12/07/2012 Daily Politics

Afternoon, folks. Welcome to the Daily Politics. 3,500 troops are

being drafted in to help the security for the London Olympics.

It last-minute measure after the G4s failed to recruit enough staff.

The Home Secretary offers 10,000 Olympic tickets to the soldiers'

families. We have the late egs.

How have David Cameron's relations with his backbenchers turned ugly?

After the biggest rebellion on Lord's reform, we hear from the man

David Cameron beat to become the Lord of the party. And Britain's

canal waterways, a charitable Trust. ? And we hear from the electoral

commission about electing today. So, all of that is coming up.

With us, senior Conservative backbencher and trouble maker,

David Davis. He has no chance of getting into the House of Lords.

Welcome back to the Daily Politics. Some things don't change.

Let's kick off with the news that William Hague has ordered EU powers

and how they impact on the life in the United Kingdom. The Foreign

Secretary is due to make a statement to the House of Commons

in half an hour. Well, like so many European things

this could deliver rather more than is expected. If it is a real audit

it will show all sorts of handicaps and prob Lord Mayors coming from

Europe. He thoughs that, surely? I asked

for, this and the place went into meltdown. Saying that I can't do it

Saying that it will be leaked. This will be leaking for weeks.

Will it bring on side some of the Tory backbenchers who have been

calling for repatriation of powers and a referendum at some stage once

renegotiation has taken place? I presume, if they are doing a

comprehensive audit, it is a stepping stone to seeing what is

not working? I think that is right. Two things will come out of it. One

is the people that want out, that situation will be energised by it,

but it could also give them a useful negotiation template if you

like. That this is the sort of thing they want fixed. It could be

a rational thing, but more likely it will raise the temperatures.

2014 is the time it will be computed, a year before the general

election, how do you think that the Liberal Democrats... It has their

agreement? I assume that we have their agreement, but it could be

before or after the elections. It does not say specifically wen in

2014, the timing could be important. Think of the combination of a bad

performance in the Euro elections and this together.

What are you hoping for? Nothing. I am hoping for a rational outcome.

Is the Foreign Office to be amended? Would you trust the

Foreign Office? Has not William Hague gone native.

You can stop with that. The Foreign Office is in charge of

EU things? It would have to be Whitehall-wide. There are all sorts

of things, trade policy, you have all of the various employment laws,

everyone will have to have their finger in it.

You know there is a tourist walking down Whitehall, he asked a police

officer, what side is the Foreign Office on? The police officer said

it was a very good question. Now, it is time for our daily quiz,

which today is all about UFOs. Yes, the MoD has released the latest

batch of documents about UFO sightings. The files show that the

MoD launched an investigation in the 1990s, into whether

unidentified phenomena were not of this earth, and if so, what their

purpose was. So, what was the purpose of the UFO visits? Was it:

Military reconassiance, scientific exploration, or tourism? David is

going to help us give the answer. The truth is out there.

I think they were queuing for Olympic tickets.

So, two weeks to go until the greatest show on earth gets under

way in London. Yes, the 2012 Olympics is set to go and the man

in charge, sew Sebastian Coe, is urging us to get behind the games.

I'm going to New York. The stadiums are built. Tens of thousands of new

Olympic tickets are arriving on door mats, especially if you are an

MP and Britain's athletes are limbering up for the events, but we

Brits are never far from have a whinge about something. The

Olympics is no exception. So, what do we have to moon about now? There

is a fair amount of complaining about the Games, mostly over the

security issues. 3,500 troops are on standby as the contractor, G4s

may not be able to provide the guards it had guaranteed. Despite

being paid �300 million. The Chief Inspector of Borders warned that

border officers are Manning immigration desks at Heathrow

Airport. This on top of complaints this week from the select committee

chairman, Keith Vaz, who said queuing was so bad people were left

stacked in corridors. Computers, sorry, commuters are not happy as

junctions two and three of the M4, the main motorway link to the

airport will not reopen as planned and Transport for London are

working on contingis if not re- opened before the Olympics. In East

London, the residents lost a high court challenge not to have

missiles put on the roof of their toor blocks and the Olympic

organisers have banned retailers on site other than McDonald's, from

selling chips, unless served with fish. Four MPs are not complaining,

members of the select committee, including John Whittingdale who

accepted tickets for the men's 100m final. Theresa May has been

answering questions in the House of Commons on the Olympic security.

This is what she had to say. Concerns have ariz been the ability

of G4s to deliver the required number of guards for the Olympic

venues and in the time skails available. The Defence Secretary

and I along are other ministers have been monitoringing the

situation and security contracts over many months. In consultation

with LOCOG and G4s we have agreed it would be prudent to deploy

additional military support. I have therefore requested additional MoD

support and the Defence Secretary authorised the deployment of a

further 3,500 military personnel. That brings the total number of

military personnel, supporting the safety and the security of the

Games in a variety of roles to 17,000, including the military

deployed on wider functions of venue security.

Theresa May answering urgent questions in the Commons on Olympic

security. Now we are joined by former secure

minister, Lord West and by the Conservative MP Mr Nurser.

We asked to speak to a Home Office Minister, but none was available.

So, Lord West you can't get into the country as Heathrow Airport is

blocked. You can't get into London as the M4 is closed and if you

manage another way in, the security companies fail to provide security

guards, who more can go wrong? latest thing with G4s was a

surprise and a worry. I think we have to look at this

carefully, G4s are used widely. Think think that they can do things

and provide it, but they have not done it they should have let us

know before. This is too close to the Games.

The last time I looked, two things, it is not a surprise that the

Olympics are opening at the end of this month, we have known for a

while, years and years! And there are 2.5 million people unemployed

in this country? Why could they not get the guards on time? Alarm bells

should have gone off earlier, about two years ago it was clear that the

number of people required for the Olympic security would have been

bigger than predicted and G4s were having difficulty in vetting the

people, ensuring that they had clearances, getting them recruited

and ensuring that they were available for use. That is why we

agreed that 13,500 military... it was originally to be that?

was suppose ed -- supposed to be a blue Games, but then it became

clear that would not be the case. At that stage I believe the

Government should have been over this company like a rash, saying if

they cannot deliver here, that we need to be certain that they can,

and they should have been drilling down and making sure, clearly, the

company kept saying they can, they can, now here at the last moment

they cannot. To suddenly find 3,500 extra, 17,000, Theresa May,

mentioned, there are also,000 contingency, that is 19,000 army,

Navy military personnel. If they are watching in Buenos

Aires, now would be a good time?! Maybe we should have just brought

them in from the start? Well, in the all-party... I published this

yesterday it is an all-party parliamentary group on Olympic

security. I discusseded it with Lord West and David Davis. We

published this yesterday, but we were looking for some time...

you see this coming? We identified a problem with G4s. In fairness to

the Government they have therefore started the military contingency

planning, but the bitter irony of this is that only last week waerp

hearing that the very soldiers and my -- last week we were hearing

that the very soldiers and my own regiment, with P45s in tear pocket,

have to -- in their pocket, have to come from post Afghanistan tour

leave and now are to carry out Olympic security around the Olympic

tennis, then they will be fired. A great way to treat people who

have risked their lives for this country? All I say is thank God we

have an army, Navy and air force that can react to Government plans

that can react on short notice. That is the key point. I'm on

record as saying that we have cut the forces too far. These people

are brilliant in training. They can turn their hand to anything,

whether it is foot and mouth, flooding, fires, Olympics, we need

to think carefully before we start cutting this down in stature. There

we are, we able able to get 20,000. Thank goodness.

I was going to ask a question, which is, I remember being briefed

on the Special Forces element of this five years ago. It is, is two

weeks long nuch to get them trained and planned into the system?

problem is, David, we are clearly deploying a brigade. That is what

this is. If you sent every Gurkha in the army and sent him, it would

not be enough to fulfil the commitment. It is expensive. The

ministers have delayed until the last safe moment before pressing

the moment on a plan that is going to cost a great deal of money.

7,500 were to be planned in checking cars, looking in handbags,

now that is increasing to 11,000. That is a juch.

I if were an army veteran, to have risked my life in Helmand province

and come back here and then told to search handbags in the Olympics, I

is the point. You can say to these guys, scrap your leave, you are not

going on holiday, scrap all the plans. They will do it, and do it

with a smile. People are seeing how brilliant these men and women are.

Jo? Can we talk to Katie Rowlett? We have been talking in the

pseudoabout the 3,500 additional military personnel to be deployed.

What has been revealed is that G4s, in terms of recruitment policy,

were given the contract in March, but did not open the recruitment

office until January of this year. They did not leave enough time, did

they? No. We have heard from a copyle of people employed by G4s.

They applied last year and did not hear from the company until April,

I think. So they are doing handbag security on the gates of the

Olympic Park. There does seem to be some sort of issue arising about

the administrative side of G4s. Looking now, the backdrop is

amazing, the weather is great. For today, but what is in practical

terms, the feeling around the Olympic Park weeks before the

I have been here this morning, but did not have entrance to the park.

It has been a hive of security. Army personnel manning the entrance

gates, as well as security people. There does seem a large-scale

security operation going on here. It is a shame for 3,500 extra are

needed. For point is this, whilst we were writing the report, it

became clear at the were plenty of people who wanted to do it. Some

have already been trained and vetted. But the money offered was

not good and that there was the recruitment process. If it had not

started until January this year, it wasn't enough time. Are they going

to be any penalties? All in the usual British way, nobody is to

blame? Katie, will there be any penalty against G4S for failing to

fulfil the contract? I think there has been some rumours that there

may be a penalty, yes. The MoD had said they will be reimbursing any

military personnel who have been put out, who have booked holidays

and now have to cancel them and they will get they leave

entitlement. As far as the military that are involved, they should get

their leave back. These are MoD costs. And there has been an

agreement already. The MoD are paying for Olympic security. The

MoD, as we know, have got no money. It is outrageous. Are we going to

get soldiers getting overtime? I do not think so. They will have none

of their overseas allowances. will they stay in London? There is

accommodation for 3,500 which was built by G4S, but it is not very

good. The army will be used to not a very good. Any of you watch the

sitcom called 2020? I love it. is so much worse than that. Katie,

thanks very much. David Cameron hasn't exactly had a

trouble-free time of late. Most of the heavy flak seems to have come

from his own side. Backbenchers are in a rebellious mood. That was just

the latest in a long line of issues where Tory MPs have got moody and

not always over policy. David Thomson found out if morale could

Legend has it, or Winston Churchill once advised a young Tory MP who

referred to the Labour benches as the enemy. No, that is the

opposition party. The enemy is sat around his. David Cameron must know

exactly what the great man meant. Lords reform, EU referendum? You

get the drift. It is not only policy, according to one of his

most senior backbenchers, Conservative MPs are not feeling

the love. They are two asides to senior management. One is to set

objectives and motivate people to achieve them. But the second is to

notice when people are falling by the wayside. Put your arm around

them, show some sympathy and ask how you can help. That is one of

the management skills David Cameron does not have. Another wise man

once said, it is better to be feared than loved. David Cameron

does have his teddies, the whips, to you and me, to lean on

backbenchers. -- his head lease. What is that about? People who

wanted to be promoted can still work to an extent. But MPs have

been champions in their local area, they are much more interested in

what their constituents might think that what the whips office might

think. What if anything, can David Cameron do to stop his backbenchers

giving him a kicking? He needs to bring on some of the new people,

even though it will be very difficult because there are older

people waiting their turn. He needs to get them in and get them

involved pretty quickly. He needs to use their talents and get them

to help him along the road. even that suggestion is not without

dangers. This whole business of quotas, I know it is not called

quota, but it is. Wanting more people of a particular gender, or

particular background in his front line team, seems to me to be wrong.

He put the best people in the best jobs and that is another lacking of

management skills. Many people feel no matter what they do, their

chance will never come. That is causing concern. Some think that

what David Cameron needs is a few more people a bit less like him.

want David tamarind to create a tent where everybody is involved in

the project. But people are being left behind. -- David Cameron.

There is a feeling people being left behind are not quite from his

background. Come in under not so friendly fire from the backbenches

is not unique to this PM - just ask Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, John

Major and even Winston Churchill. But to David Cameron, sometimes it

feels like it is personal. David Davis, is David Cameron's

problems are rooted in his problems -- policies or structure? Structure

is the way policies are right that. A lot of the backbenchers on the

conservative side feel the Liberals, who are one 6th of the Government

have almost half of the sake. -- says. Part of it is organisation.

I'm afraid the Government has not done enough to make their own

backbenchers feel involved and engaged in policy. This issue on

the Lords shouldn't been a surprise. The opponents to the Lords reform

have been coming for a long-time, there are 110 of them, how could

you not notice? It is not one single thing. Some of it is not

unique, John Major had bigger troubles. Even Margaret Thatcher

had trouble from time to time. spoke to someone from the US state

department whose job it is keeping an eye on British policy. They have

been over visiting and they said to me, they were amazed how little

support or warmth that there was for David Cameron on the Tory back

benches? He wouldn't be the first person to say it. To be fair to him,

he has a difficult knife-edge to walk on, to do we the Liberals and

his own side. But I am surprised at how little care has been put in to

managing his own party. He cannot give out ministerial posts because

over 20 have gone. The house he dealt with the Lib Dems better than

he has dealt with his own backbenches? I suspect that is what

the feeling is in the Tory backbenches. When the coalition was

first signed up, the Liberals had a vote on it. It was not put to the

Tory backbenchers. But they had several votes on it. So, there is a

feeling to some extent it is more their property than ours. Or so,

they talk about the coalition agreement as if it has some

constitutional gravitas. It is just a deal between the parties. It does

not have the standing of a manifesto. And manifesto was

approved by the people. A coalition agreement is have proved by hook,

exactly? When you are dealing with the Lords, you cannot claim the

same rights as a leader, as you could as if it was explicitly laid

out in a manifesto. Are Tory backbenchers right to think if

you're not from the right set, you won't get into the David Cameron

Government? We will only know that question after the reshuffle. In

your package, there were people hinting at that. Paul Goodman was

hinting at it, Brian Binley was hinting. People being left behind,

are people not quite from his background. That is a remarkable

thing for a Tory MP to say of the Tory Prime Minister in the 21st

century? That is what I am saying, it will show. The first time around

he had to do the reshuffle, not the reshuffle, created Government on

terms he was not expecting, as part of the coalition. This time he has

had time to think about it. We will see what the outcome is. I would

actually put up a reshuffle for a long time. The moment he does it,

lots of people will say, we told you so. Or they will feel left out

and for what other reason they will be irritated. What Brian Binley was

talking about of course, you have got to be a woman or a minority

group in order to get promoted. I don't think that is as strong as it

is claimed, but we will see. regional coalition agreement you

have been talking about has kind of run its course. They have either

done what they agreed to do, or they are unable to agree to do.

They used to be talk of there would be a 2.0 coalition agreement, the

next stage. Am I right in thinking it has gone? There is nothing much

they can agree on? It looks like it has gone. On Wednesday, it was

asked and was pushed back. The person who asked the question is a

capable young businessman, and the sort of things you would expect to

be in the Government. Are their feelings among story MPs, on the

basis of that question, if there isn't much you can agree on, will

we get there sooner or later? of them will think that is what the

last year looks like. I don't believe that. The Liberals have the

best seats on the aeroplane but no parachutes. They cannot get out.

They could agree to go to a minority Government and leave the

Tories in Government but not go to an election? What happens for

example to the fiscal rebalancing programme? The major parts of the

cuts come in the second half. What other things hitting the Liberals?

Cutting back on spending, tuition fees was driven by that. All those

sorts of things will be political poison to the Liberals. If they

will be pulling back out of the Government and giving up the

benefits of governments, they won't be delivering the prize. Let's go

on to the Lords reform, David Cameron floating the idea may be we

could get rid of the 1992 hereditaries and elect another 92

people in their place as a first stage. Any kind of that ducking and

diving compromise it going to work? I doubt it. They will take three to

six months over this and try and pick of people and ask what weeks

they would like. There are 110. 110 rabbles. But there are probably

more now. Now he has effectively said he is only going to have one

more go, others may join up. You have to get that to under 74 him

having a chance of winning. They are over 800 people in the Lords

anyway. David Steel put down a motion which we could pass tomorrow.

Which was? Retirement, criminals getting thrown out and all this

sort of thing. We could be down to 200 by the end of the year.

will have to get a Lord on to do about that. Are you enjoying your

rebellious years? You have come late to them. I am enjoying my

freedom. It is seen by some as an attempt to

refloat David Cameron's Big Society idea. England and Wales 2000 miles

of canals and rivers were handed over to the Canal and River Trust,

a shiny new charity. Ministers say it is a milestone. But can it keep

its head above water? We have generations of history in

our canals. Initially set up and created to refill the Industrial

Revolution and transport goods around. Now it is a leisure pursuit.

Millions of people use the canals in England and Wales every year.

Scotland will stay under public ownership. What is happening with

this, ownership and responsibility for the waterways transfers to a

specially formed canals and rivers Trust, away from which was British

Waterways. It will mean it has a secured income from the Government

that for the next 15 years, �800 million has been handed over by the

Government. It will cover the overheads. The rest of things, the

charity status, recruiting volunteers, any money it can make

from its commercial exploits on the water, that will give the trust the

rest of the money it needs to run the canals. It is not just the wet

bits, but a historic buildings like this. It takes it almost into the

League of the National Trust, but on a smaller scale. He will become

the third largest owner of historic buildings in the UK after the

Church of England and the National Trust.

What has been the political motivation?

It is an example of the Big Society. What was formerly British Waterways,

an agency of the Government must have thought we cannot secure our

income for years to come. It was their decision, almost like a

management buyout to go to the Government and say, what if we took

control of everything, ran things ourselves? With the guaranteed

income for the next 15 years, in England and Wales, we are only

talking about England and Wales, but the guaranteed income with

their maintenance costs, so much history here, expensive and

difficult to maintain, is covered. They then can decide how they want

to grow the business and Grove Charity in the future. It brings

their destiny under their own controls. What they're doing is

launching an appeal for thousands of volunteers across England and

Wales to take part in 50 projects to rejuvenate, especially the

towpath. So many people come here for leisure, we have seen boats,

people jogging and walking dogs. The idea is to get some of those

people to put their money where their mouth is and help out, to be

part of the Big Society plans for Well you are bound to encourage

more volunteers on a day like this. The perfect occasion to be messing

about on boats. Thank you very much. We are joined by the Environment

Minister Richard Benyon and by the poet, Ian McMillan who support the

change. Welcome to you both. Is this a success story for the Big

Society? It is massive. There is nothing new about the Big Society.

What the Government is doing is making it easier for people to

volunteer, to get involved and handing over this massive asset.

Which troughis have down the years salivated over. �14 million of

assets. This is now handed back to the people who know, use and love

the waterways, it is a great moment. And a great idea, but what about

the streams of money, literally, where will it come from when the

Government money dries up? We have had tough negotiations from the

charity trustees. The words used at the end was tough by fair. The

Government is putting in a lot of money. How much? �39 million as a

basic core funding amount. We are dealing with the pensions

entitlements and many or aspects of the funding have been sport sorted.

For the long-term as well. Is a years? That is a long time.

It is not that long? It is in terms of Government spending and

commitments. This is 2,000 miles of canals. A very exciting moment when

we are handed something that the public should own, back to them.

Are you excited, Ian McMillan? this is collectivism and

interconnectedness. This was the first kind of information

superhighway. Somehow this reminds us of the great industry that built

it. If we can move it along it will be a great thing it reminds us that

correctivism is a great thing. But will the people put hands to

the pumps? There is a lot of canal enthuse yafpl. The next bit is the

ones in stilettos and brogues who should be convinced to put their

wellies on. Well, maybe, anything gimmick to

get people down to help. Looking at the canals, there, they look

wonderful, peaceful, a different pace of life, but in terms of the

volume of people actively engaged, does it involve that many people?

Probably not, but if you see it on days like this, how it connects

people. Somehow a canal is like a labour rather. A library of water.

So if we get people excited, it is getting people excited about

picking rubbish on the streets is the hard thing.

Have you been on a canal holiday? Many times.

I think that people are more likely to volunteer for an organisation, a

charity that they feel a sense of ownership rather than a Government

body. In my part of the world, there is a core, in my part of the

world the canal is run by volunteers.

So, we have massive charities that people are involved in, this is yet

another one. We have the National Trust. People have local causes

that they are involved in. It could look like a money-saving exercise

on the Government's side and relying on people to take up the

slack? I don't this think that the Treasury would agree! We have

handed over hundreds of millions for them. I think this is

everywhere I go, David is right, there is huge enthusiasm and

passion, not just from boaters. I have caught my first pike in the

Avon Can ap when I was nine -year- old. I know the passions that exist.

Was that legal? If there are police around they may arrest you! There

are kaurls from the opposition to ask the Government to put their

hands in pockets and supply cash to hit areas, are you going to do it?

There is the Bellwin Scheme it kicks in when the local authorities

are hit. They have been hit what you

planned? They will receive money under the Bellwin Scheme. Places

such as heb done bridge, many of us have visited since the first flood.

Now they have been visited again, they shrn flooded again. We want to

ensure that the Government is doing its bit alongside the local efforts

that are made. Will we have to get used to more

flash flooding and you have to change the way that we deal with

it? We know that the climate weather patterns are changing. We

have been facing two droughts and now really horrendous rain. I'm not

saying it will be as extreme as that, but yes, we have to plan for

this kind of weather patterns to continue. We have to make sure that

Government carries on doing what it is supposed to do. That is building

flood defence schemes. That is what we are doing, investing �2 .1 7

billion on that and helping out when we can when the emergencies

occur. I think that the response has been good, but most of the

people that have been flooded, you could not stop the torrent of water

that they faced. On the public paths on the canals,

are they a public right of way? They are part of the deal.

So no tolls put up for us to walk along the canals, is that right?

Yes, and we want to see them wider so that the cyclists and walkers

can use them. So, we know where to come to now...

Send the bills to Richard Benyon. He will send a fish back! Now, the

Olympics are posing a massive challenge to the security services

and shining a spotlight on the tools that Government has to keep

us safe. How effective are they? Last week a suspected terrorist was

charged with breaching conditions imposed ats part of the

Government's new terror monitoring powers. It is believed to be the

first time that there has been breach of the so-called TPIMs, this

is Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures.

They replace control orders earlier this year as the system for dealing

with terrorist suspects who cannot be tried or deported.

People who are subject to a TPIMs can be electronically tagged and

restrictions placed on who they can meet and where they can go.

Unlike control orders, though, TPIMs are time-limited to two years.

Some say that TPIMs are no more than control orders lite, that they

place restrictions on the freedoms of people not charged with offence.

We are joined now to discuss this by Robin Simcox from the Henry

Jackson Foundation who writes about Al-Qaeda and other terrorists and

David Davis, you are still against TPIMs, because they are too

draconian or not draconian enough? I am against them because they

don't work. This is not the first occasion that this has happened.

This man went there five times before he was pulled up. Lord knows

what he was doing. Another one under the previous control orders

got to within ten foot of Jack Straw and Dominic grieve, until he

announced himself. So again, they don't work. They are not control

orders. They are uncontrol orders. So we corrupt the system and we

have a system that does not work. What do you say to that? Nobody

would say that these are a perfect, ideal system, but unfortunately it

is the best that we have. This is something that came about as

detention, deportation, prosecution, control orders were not seen as

acceptable. So we were left with basically what we could get through

legally of the with some of the individuals, the people that David

Davis mentioned that got within ten feet, after he was released after a

big civil rights campaign on his behalf, he ended up back in

Afghanistan and killed in a US missile strike. So it proves the

point that these are serious individuals. The man that breached

the Olympic security, he would not be there at all if the control

orders were in place. Originally he was under a relocation order. It is

when the TPIMs came back and we lost the power to relocate, we were

Australian unable to track him. Well, he walked away, he was not

released. He absconded, so let's get the fact right. He left the

country. Secondly, you said that they, the

reason was done because prosecuting them was wrong? Absolutely the

opposite. We said ewe should be prosecuting them, put him in prison,

then they could not walk around either near leading politicians or

into the Olympic Park. The problem, in fact, was brought about as the

Government said we could not deport people. Not one of the people on

control orders are subject to deportation orders. They are all

British citizens. We have taken a problem and created a mefplnifpl

and used it for something differently -- mechanism and used

something different as the orders do not do the job it is supposed to

do. The American FBIs put their men in prison, we put them under a

control order. With every single control order

case, not a single case at that time, could have been prosecuted

unless there was evidence allowed. Who did the review? A Government

review. The Americans do prosecute more, but America places a lot more

for example, FBI agents under cover and they have plea bargaining, but

would we be happy with that? We don't have the exact same legal

system in the UK as in the US. Is it your position, David Davis,

that there should be nothing inbetween walking free, without a

control, and prosecution? Nothing inbetween? For British citizens, I

think that prosecution is the be all and the end all. I'm afraid

that the Government's arguments on this are plum wrong on interception.

You go to the Department of Justice, as I have, talk to the Australians,

New Zealanders, the Canadians, they say you don't use intercept

evidence? They clean up every single trial on terrorism in the

United States and most of trials on organised crime, using intercept

tape, all of them. You can't do it without that. They could not clean

up the Mafia without the intercept tapes, now they do it. We should be

doing it here. We should not be prissy about it, if we not, we

would not have to corrupt the whole legal stement.

Do you side with the security services when they say they don't

want intercept material used? That is still their position? Well, no,

they don't. This is one of those things where

to the extent, I believe if that is what they say it would weaken the

security system, perhaps. Why do our people say that, when

the Americans and the Canadians are saying that it doesn't? If you look

at the Government review they did a lot of models replacing intercept

evidence into the British legal system, they said it would not work.

That is their position, but it comes back to the point they looked

at every case with control orders and tried to use intercept evidence

and said it would not lead to prosecution. Lord Lloyd was the

Intercept Commissioner, he knows the system backwards and forwards.

He moved a private members' bill in the House of Lords to try to bring

intercept into court. The man who knew the most about it, things that

we should bring it back. The people who don't have an interest in not

going to court, they have interest in disruption, rather than

conviction. It is the wrong approach.

Is there a chance of it happening? It may be. It will be revisited

again this year. The Committee that is dealing with it is still sitting.

They nearly recommended the use of intercept, then there was a last-

minute scare on a finish case. It may well happen. It will allow us

to cut back on silly things that bring us into disrepute.

If we are going to solve the evidence on waiting intercept

evidence coming in, we are in for a long wait. There is real and

necessary security threats that we have to deal with today, that is

why TPIMs is still used. Now, just over 65% of us made the

trip to the polling station at the last election. That is down from a

high of 83% in the 1950 election. It seems that the young are the

least likely to vote. Research suggests that go thirds of 18-year-

olds have little trust in politicians. Radio's Newsbeat took

young people to meet the Conservative MP, lie ease

Menchmench and others to see what they made of politics and

I and 22, from south-west London and I want to know why MPs that

don't care about young people unless it is election time. I am

from Glasgow and I want to know why you think you should be trusted

after that there expenses scandal. I am from Portsmouth. I was about

to become a student and now I have to pay up to �9,000. Your age group

is the least likely to vote. have got to wonder why that is.

There is a responsibility the young people to get in touch and get

involved. The public perception with young

people is you are all the same, you fiddled your expenses, you have

these cushy pension deals and they have not taken on board all of the

reforms that have happened. A lot of people voted because of the

tuition fees and then you made a U- turn on that. I am a Lib Dem and

I'm will put my hand and say I voted not to increase tuition fees.

When was the last time you had to make a perfect decision?

One of the problems in this job, is it we spend so much time in this

building, in means I spent the vast majority of the week with the same,

slightly strange people - no offence! And very little time with

the people I represent. It is one of the reasons politicians get out

of touch. You are an MP and you are calling other MPs strange. Imagine

how young people feel? I agree, we should rebalance it so

all MPs get the chance to spend time in their constituencies.

have to do a lot more to change your lineage and rather than come

in and say "we are different." you have a lot more to do. David Davis.

-- change your image. But young people don't vote.

What is new? They don't vote anywhere? You are quite right. When

you and I were student politicians we had trouble getting them out to

vote. They're interested in politics. But the number of people

voting is going down throughout the population in Britain. In France,

80 this cent turnout in the French presidential election? Why? Because

there was a really big difference between the candidates. If this can

do that is over here, and this candidate is over there and they're

having a real argument, there is a reason to go and vote. It you think

they are broadly the same, orc as during the Tony Blair years, you

think they will win anyway, which is another problem you just might

as well stay at home and watch Coronation Street. We did not know

who was going to win the last election, but nobody did win it in

the end. We are surprised the turnout was not higher? I was. It

was a challenge and a potential turning point. We also had the TV

debates. And they were quite good. They were watched by a lot of

people. When we were watching the first one, my family had a

sweepstake on how soon I would leave the room. I stayed until the

end. I suspect I am typical in that respect. I don't find it terribly

exciting. But they were very good debates and it did not galvanise

people to turn out. The lack of difference, lack of idealism is the

problem. Too much managerial politics. The research from this

University says 63% of young people are interested in politics, even if

they don't vote. And I am told if some of them get out of bed in time,

they watch this programme. Politicians are estranged Reid,

that is why people don't vote. was normal about Winston Churchill?

Hands up if you are political anorak? If you think of yourself as

the top political nerd, you should be interested in this. The

Electoral Commission has published its report on the way election

counts are organised and what happens next will change the all-

night election night. And yes, staying up all night to enjoy

scenes like these. Can we predict something in this

election. I was looking at some of these results. Just half a dozen

results to come throughout London and the South East. Now I am

handing you back to David Dimbleby. I think that about wraps it up this

morning. A 4th Conservative term with a substantial majority is in

prospect. Peter? As Jon Sopel was saying, not an uplifting time for

the Liberal Democrats. 1979, Mrs Thatcher beat Mr Callaghan. We will

interrupted because Labour has victory and a guaranteed third term.

We should look at Big Ben 1 small and see things how they are on the

ta Big Ben. The country cannot afford to just not have a

Government for a week or more, why people do the rounds and talk to

each other. Everybody feeling warm and nostalgic. Is the traditional

election night safe? We have been joined by Alex Robinson and

Jonathan Isaby. Welcome to the programme. Alex, pressure from

returning officers to count the next day, what are you saying?

we have been doing is talking to returning officers who are

responsible for conducting elections. We have been talking to

politicians and broadcasters and there are a number of different

elections taking place, sometimes on the same day. Although we don't

think there is a single answer for any of them. Although for a General

Election, default counting should be overnight. But returning officer

should consult but politicians and broadcasters early. They should

make a decision in January for an election in May. They should make

their decision public and that will lead to the right decision being

arrived at. You have to persuade them to count overnight hoping the

pressure will bear fruit? It is the dialogue between politicians and

broadcasters which I think will lead to the right decision. Does

that satisfy you? I am happy Electoral Commission has decided

overnight counting is the right thing to do. Before the last

General Election I ran a campaign to save General Election night. A

lot of returning officers were talking about counting on the

Friday. It was a retrograde step. If people are taking the trouble to

vote, they should be counted. as it matter, bearing in mind,

quite a lot of people sleep when they have voted and don't sit up

all night and this is about just having a very good television

programme? She is talking as out of a job!

not just political nerves. It is the one time, every five years

where there is this national carnival of democracy where people

sit around the television and watch results coming in and fill part of

the Democratic Process. If you're going to get more counts coming

together and one might, mistakes will be made? Let's look ahead to

the next General Election. We could have constituencies with new

boundaries. We could have House of Lords reform - I grant you not

looking too hopeful. There could be local elections. How will they

manage it all? The important thing is the result is accurate and

timely. Accurate is probably the key. From talking to returning

officers, in some circumstances, last year we had geographical

constituencies. The Western Isles do it. They count on the night and

a helicopter the vote between islands. It is done in 45 minutes

because they throw resources at it and it is a small constituency. You

cannot roll that out across the rest of the nation? Over the last

50 years more counts have happened on the night. Northern Ireland

counted on the Thursday night, previously they had to do it on a

Friday night for security reasons. It should be everyone counts on the

night and we can find out on the Friday morning he the Prime

Minister is. On the Friday morning, a lot of the council not coming in

until halfway through the Today programme. Would a few more hours

make that much difference? If you started on the Friday and got all

the results? It you counted on the Friday you wouldn't have the shared

experience of people following the results coming in. Most people on

the Friday would be at work, looking after the kids or doing

something else. What do you think? I used to like having the next day

count because then I could watch people suffering all night. I agree,

but the sooner the better. Returning officers can make the

decision themselves, they cannot be forced to do overnight count?

their decision and the need to make sure it is an accurate results and

practically, as soon as possible afterwards. The campaign Jonathan

was involved in, is they were not going to count the votes before the

end of the poll. Would it be sensible to hold a national

referendum on something like Europe and the same day as a General

Election? Unique to look at each set of elections on their own merit.

We look at the one last May, which took place at the same time as

Northern Ireland, and we decided it was important they took place and

got them out of the way. That was use saying no, wasn't it? We need

to have a vote on Europe before the next General Election Next this

next item is called screamer. of you had been in touch to ask a

replay of our splendid highlight from yesterday's Prime Minister's

Questions. As humble public servants we are happy to oblige. It

was a question from Tory MP called Anne Marie Maurice.

This Government has a greater Records on reform. After the

success of the university's technical college, would become --

Prime Minister confirmed he will support...

What was the point at of the sling if you are going to wave your arm

around. How is your hearing? What? It's was incredibly loud close-up.

What was she saying? I do not know. I was worrying about her arm. I

thought she was going to break her arm again. It was quite a drama.

Will she have that down? It will haunt her? I think people will have

affection for that. It was done with some passion. If her arm

wasn't broken, it is now after that. Do we have time for the quiz?

David? As a keen UFOs sturdier? Military reconnaissance. It is all

three. Some of them were asylum-seekers. I

like the idea of tourism. That's it for today. Thanks to our

guests. Thanks to David Davis. I will be back at 11:25pm tonight on

BBC One with this week. It is earlier than usual as there is no

question time tonight. I will be joined by Alan Johnson, Michael

Portillo plus Gloria Hunniford talking about care for older people.