a good time. But speak to officers privately, and they say Plebgate is

affecting how the public see them. Some of them also think

politicians, the Tories especially, are enjoying that a little too much.

Adam Fleming reporting there. Going head-to-head on this issue of trust

in the police, a Sunday Mirror columnist and Peter Kirkham, former

chief inspector. Peter Kirkham, let me come to you first. Plebgate, the

cover-ups over John Charles De menace, the death of Ian Tomlinson,

the industrial deception over Hillsborough, why is the culture of

deceit so prevalent in the police? I do not agree there is a cultural

deceit. These are all individual incidents which raise individual

issues. I would suggest that your short headline summarising each of

them has taken the most negative view of it. How can you be positive

about the police's behaviour over Hillsborough? It remains to be seen

with the inquiry but we are probably talking about a handful of senior

officers, dealing with the paperwork. Well over 100 testimonies

being doctored by the police. Well, those testimonies were true to start

with, so the officers have told the truth, and they have been changed

for some reason. By the police. By the police all lawyers we have got

this thing that the police conflates everything. There are 43 forces

there is ACPO, there is the College Of Policing... People say it was a

handful of police officers, it wasn't, it was six senior police

officers who were alleged to have doctored 106 D4 statements. Even

today we are hearing that more than 1000 officers are yet to be spoken

to about Hillsborough. -- 164. Do we pretend that Hillsborough, and some

of these examples, are the exception rather than the rule? What is the

evidence that this is now prevalent in our police? I think there is a

lot of evidence, and Plebgate is probably the thing which has

clinched it. The public want to know, how deep does this girl? The

audacity of a group of policemen who think they can set up a Cabinet

minister. Five of those who were arrested and bailed still have not

been charged. One of those officers actually wrote an e-mail pretending

to be a member of the public. I do not see what the problem is in

prosecuting them for that. Taking Plebgate, there are loads of

different bits of that incident There is the officers on duty in

Downing Street, the issue of who leaked the story to the Sun, there

are the officers who claim to have been there who would appear not to

have been there, and then we have got the West Midlands meeting

issue, which has sort of been resolved this week. There has been

misconduct. But at a lower level. But it is the audacity of an

organisation which thinks it can take on an elected minister and

destroy him for their own political purposes, at a time when the

Government are cutting please pay, when they are freezing their

pensions and reducing their numbers. It looks very much to all of us the

public, that the police are at war with the government, and they are

going to do anything they can to discredit the Government. The police

would have every reason to be at war with the Government, because there

if there is a crisis of trust.. But it looks like they fitted up a

Cabinet minister. That remains to be seen, it is being investigated. We

know that those Birmingham officers, they totally misrepresented to, if

not lied outright, about what was said. Again, that is a

misrepresentation of what happened. If you actually go and look at what

is said, it is plain from the context, they were saying, he has

told us nothing new. But he had in the transcript, it said he hadn t.

He would not admit he had used the word pleb. He apologised profusely,

he said it would never happen again, he said many things that he had not

said before. I agree, which is presumably... Thereon many police

forces in this country, they have one of the toughest jobs in the

land, they end up getting involved in almost anything which happens in

society, and there are obviously a number of difficult examples, but

what is the evidence that it is out of hand, other than just several bad

apples? This bad apples argument, we have some amazing police people,

thank God, but it is because of those that we have to root out the

bad ones, the ones that are possibly corrupt. From where most of us are

standing, the ones who are being accused of being corrupt, there does

not seem to be any process to deal with these people. The trouble with

a rotten apple is that it spreads. It is not fair on the good cops to

be tainted by this, and I think the police force, as an institution...

For all of us, we have to respect the police. There is a problem, is

there not? People do worry that if you can fit up a Cabinet minister,

you can fit up anybody... . I would disagree that anybody has proved

that anybody has been fitted up. We are yet to hear what happened at the

gates of Downing Street. But what we do know about the gates of Downing

Street is that we were told by the police officers that passers-by had

heard this incredible row, where Mitchell's file went was bullied.

That is not true... . They did not use those words, actually. All

right, but it is clear that the Police Federation jumped on this as

a politically motivated campaign... I have always said that politics

should be kept out of policing. The federation, they cannot go on

strike, but this was to covertly political, so I criticise them for

that. Do we need a better way of monitoring the police? We need a

more competent and properly resourced Independent police

commission. But if you look at those Bravery Awards, every police

officer, every year, who acts with bravery... That is the police force

we want to believe in. That is the police force you have got. We will

leave it there. Coming up in just over 20 minutes, I will be speaking

to former Lib Minister Jeremy Browne. And in The Week Ahead,

Hello once again from the Midlands. services cannot help?

Hello once again from the Midlands. I'm Patrick Burns. Our guests today

stand on opposite sides of one of the deepest divides in British

politics ` between Birmingham and the Black Country.

James Morris, Conservative MP for Halesowen and Rowley Regis, is a

member of the Communities and Local Government Select Committee. Khalid

Mahmood has been the Labour MP for Birmingham Perry Barr since 2001.

Let's begin with that extraordinary onslaught on Britain's biggest city

outside London. Sir Michael Wilshaw, head of the education watchdog

Ofsted, started with the catastrophic failures in

Birmingham's Children's Services Department, culminating recently in

the shocking revelations surrounding the case of two`year`old Keanu

Williams, beaten to death by his mother. But then Sir Michael

broadened`out, into an excoriating tirade against the city itself. Why

is it that more than a third of children in the city lived in

households on low incomes? Why is it that infant mortality is almost

twice the national average? Worse than in Cuba and on par with Latvia

and Chile. Why is it that Birmingham has some of the worst levels of

statutory homelessness in the country? Why is it that levels of

long`term unemployment in the city are more than double the national

average? These are shocking statistics and a national disgrace.

Why is it asks Sir Michael? This is an issue that you have taken a long

term interest, children's protection in Birmingham. I agree with most of

the questions and we need to address them. We have not done so in the

last eight years in terms of children's services. We need to look

at systemic failures but on the other questions about infant

mortality and homelessness, we need to look out what national government

is doing to support Birmingham. What would your answer be to that

question? On the point about child protection, it is very disturbing

that both Birmingham city council and Sandwell Council have been

listed on this 20 local authorities deemed inadequate. That is a

shocking failure of our most vulnerable children. We need now to

get a grip because these people are letting down some of the most

vulnerable children. The other thing that concerns people is the

collateral damage, the sense that he is likening Birmingham to some sort

of disaster area generally. He does make a valid point. They are very

serious issues he has raised and that is why we need to address

those. We need to pick`up the pieces and deal with them. It is not just

Birmingham, there was an article in the Economist which says

Wolverhampton, people should be paid to leave it. I do not accept that.

What we need to be doing is support the Black Country economy, look at

how we can create jobs and opportunities for young people in

the Black Country and that speaks to the importance of rebalancing the

economy making sure Wolverhampton can invest in the future in their

areas. Do you think in a wider sense there is something regrettable about

all this, in the sense it gives the metropolitan elite to sneer? Very

much so. The amount of funding cut is making it very difficult for us

to move forward. Various funding and opportunities for Birmingham and the

broader West Midlands to start developing, lots of recent signs of

good economic growth. Coming up in a few minutes: what

happens when the mentally ill are treated like criminals? Innocent

people are handcuffed and locked`up in the cells. It's costing the

police time and money that could be better spent elsewhere. We'll have

more on this a little later. Could we be seeing those fabled

"green shoots of recovery" in the West Midlands labour market at last?

The latest figures showed a welcome drop in unemployment in our part of

the country, the first fall here since December last year. So is it

just a blip, or the start of a genuine downward trend? Sarah

Falkland reports. Jacqui Gray was facing redundancy

earlier this year. The jewellery shop she had worked in was not doing

well but she avoided unemployment by becoming her own boss. My family and

friends have been brilliant, really supportive and it was just like, if

I got made redundant at a certain age, would I find another job? Jobs

are quite scarce. Jacqui was helped by a free training course called

Prime aimed at older workers. The uptake in the West Midlands has been

high. Unemployment in the region fell for the first time since last

December. It dropped by 14,000 in the last quarter, meaning 254,000

people are now out of work and that rate is higher than the national

average. There was no complacency from our MP. The West Midlands is

still lagging behind other regions. There is a lot more that we need to

do to encourage job creation in the West Midlands but we are on the road

to recovery. The figures are undoubtedly welcome but the

celebrations are on hold. Only been north`east has more unemployment

than the West Midlands and the total here is still higher than at this

time last year. The road to recovery may have a few placeds ahead. It is

nice to have something to celebrate but we are still well ahead of the

national average in terms of unemployment and in Birmingham, six

of every ten people available for work are not in a job. Clearly, it

varies more to do and we have seen some very good indicators on the

economy, strong exporting numbers and strong manufacturing. The only

way to create jobs is to create good quality private sector for time jobs

but we need to do more. Particular areas concern 16`24 `year`olds and

there are aspects of the work programme do not bear down on the

problems. Long`term unemployment is coming down. We need to do more in

order to address those issues. The route to recovery is we begin to

recover by creating good quality private sector jobs, improving

investment. If you look at the action the government is taking, the

regional jobs fund, put it all together, their wrist targeted help

for individuals if they match certain criteria. The real issue

here is... We have bits that mess around with issues but do not

constructively support the issue. Under advantage West Midlands,

private sector employment under Labour fell and regional disparities

grew so I do not think that is the solution. The solution is to build

on the export and manufacturing growth we have got. We are bringing

in a ?2 billion growth fund of which Birmingham and the Black Country

will be able to get money for investment. The last think Labour

wants is the economy to come completely good and vindicate the

government's approach. We want to ensure people get the jobs they want

but we want to get those jobs as soon as possible and the levels of

living for those people are increased and that is what we want

to do. Labour accused the government of a cost of living crisis. In real

terms, people are worse off. You need to recover the economy and

build on the export growth we are seeing. That is the only way out.

They were billed as a radical departure in political

accountability, a fresh pair of eyes at the top of every police force.

One of the first things to strike the "fresh pair of eyes" of

Staffordshire's new Police Commissioner, Matthew Ellis was the

cost, almost ?1 million a year, of policing issues involving people

with mental illnesses. We'll talk to Mr Ellis shortly. But let's hear

first from our BBC Stoke Political reporter. Phil McCann explains why

the police increasingly describe themselves as 'the agency of last

resort". It is an ordinary weekday night in

Stoke`on`Trent and the police get a call. They are trying to drill

through my house. They are next door and trying to get through the wall.

The caller believes people are trying to drill through his wall and

harm him. The police note it will not be the last they hear from him

tonight. A few hours later the police have to go around again. I

need someone to come out ASAP. He has a knife, all kinds of weapons.

The situation gets volatile and this time it ends up in custody. Last

year Staffordshire police's call centres dealt with over 15,000

incidents when there were concerns with someone with mental health

issues. It can take four offices of 24`macro hours, up to 25% of their

time. Just about everyone agrees with Staffordshire's police and

crime commission that this is not the best place for someone with

mental health problems. This place is designed for people who have

allegedly offended not people who are vulnerable with mental health

issues and so I believe `` do not believe this place is appropriate.

It has gone right to the top. The Home Secretary address the

organisation that represents rank and file police officers. These

officers are skilled but they are not in the position to be

psychiatrists nor are they meant to be social workers or ambulance

drivers. You are put in that role because when members of the public

have concerns about an individual's safety, they do not know who to call

but police. But progress is being made. Psychiatric nurses are now

based in custody. It is not an environment. People are here, on

camera, people with paranoid ideas, certain types of psychosis, it will

only exacerbate the situation. There is now talk of safe houses being

setup but with budget is tight, the question is who pays?

Here is Staffordshire's police and crime Commissioner Matthew Ellis. He

is now coming up to his first anniversary. I have been reading

through the mental health review and in broad terms, it is calling for

joined up approach is on this issue between the police and other

agencies. I was fascinated when I first got elected talking to front

line officers and mental health issues and technology were the

things they brought up. We need to join services are better and only

this week I have invested a large amount of money in mental health

services which will free up police time and stop people who are simply

ill being locked up in cells. We have seen how disturbing it can be

in the report but you are not saying that there are never circumstances

in which the only course is for the police to intervene. Let's be

clear, the police should be there to stabilise a situation, make a

situation safe. What is not happening is once they have done

that, being able to hand over to specialist agencies. We are

expecting officers to be something they are not and we need to change

that. Joining up the system, trying to make sure we look at the public

purse as one virtual amount of money, that is what we need to do

and I have a very strong programme in place to make sure we look at the

most effective place to spend money and above all, stop this interesting

so we can reduce the demand in future. Restraining someone in this

sort of situation can be a pretty unsophisticated operation. We are

dealing with very vulnerable people here. Maybe officers should be

better trained? We need to make sure officers are trained properly and

the chief constable is making sure officers are trained properly but

nothing is going to be trying to spend money in the right place. Too

often at the moment, this is a local issue, this is a local failure in

services as far as I am concerned, if we invest in stopping things

happening, early intervention, we will reduce demand on services and

we will stop people being locked up inappropriately. James, you take a

particular interest in issues surrounding mental health. I am

chairman of the all`party group on mental health. Matthew is saying

their right areas where money has to be the answer. I agree that the

solution is much better working between the police and the NHS.

There are a number of pilots being tried around street tree arching

where police are working in cooperation with nurses. I am

pleased to see that the police and crime commissioners are picking up

the cudgels of mental health and driving it Fulwood. One said we have

to find beds in places fit for purpose and another says we need to

put resources of front which will save on after`care. I think that is

a critical point. Early intervention is clearly going to be critical.

This is a consequence of 18 years of bad policy under our government and

the previous Conservative government. That then went on to the

community and what we have now done is closed down those organisations

because they have no funding and therefore the police pick up the

pieces. There should be proper provision for these people. We

should be supporting them and not using the police as a last resort.

That is the word you feel. The only way I would disagree is not the

amount of money but where it is spent and that it is spent in the

right place. This is something we need to nail. The strategy I have

setup is based upon trying to deal with things before they get out of

hand, so I am saying... There should be a multi`agency approach but that

has to bring in with the health profession is dealing with it and

then assisting the police. It is unacceptable we have prison cells

used as a place of safety. We heard that if someone is suffering from a

form of paranoia, being held in a cell and supervised was the last

thing that a vulnerable person in that position would need. We have

forgotten, all the funding pushed to the side and that is now we have two

pick up the pieces. Do you think things are moving forward now? I

think they are. The issue is now firmly on the agenda. In

Staffordshire there are small signs of progress. I have invested money

this week in services that will go to some weight sorting this out but

this is about services working together.

Now for our regular round`up of the political week in the Midlands in 60

seconds, brought to us today by BBC Midlands Today's Elizabeth Glinka.

Environment Secretary Owen Paterson has been sowing seeds of discontent.

He says opponents of GM crops are wicked and are condemning millions

of people in poorer countries to hunger.

Worcester is known as the Faithful City, but nobody told Councillor

Jabba Riaz. He quit the city's Conservative group to join Labour,

blaming David Cameron's "disastrous policies."

Sir David Higgins takes over at HS2 next year. The Network Rail Chief

says he wants to kick`on with the project which is rapidly becoming a

political football. It is too important for that. It is crucially

important for the nation to spread wealth but also important for rail

infrastructure. Birmingham Northfield MP Richard

Burden wants schools to do more to celebrate white culture. Professor

Carl Chinn and Billy Bragg are suggested as potential role models.

And the Chief Constables of West Mercia, Warwickshire and West

Midlands Police head to Westminster this week to explain themselves over

the Andrew Mitchell affair. The PM wants an apology. So does Theresa

May. That should be a lively session of the home affairs select

committee. James, do you think the police I Andrew Mitchell an apology?

They do. This raises serious questions about the police to

investigate themselves and it will be interesting to see what comes out

of this enquiry on Wednesday, but it does raise serious issues about the

way the police have investigated this matter. The real issue here is

the cabinet minister looked at the CCTV and why did they allow it to

continue at the same time? Nick Clegg says he does not want this to

descend into a slanging match but it is heading that way. It does raise

issues about the way the police have conducted themselves in relation to

Andrew Mitchell. The Police Federation behaved in a way that was

inappropriate, trashing the career of the Chief Whip and more will come

out of this. There is the question of trust, particularly when you

think of areas where the growing role of the state's surveillance,

lots of controversy about that and the police, a particular level of

pro victory is required. We have to bring back confidence. The police

protect us and we have to ensure we have that trust and security from

them. General concern about trust in the police? I would agree and the

first role of police and crime commissioners is to try and engender

that ability for the public to trust in transparency that is going on. I

have put a mechanism in place where the police are criticised, I have

senior officials in those meetings not getting involved but being able

to tell me, Commissioner, this was done in a way I would expect it to

be done. That is what had happened at Staffordshire. That is not what

has happened in this particular case. We will keep a close watch on

this during the days ahead. Many thanks to James Morris, Khalid

Mahmood and Matthew Ellis. There'll be more on our main talking point,

tomorrow evening. "Inside Out" will be reporting from Staffordshire on

the challenges confronting health professionals and the police alike,

as they try to help people with mental illness who've fallen through

the net. That's with Mary Rhodes at 7.30pm here on BBC One in the West

Midlands. This, though, is where we rejoin Andrew Neill.

which links in with this. Thank you to both of you for being my guests

today. Are the Lib Dems like a wonky

shopping trolley? Why is Nick Clegg kicking off over free schools? And

what about Boris and George's love bombing of China? All questions for

The Week Ahead. We are joined now by the former Home Office minister and

Liberal Democrat MP Jeremy Browne. Jeremy Browne, let me ask you this

key question - ??GAPNEXT who is in the ascendancy in your party, those

who would fear to the left, or those who would fear to the centre? The

point I was making in the interview that I gave to the times was that I

want us to be unambiguously and on up genetically -- and

unapologetically a Liberal party. I do not want us to be craving the

approval of columnists like Polly Toynbee. I do not want us to be a

pale imitation of the Labour Party. I think we should be proud and

unambiguously a authentic Liberal party. That is my ambition for the

party. If it is, as you put it, fearing to the left, then I think

that is a mistake, I think we should be on the liberal centre ground But

is it actually veering to the left, your party? I think there is a

danger when a party, or any organisation, feels that it is in a

difficult position, to look inwards, to look for reassuring

familiar policy positions. I do not want us to be the party which looks

inwards and speaks to the 9% of people who are minded to support us

already. I want us to look outwards and speak to the 91% of the

population, for whom I think we have got a good story to tell about the

contribution we have made to getting the deficit down, cutting crime

keeping interest rates low, and also, distinctive Liberal Democrat

policies for example on income tax and pupil premiums. If we look like

we are a party which is uneasy and ambivalent about our role in

government, people will not give us credit for the successes of the

government, and we will not be able to claim the authorship which we

should be able to claim for our policies excesses in government I

want us to be confident, outward looking, and authentically liberal.

If we are that, people real sense that and they will respond

positively. Does that not therefore make it rather strange that Nick

Craig should choose to distance himself from the coalition's schools

policy? Well, I support free schools, I think they are a liberal

policy. Education is a fascinating area, so let's explore it a bit We

have had two very significant and troubling reports in the last

fortnight, one from Alan Milburn, saying that social mobility has

stalled in this country, in other words, what your parents do is a

reliable guide to how you will get on in life and the other saying that

Britain lags behind our competitors, the other

industrialised countries, in terms of the educational attainment of

15-year-olds. Both of those are worrying. We have a scandalous

situation in this country where two thirds of children from

disadvantaged backgrounds are failing to get five Grade A to Grade

C. Some get none at all. If we were the world leaders in education, we

could have an interesting conversation about how we are able

to maintain that position, but we are not. Whether there are good

things one less good things which have happened in our schools over

the last 30-40 years, we really need to raise our game and stop letting

young people down who need a good quality education in order to

realise their full potential in life. It sounds like you do not

share Mr Clegg's designations? I think there are two big dangers for

us as a party. I do not think we should be instinctively statist and

I do not think either we should be instinctively in favour of the

status quo. I want us to have a restless, radical, energetic,

liberal reforming instinct, which is about putting more power and

responsible at the end opportunity in the hands of individual people.

As I say, we look at the education system, of course there are good

teachers and good outcomes in some schools and for some pupils,

overall, our performance in this country is not good enough, so the

status quo has not been a successful stop I am interested in how we can

innovate. -- has not been a success. Are the Tories wooing you? Well I

do not know if that is the right word, I have been reported, and I

have set myself, that the Conservatives have, if you like

made some advances or generous suggestions to me, but I am a

liberal, and I am a Liberal Democrat. I have been a member of

the Lib Dems since the party was founded, I joined when I was 18

years old. I have campaigned tirelessly for the Liberal Democrats

for my entire adult life, so I am not about to go and join another

political party. I would turn this on its head, let me put it like

this, I think there are quite a few liberals in the other political

parties, people like Alan Milburn, who wrote a report on social

mobility, people like Nick Bowles in the Conservative Party. Our

ambition, as Liberal Democrats, should be to attract liberals from

other political parties, and no political party, to the Lib Dems.

Just briefly, have you suggested that the Tories do not run a

candidate against you in the next election? I have not suggested

anything of the sort. The Conservatives have to make their own

decisions about which candidates they select, and I will take on

whoever is select it from each of the political parties. Thank you for

joining us. There is a danger not from Jeremy Browne, but from Mr

Clegg, in that, having been part of a coalition which has gone through

an enormous squeeze in living standards for three years, it did

not look like both was coming, it was being regarded overall as a

failure, but now, it may be turning the corner, so why would you then

start to disassociate yourself from the coalition's policies? Yes, the

danger for Nick Clegg is that he makes the Liberal Democrats looked

like visitors in a guesthouse, a guesthouse which is owned by the

Conservatives. As you say, they were there for the three difficult years,

and just at the moment when the economy seems to be coming right,

and we are getting some nice growth, they seek to distance themselves. It

is interesting that Jeremy Browne came out with the outrageously

disloyal statement that he supported free schools statement. That is a

disloyal Liberal Democrat view, but on Thursday, of course, the Liberal

Democrat party was in favour of free schools, because in that statement

about the Al-Madinah school, David Laws made a passionate defence about

what Nick Clegg is now criticising, which is having on qualified

teachers. If things are now coming right, the big risk for the Liberal

Democrats always was that they would not get the credit anyway. Well if

they diss associate themselves like this, they definitely will not get

the credit. It depends which voters their opinion poll ratings are dire,

he spoke about 9%, and sometimes it is less than that. So, where are

they going to get those voters from? They have not got those

anti-Iraq war voters. Is it not Mission impossible, getting Labour

voters test surely the left of the Lib Dem vote is peeling off towards

labour, not away from Labour? I wonder to what extent, and this

might be speculation, this might be organised and arranged, that Cameron

and Clegg both understand that they have groups of voters that they need

to get, so they need to send messages out to different groups, it

looks like a bit of a setup to me. Boris in China, along with boy

George - let's have a look... Who, according to JK Rowling, was Harry

Potter's first girlfriend? That s right, and she is Chinese overseas

student, is that not right at Hogwarts? Actually, we are not sure

it is right, she is actually from Scotland. It is not only London

which has a diverse society. Putting that to one side, we are inviting

the Chinese into finance our power stations, to run big banks in the

cities, we are giving out more visas to them, are we right to embrace the

Dragon? What worries me about the power stations then, it is 30% of

investment, and it reminds me a lot of PFI, the idea that you do not

want a huge investment on your balance sheet, but if somebody bails

out halfway through, we cannot stop with a half finished power station.

It is EDF, the French company, which will actually build it, and we will

be guaranteeing the debt for them. It is extraordinary that there has

been so little adverse comment after George Osborne and Boris's trip to

China, and is it now really the UK Government policy, to sell Britain

to the Chinese? There was a debate in government about this, as they

were getting ready for the trip and there will be at some point in the

next six months be a David Cameron trip to China. He has had to wait

three years because they were annoyed about him meeting the Dalai

llama. There were some people in the Foreign Office who were saying,

fine, but tread carefully. George Osborne's view is absolutely not,

get in there, I do not care about any of these problems, get stuck

in. I think he is storing up five years since the financial crisis,

Chinese banks are being given a special, light touch regulatory

regime. What could possibly go wrong?! There is lots to see. Energy

prices have continued to dominate this week. We have got the EDF deal,

whereby we are going to be giving them twice the market rate for their

energy. But for the coalition, all eyes are on the GDP figures. The

expectation and hope is that the recovery will be stronger than the

figures have suggested so far, on which basis it can influence the

result of the next general election. The chief economist at the

Bank of England was saying on Twitter last week that the Bank of

England may now bring forward the assessment when it says, maybe we

are going to have to change monetary policy, if unemployment goes below

7%. And we know what that means interest rates. The Bank of England

on Twitter! That is it for today. The Daily Politics is back tomorrow

on BBC Two. I will be back with prime Minster 's questions on

Wednesday, and of course, we will be back at 11 o'clock on BBC One next

Sunday.