13/01/2014 Daily Politics

Good afternoon and welcome to the Daily Politics. Cash for councils

who give the go-ahead for fracking. But will it be enough to persuade

communities to drop their opposition to drilling? They were accused of

killing the high Street, but are these giants themselves now

threatened by the online shopping revolution?

Poverty porn or a timely expose of Britain's benefit culture? We get

the verdict on Channel -- Channel 4's controversial series. The eyes

and ears of ministers. We will get the insider's view at the bottom

rung of the ministerial ladder. All that in the next hour. With us

for the first half of the programme is Baroness Lucy Neville Rolfe,

Conservative peer, former executive director of Tesco and a former civil

servant. Welcome. Let's start with Europe, because yesterday it was

revealed that almost 100 Conservative MPs have written to the

Prime Minister asking for Parliament to be given the power to veto new EU

laws. But that call has been rejected by the Foreign Secretary,

William Hague, as unrealistic. Do you agree? I think I do. I was

surprised when I saw the paper yesterday. People feel strongly

about Europe and its bureaucracy. But they came out and said, we need

to be able to veto things after they have been decided. If you think

about the single market, to my mind the greatest achievement of the EU

since we have been in there, you couldn't run an EU single market if

you came along afterwards and change the arrangements that had been

agreed. So is this about something else? Isn't this posturing by

Eurosceptic MPs? There is concern about Europe. If the Tories get a

victory at the election, we will have a referendum. I would vote in

favour. I believe you can reform the European Union from inside. I think

the renegotiation will be important. Remember, in the 1980s we

had a problem with the budget rebate. Recently the budget

settlement was good. We have got problem with benefit tourism. If you

have got allies, you can get changes. Equally, it is right that

people should get a chance to vote. But is this something different? Is

it not about reform but a group of MPs who want to put more pressure on

David Cameron to actually pull out, eventually? They want to get their

voices heard and they want the negotiation to be real. The scrutiny

committee have said they have seen the passage of legislation, year in,

year out, and have got frustrated. What I think is interesting in

Europe at the moment, although things will change in May after the

election, people are questioning more exactly what Europe is doing.

They are saying, let's get together and do things better. Modern life is

more about getting together and doing things better. Some of that is

coming into the Europe debate. Is it a problem, though, for party unity?

As far as the Conservative party is concerned, we are together in

wanting this referendum so that people can get another look. During

the referendum campaign, the people who care about having a single

market and care about the rights of the EU, will talk more than they are

at the moment, not just the people who are highly sceptical. It is

right that we should have a choice. That is what they are saying. There

will be some in the group who have a higher level of scepticism. Can the

Prime Minister withstand another attack from the right, another

assault from his Euro sceptic flank when he clearly has now his colours

to the mast? The Prime Minister has nailed his colours to the mast and

is showing leadership and showing it in a way that others haven't done.

It is fine to have people within the party who are saying something

different, because that can contribute to the richness of debate

and make sure that in the renegotiation process we are looking

at important issues. From a business point of view, the single market has

been beneficial. I am involved in Europe are bit because I have the

retail Association in Europe. I can see the advantages it brings to

consumers across the EU. It would be very different if you came out of

the EU. It would raise a lot of questions. We will leave it there.

Could local authorities up and down the country be in line for a cash

bonanza? David Cameron has announced councils will be able to keep all of

the business rates from the proceeds of shale gas exploration, or

fracking. Normally, councils keep only 50% of business rates. The

Prime Minister claims this could mean councils making up to ?1.7

million extra per year from each fracking site. Last year, government

commissioned report found that more than half of the UK could be

suitable for shale gas extraction. But the practice is controversial.

It requires vast amounts of water. It has to be transported to and from

the site, and critics believe some of the chemicals used in the process

could contaminate the area. What's more, there are concerns the process

causes small earth tremors. Environmentalists worry that it will

reduce investment in ritual energy. But with the government believing it

could inject billions into the UK economy and lower bills, it is

likely to be seen as too good an opportunity to miss. Let's talk to

our correspondent, Danny Savage, in Salford, where they have been

campaigning against fracking. I any of the protesters convinced by what

some people are calling on government to bribe, letting

councils keep the money from the business rate? Now, they think this

is a diversion. They are not swayed by the argument at all. Then you

wouldn't expect them to be. These are the die-hard environmentalists,

the local people who are objecting strongly to any fracking happening

in this part of the country. This morning was a prime example here.

There is a camp protesters here. When a couple of big lorries turned

up to try to get into the site, if you protesters climbed up on the

lorries. It means that police had to get ladders and scaffolding to get

them down. The main dual carriageway was closed, causing chaos. When

eventually they got them moving, the protesters walked in front of them

as slow as they do there, really a snails pace, to the bottom of the

lane, fracking site is. -- where the fracking site is. This is a daily

ritual here. I was speaking to somebody from the Green party. He

doesn't believe the government incentive offered today will make

any difference. He called it a bribe as well. Even a Conservative MP

today from up in Lancashire, where there are other fracking site, has

described the offer from David Cameron as crumbs from the table.

The figure bandied about by other local authorities today is that

there should be something like a 10% cut of profits from fracking to make

a difference to the local communities. Thank you. With us now

from Glasgow is Labour's Energy Spokesman, Tom Greatrex, and in the

studio I enjoyed by Jane Thomas from Friends of the Earth. Tom Greatrex,

is there any difference between you and the government on this? You back

the idea of fracking and you would like it to go ahead in the site

identified. We haven't got him. We will comeback in a moment. Let's to

Jane. The money is what is talking here. I don't mean the money of the

two councils but the money that can actually be used to reduce energy

bills. That is what might convince people. That is actually an

interesting point. Ed Davey has admitted that it will not

necessarily bring down energy bills. In that sense, it is a nonstarter.

Plus, we also now, and this has been acknowledged by the industry, we

know that fracking in any degree will not start until 2021. We need

to be moving to renewable energy now. We are facing a crisis now,

even if there is a delay. Fracking will be necessary to bridge the gap

between the energy we need and we are going to be losing over the next

few years. The best way to address our energy needs is to have

energy-saving efficiency measures in place. The government could do far

more. It has been tested and proven by many academics that energy

efficiency measures other thing that can really make a difference in the

next few years. We do have to move much more quickly to renewable

energy. The problem with fracking is it is a diversionary issue anyway.

What percentage of energy comes from renewables? At the moment, around

12%. I have got 9.4%. It is interesting. We start from a base

point of just a few years ago, where it was 3%. In terms of growth, it is

the nominal. The problem is the government hasn't invested in

removable. There has been a real decline, especially in offshore. The

government could lead here. Let's go to Tom Greatrex, who I believe can

hear us now. The support fracking in sites that have been identified for

the reasons set out by the government. It will help the energy

crisis many people think we are facing. That is right, isn't it? We

support the potential of shale gas as a way of displacing imported

gas. We use a lot of gas. 80% of UK uses gas for heating. We are going

to continue to need a significant amount of gas. In the last ten years

we have moved from using more of our own gas from the North Sea to

importing it. It is a big change. It is not about the silver bullet

answer, which it is sometimes portrayed as. In reality, you would

be backing the same policy. You are not against these sites being used

for exploration. That is right, isn't it? We shouldn't rule out an

indigenous source of gas. What is the difference? What would actually

change? If you were in power, these sites that have been identified

identified, would now be two councils for them to -- the sites

that have been identified would now be put to councils. We set out,

nearly two years ago, six conditions for what we thought needed to be

done to ensure regular shoe is robust. There is also an issue among

motoring. -- monitoring. That is important because, although as

people have reflected today, this isn't a new technology, it is a

different application of it. It is also something that has quite

rightly produced concerns. There is a public acceptability test. The

other thing that is significant, and this is where I get frustrated by

this debate, is the idea that shale gas is immediate and is abundant.

Nobody knows how much we can get out of the ground, firstly. Secondly,

the idea that what will happen in the UK is what will happen in the US

is highly unlikely because we are part of an integrated European gas

network in the way the US isn't, and can't export it. Thirdly, to suggest

this is an alternative to doing other things is wrong. We need to

move to a low carbon energy mix. But we are not going to be able to do

that straightaway either. We need to use a form of gas extraction for

heating, and also for producing gas. We have potential options. So you

have laid out your concerns. I still don't quite see what the difference

would be on the ground in terms of going ahead with fracking. The use

-- do you support giving business rates to councils to local

communities? Jelena afraid there is a real issue around whether -- there

is a real issue around whether it will be done properly. Communities

who will be subject to disruption deserve to have some recompense for

the disruption. In relation to the level, I'm not convinced,

necessarily, that this is precisely what they will be looking for. This

is about the impact on the environment as well. Where do you

stand on this? A lot of good points have been made. I am in favour of

fracking. I have looked at the American economy. I have seen what a

difference it has made, both due individual states like North Dakota

but also for the manufacturing operations in middle America. They

have fuel prices that allows them to compete better. I am in favour of it

and I wanted to come about. Clearly, you need proper regulation. He is

saying the government are not putting in place the proper

regulation. I don't think that is right. I'm sure changes could be

made. This is a long-term opportunity, but on the basic

question of is it right to add a business rate to the cough is to

make this happen, I think that is a very imaginative idea, a good idea.

It's saying to the councils who are going to make the decision, here's

some money, this will offset Government cuts. I will ask the

minister about this later on. And they are more likely to say yes. I

think it is an incentive. In this world where you want things to get

on and you want green growth, we shall see whether it is enough. I

want to see that it is enough so we are not left behind. For example, in

France... That is an irony, because they cannot do fracking in France.

They know it has huge environmental implications. The Government cannot

have it both ways. We either have a very tight regulation, in which

case, why do these companies come over here? Or we haven't. Coming

back to your point about America, there is no comparison with America.

We have different levels of shale. We have very different communities

where they want to Frank. They have much bigger areas. Do we want all of

the impacts that this is going to bring on these places. On every

level, there is an issue. There seems to be a political consensus

that even with concerns a - and there will be Lib Dems who are

worried about it in their constituencies. But generally,

fracking is going to go ahead. The thing I really worry about is

listening to the communities that are facing fracking. Whether the

political parties agree or not is one thing. You only have to look at

one place, hardly the hotbed of environmental extremism, but they

express their views very clearly. That has to be taken into the --

into account. Coming back to the idea of sweetness. I think the

conflict of interest is missing from this debate. If you have a council

that has to determine the planning application from a fracking company

and makes that decision whether the company can come and frack, knowing

that they will be in receipt of some money... I'm sorry, but there are

very clear conflicts of interest. How would Labour deal with the sort

of protest we saw at the beginning of this item? People are going to be

out there day in, day out, trying to prevent the tankers from coming --

the fractures from coming in. Different aspects of this debate

gets conflated. The legitimate environmental concerns have to be

properly dealt with. That is about regulation. And also, crucially, the

monitoring of regulation. If anybody wants to see the potential to have

shale gas to displace imported gas, not to use more gas in our energy

mix but to displace what we import, for energy security reasons, they

need to address all of those issues first. That is why some of the

rhetoric from the Government today, such as about the number of jobs,

well, a report was recently published looking at a strategic

environmental impact assessment, and put it much lower than the

Government's figure of 4000 new jobs. I don't think that helps in

terms of having a robust and sensible bait. Thank you both very

much. My guest of the Day, Lucy

Neville-Rolfe, became a politician just last year when she was made a

Peer by David Cameron. Politics is a job closely rivalled in the

popularity stakes, perhaps, with being a boss at Britain's biggest

supermarket chain, Tesco - Lucy's previous role. But what have the

supermarkets done to deserve our ire? Are they really as bad as

politicians? Here's Adam. I have arrived at shopping

Shangri-La, Tesco's brand-new flagship store in Watford. Tesco has

around 30% of the market, a market that is worth around ?170 billion a

year, so this is a good place to ponder the past, present and future

of the supermarket. It is the first store in Britain to cut shopping

hours in half... They have been part of the retail market since they

revolutionised it in the 1950s. In the 1950s, we used to spend about a

third of our household budget on food. Now we spend about 10%. So we

are getting better products, but more affordable. Supermarkets have

driven that and made it much more affordable for consumers. But how

I'm grateful we? These places have been blamed for everything, from

causing the horse meat scandal to squeezing suppliers. Some have

argued that high street shops like this have been killed off. What they

have done is create further distance between ourselves and the point of

production. We are living further away from where food is produced,

and it makes it very difficult to remember, when we go in and see an

array of banana as all times of the day, this huge array of food, that

it is an illusion. Back in Watford, here is Tescos answer. They have

imported a north London coffee shop, with an emphasis on chatting and

community. Out goes giant televisions, incomes retro

kitchenware. The drink I'll is supposed to feel more like a wine

merchant's. Then there is the Artisan bakery, which hires

apprentices and donates money to charity. Here is an example of how

much thought goes into these places. Tesco very proud this new food and

bread -- new fruit and veg area. They have lowered the height of the

shelves, there is loads more would around, and there is loads more

produce on tables. It feels like an old greengrocer of yore. It feels

like everything has been designed to confront the thing is making

supermarkets feel anything but relaxed. There's a new restaurant to

make it feel less soulless. There's a drive-through for picking up

shopping that has been done online, along with more upmarket products to

head off posh arrivals. If you hate supermarkets, it might not do

anything for you. If you love them, you might just be sold on it.

As I was saying, our guest of the day, Baroness Neville-Rolfe, worked

with the supermarket Tesco is for 15 years. Do you think the success of

the big supermarket chains has, the expense of small retailers? Not

really. It reflects society and the way it has changed, which is why

that film was interesting, because it started in the 1950s. You have

the modern Tesco of today as well. It is a very competitive industry.

You find it is changing all the time. Obviously, there has been a

bad recession in the UK, which has very much affected the high street

in recent years. But before that, many independent retailers said that

the big supermarket killed off that individuality. Actually, the big

change before the recession was Tesco and Morrison is doing well,

but the intermediates, Woolworth and so on, not doing well. The really

good specialist stores, the ones that sell ethnic food like

delicatessens, they did quite well. But then the recession came along

and you are getting more discount stores, more places where you can

change your electrical goods. You have this change coming along with

time, and every time consumers want something else, it changes again.

The big dynamic today is obviously online. That is the biggest

challenge, I think. That's why it is quite interesting that George

Osborne, in the budget, made some announcements about rates. Rates are

charged on property, so that doesn't really hit the online people at all.

He brought in something that means the small stores don't pay rates at

all now. He has a review of that coming up, which I think will look

at this latest dynamic of online. On that subject, we had reports after

Christmas and New Year of falling sales for some of the supermarkets

and other big retailers. Online shopping did amazingly well. So why

have these massive stores? Isn't that going to be the problem for

supermarkets like Sainsbury's and Tesco is. They have massive stores,

and actually what people want is the smaller stores and online. They have

got to adapt. In the film, I found the modern coffee shop interesting,

and the children's restaurant. In some places they are putting in

leisure centres and there is more space for community work in these

big stores. Actually, it is a mixed economy. Saint-Priest and others

have little stores as well. -- Sainsbury's and others. When I was

at Tescos, we were being asked for more high-street stores. RB is going

to be a hostage to fortune, these very big supermarkets? Isn't it

because they cannot sell these big spaces off? It is going to be seen

as a gimmick. All of the supermarket chains have big rogue programmes

which have largely been going into reverse. They have been selling off

some sites. They are adapting existing stores so they are what the

customer wants. Will people spend all day in the supermarket, doing

their shopping, having a meal? They will do a shop, they will have a cup

of coffee, they may buy a swimsuit. On other days, they will go to the

high street. During the recession, people started shopping in more

places. They started shopping in different places. What do you make

of the Mary Portas review? That was all about reviving the high-street.

Do you think it should be revived? I think it needs to change. You may

have fewer shops, you may have different shops, you may have market

stalls. There is a place for local endeavour. When I was at Tesco, we

had a big programme to have marketing officials in places like

the south-west, so you could get local produce and sell it in a few

local stores. I think we will see more of that. I live in Salisbury,

and the Salisbury market has a terrific mixture, with the

marketplace it has big chain stores like Debenhams, but it also has

these stores. Food in Britain is terrific. I think we could be

producing more food in Britain from our own resources and our own

people. And you think people will buy it from those different places?

I do. I don't think they will buy it from a bad retailer. You are as good

as your own smile and your own results. Thank you very much for

coming on today. So MPs have had their first week

back, and things are settling down. What's this week got in store for

them? Tomorrow, the Liaison Committee are holding their regular

questioning of the Prime Minister. Evidence will be heard from the PM

on both violence against women and girls, and energy policy and

environmental priorities. Wednesday is of course Prime Minister's

Question Time. Will the subdued atmosphere from last week continue?

Towards the end of the week, we are expecting speeches from Ed Miliband

on the economy and George Osborne on Europe. And finally, Thursday

evening sees the first Westminster Correspondents' Dinner, where David

Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband will all be dining with Fleet

Street's finest. It's modelled on the US White House Correspondents'

Dinner. Well, to discuss all of these stories I can speak now to the

Guardian's Rowena Mason and the Sun's Kevin Schofield. Have you both

been invited to that dinner on Thursday? Have you got your invites?

I'm afraid I lost out in the ballot for that, so I will not be going.

Those tickets are like gold dust, so I will not be there either. Mine

must've got lost in the post. I cannot imagine what happened to it!

Moving on to next year. Where is this Tory Government backbench row

over having a veto on Europe going? Not that long ago, David Cameron was

being praised for having united the Tory party on Europe. The piece

hasn't lasted for very long, because some of that euro scepticism has

come back to haunt him, with these 95 backbenchers, who demanded in a

letter to him a veto for the national parliaments on EU laws. It

has turned into a bit of a row now, because the Prime Minister has given

it short shrift. William Hague has come out fighting against it as

well, saying it wouldn't work, and that it would undermine the single

market. We have also seen some of the pro-Europeans like Ken Clarke

fight back and say that it is right wing nationalist escapism, and is a

terrible idea. It is an argument that I don't think is going to go

away. David Cameron probably hoped it would do. On that, Kevin

Schofield, William Hague has said that demand is unrealistic. It is

difficult for David Cameron now. He is in the position of having tried

to keep his eurosceptics onside with stronger rhetoric when it comes to

Europe. They continue to demand tougher concessions. He was warned

last year that you can never satisfy the Eurosceptic wing of the

Conservative party. Offer them a referendum and they will just come

back with further demands. And so it has proved. It is an unholy mess.

Even a seemingly Eurosceptic Foreign Secretary is telling them it is

unrealistic to expect a veto over EU laws. It is clear they are not going

to get far. Speaking to a few of them, they are emboldened. At some

stage, doesn't David Cameron have to call time on these Eurosceptics? I

think he wants to, at the fear is that having promised this

referendum, some of the hardline Eurosceptics aren't going to give up

until they get what they want. Like Kevin says, they are feeling

emboldened and they will keep pushing until they get more

concessions. Let's look at Scotland. Danny Alexander has surprisingly

said the government will guarantee's Scotland debt. Has

displayed into Alex Salmond's hand? I think it has. This morning he has

said something that always makes me suspicious. I think it gives him a

strong bargaining hand if Scotland decides to become independent. The

UK have guaranteed all its debts. Scotland would not be any -- under

any legal obligation to pay about ?130 billion, which is expect --

estimated to be the extent of the debt. Alex Salmond's argument is

simple. If you let us keep the pound, we will meet our obligations

in terms of debt. If you don't, we will not meet our obligations. It

has put the UK government in a tough spot. Thank you both. Joining me for

the rest of the programme are parliamentary private secretaries,

conservatively Scott, Barbara Keeley, who works for Ed Balls, Andy

Lib Dem Testament who works for Vince Cable. -- Tess Munt. Tonight

we get the second instalment of the Channel 4 -- Channel 4 series,

Benefits Street. It chronicles life on a Birmingham street where many of

the residents are citizens on benefits. Some people have hailed it

as an expose of Britain's welfare culture. This man has been on

incapacity benefit the years, and now the assessors are on his case,

too. Anything you want to disclose? I have suspended your claim as there

has been a change in your income. Don't worry about it. I had one of

them and I ignored it. Then they paid my landlord anyway. Hello,

there. I am phoning on behalf of all friend and neighbour of mine who

can't actually read and write. He has had a letter saying he has got

to attend an appointment at your place in Smethwick. He can't work

out why it would be in Smethwick or what it is for. What am I going to

do in Smethwick? They are saying you must have made the appointment. I

can't make appointments! To discuss the support available to you through

the work programme. We I haven't worked in my life! Tess Munt, should

programmes like this be shown? I don't think it's a problem. As long

as people rip -- recognise this is a reality TV clip. It is good ratings

tied TV but it is not really reflective of everything that

happens in my constituency, and the majority of people who need benefits

need them for the right reasons. They are not funding I style -- a

lifestyle like the one shown here. It is helpful to have it as a small

part of a large debate, but it does not reflect the majority of people,

I think, who claimed benefits. So you think it is poverty porn? I

think so. Fraser Nelson spoke about people having a sense of community.

There certainly is that. They are coming together and fighting the

outside world. We need to review how the outside world use people in that

situation. Do you think it is a fair reflection, taking their streets

like this where it is claimed the majority are claiming benefits? Or

does it demonise people? It would be good to get a wider spectrum just on

that street as well. I don't think it is completely refracting --

reflecting what is happening. But there is an element it is happening

with, and it needs addressing. What was your reaction on seeing that

episode? There were parts, particularly involving shoplifting

which concern me greatly. It means there are areas to look into. But it

has been sensationalised. Do you think the residents have been

stitched up on this programme, to some extent? They didn't realise it

was going to be called Benefits Street until close to the

transmission. Has there been too much focus on the negative side of

people who claim benefits? If we were to take a picture of the

benefits cake, if you like, you said almost all people in the street were

on benefits, but in a typical situation, 40% would be pensioners.

20% would be people on low incomes, who get tax credits. In some of the

shots, it showed people who were working but we didn't see any of

them. The concentration was on a small number of people who were

unemployed. It is important to address unemployment. That is an

extreme case. Somebody who has been a drug addict who can't read and

write. But it does highlight how some people are really struggling to

survive. It didn't go on to show, in fact he was called to speak to work

provider and he couldn't even the letter. That is an extreme case. I

would rather they focus on the difficulties of people in their 50s

who have been made redundant. I have got 700 or so people who have not

had a job for the first time. What about the impact? You said yourself

that it is time to look at the system. Isn't that what, in part,

comes out of a system like this? Is the system wrong? That is exactly

what Iain Duncan Smith is doing. The system is working. I think he is

tackling the issues that matter, certainly one is that my

constituents come to me with. We need to help people back into work.

That is particularly so with, as Barbara says, young people. I am

working with the programme trying to get people into work. It is working.

We need to grow it across other areas. But I do come back to the

fact that I think this programme is sensationalist. My also think we

need a more objective view of everything that has been happening.

-- I also think. Doesn't it show there are sections of the public

behaving like some of the characters on Benefits Street? There will be

people in the whole spectrum who behave in their own way. It is a

shame that this shows people who believe they have rights and

responsibilities. Actually, the system needs clarity. I hope Channel

4 has picked up some of those problems and help the people who

have addiction problems or whatever. This, as I understand, was

filmed over two years. Over two years, you can drop your guard

easily and the truth will out. I think there are responsibilities

from people who are placed in this. The system does have to be changed.

It has to be fine tuned. I had somebody who had three days of work

before Christmas and was told it was a long-term job. On the third day,

he was told he wasn't needed any more. He had lost his jobseeker's

allowance. He had been managing on ?71 70 per week. Now he is accruing

debt while the system is broken. Is there going to be more people like

that under the system Iain Duncan Smith is presiding over? Yes, but I

think most people access to have some kind of gainful occupation

during your day is good, it is good for your mental and physical health,

it is good for everything. It was so extreme. It would have been helpful

to show some of the low income people. They showed one family who

were not able to buy goods at the door because they were living on ?30

per week, but it skimmed over that. It skimmed over the difficulties the

chap would have not being able to read and write. How is somebody who

cannot read or write apply for jobs? I had a constituent who said

it is difficult if you don't have IT skills, to apply for a job. These

are these of us to be explored, but the most extreme examples. But that

hasn't been helped by some ministers, who have, some say,

demonise people on welfare who are often of working age and in work. Do

you think dealing with was appropriate? -- the language. Hope

-- hard people -- hard working people know it is vital to be in

work. The policies for Iain Duncan Smith are doing that. It is going to

need some fine tuning, no question. I have a constituents come to me.

But we have sorted it. Are you going to watch it again tonight? I

probably will but I hope it is more informed. Subject to what is

happening in Parliament a night, yes. -- tonight. What is the least

glamorous job in Parliament? Some would say my three guests are the

lucky owners of that title. They are all Parliamentary Private Secretary

is. But what is one? If I was to ask you who is at the bottom of the

government porn, I have no doubt he was sending some amusing

suggestions. -- government ponder. The answer is the Parliamentary

Private Secretary, or PPS. Backbenchers selected by a minister

to be their bag carrier, their representative in the Palace of

Westminster. But what do they actually do? Really, in Parliament

returns, they are sort of Jeeves meets George Smiley, and they are

there to be bag carrier for their boss but also they are the eyes and

ears in this place. Ministers spend most of their time in the

Department, doing what they are supposed to be doing, not lobbying

and finding support here. PPSs can do that for them. They also

represent their bosses at official functions when their bosses can't

make them. They are also there to lobby for any policy there boss is

trying to get through. And that is, of course, is key to why they do

this. It is like a badge preferment, suggesting future promotion. They

get influenced and they meet people. They would need to be a reason to do

this because it is unpaid and it is hard work. One Secretary of State

told me yesterday that they look for somebody who is loyal, has great

organisational skills and is allowed to tell the boss they are doing the

wrong thing. When you think about it, that is actually quite a good

position to be if you are just a humble backbencher.

One MP has said the skill a PPS needs more than any is to fill up

the ministerial water jug. Is that a fair description? I have never

carried a bag, so come no, I don't think it is a good script. Why do

you do the job? It is a fascinating area. The economy is one of the most

important areas, and it is fascinating to be in it. But you

can't do anything else than what your boss says. You are always

expected to vote with the government. Not in my case. With

your party. Have you ever thought, I would like to say you are wrong? It

is not a case of that. We are all a team. The piece there didn't mention

a team. There is a team of ministers, shadow ministers, and

PPS. We are a valuable link between the shadow minister and the

Secretary of State with the rest of the MPs. It is a fascinating and

interesting place to be. In your case, it is different. The person

you represented anything but a yes person he is a serial critic. Does

it make it easier for you? It is a good reflection of how a Coalition

can work. It is good to test all the time. One of my main roles has been

to make sure that if anybody on any side of the house has a problem in

their constituency, to go and scooped them up and make sure they

can get seem to talk about their particular area of concern. That is

one of the most rewarding part of the job. You were a PPS before, and

you did resign, didn't you? That therein lies the conflict for you.

They didn't stop you becoming PPS again. Were you surprised? I was

pleased. Why we use tax before? I did not vote for tuition fees. I

lost my role at that time. What makes a good PPS? Is it someone like

you, who stuck to your principles? I believe, in life, if you say you

were going to do something, do it. Not all politicians do that, but in

my experience, a lot do. Equally, when people come to you from no

matter what side of the House it might be, getting constituency

issues dealt with, getting people to the Secretary of State, and actually

listening and passing things back, and telling the Secretary of State

whether they are right or wrong. Do you think, on this, you dream of

becoming a minister, as a PPS? I don't see that particular link. For

me, the payback for me, for the little bit of extra work that I do,

is the fact that I can actually knock on Ministers' doors and say

that I want to talk to them about such and such. That is a really good

thing for my constituents. That is the payback. For me, it is about

having a bit of influence and being able to speak to ministers in other

departments. Briefly, is it possible to be a good constituency MP and a

PPS? Absolutely. It is possible to do that and be a minister. You can

be both. Very loyal, the three of you!

Now, we couldn't end this part of the programme without making special

mention of Barbara's boss, Ed Balls. He's gained a reputation as a bit of

a bruiser. Yesterday it was reported that he'd squared up to the Shadow

Foreign Secretary, Douglas Alexander, over Labour's Europe

policy back in 2012. More recently, though, Mr Balls has proffered an

olive branch to the Lib Dem leader, Nick Clegg, in a move to soften his

image. But yesterday, the kick-boxing Deputy Prime Minister

was asked, if it came to it, whether he would be any match for Ed Balls

in a fight. I do kick-boxer lessons in a gym.

Really? Yes, to keep myself fit. So who knows, if I keep on doing that.

I'm not going to make ringside predictions in such a closely fought

on -- contest. When you are kicking the ball, whose faces on it? By the

way, I am rubbish at it. A surprising revelation that he has

taken up kick boxing. Slightly strange, but good for him. We are

going to find out who is the real Ed Balls. What is he like? He is great

to work with. This is not just a PPS being loyal. He doesn't do kick

rocks in. He runs, and he runs marathons to keep fit. And he plays

the piano. We have people who do interesting things when they are not

in the House. He is a very interesting individual. I wonder if

that is a euphemism for something else! Is it true that he had a bust

up, or nearly had a bust up, with Douglas Alexander back in 2012? I

don't know about that. I'm sure that feelings run high in the Cabinet and

the Shadow Cabinet. We are all in politics because we believe

passionately in what we want to do and what we want the Government to

do. Those passions sometimes play out and people disagree. Sometimes

in the chamber, sometimes in meetings. I wasn't around for that

particular discussion, but it wouldn't surprise me that people had

disagreed about things. Do you think he is unfairly portrayed as a

bruiser? Identified him a bruiser. I find him great to work with. That is

because you agree with him. Our team gets on Rooney well with him, and

that is because he is good to deal with. -- get on really well. I am

surprised to find out that Nick does his kick boxing, but then I have a

boss who dances. Will that be a turn-off for Lib Dem voters, if

there is a rapprochement between Nick Clegg and Ed Balls? We are not

here to fight. We are here to persuade and to cajole, so I don't

think... The point is, we will fight hard and Labour will fight hard to

win in the next election, but we will all have to deal with what the

electorate decides. That is a reflection, and what has been said

about Ed Balls is a reflection of it. You have to go with what the

electorate delivered to you. Back to the Government's plan to compensate

councils who give them the go-ahead for fracking, letting them keep all

of the business rates collected as a result of the drilling. We are

joined by the NST -- by the Energy Minister, Michael Fallon. This will

help councils say yes to your project for fracking. I think it is

being fair to local councils and local communities. Otherwise the

profits go back to the companies involved or straight to the

Treasury. This gives local communities the chance, as well as

getting jobs and growth, the chance to improve local services. I think

that is only fair. Because there are Government cuts. The Treasury is

going to get an awful lot of extra revenue because of this. We have

seen protesters already complaining about future potential fracking, and

this is going to make no difference to those communities whatsoever. I

doubt accept that. There was already incentives being offered to the

communities for each site. 1% of the revenues, if the gas flows, which

could mean up to ?10 million for the site. Today, we have announced that

local communities will be able to keep all of the business rates. So

there's a strong interest here for local communities who are affected

by the search for shale gas. I hope all of these things will encourage

that search to get under way. It has been promised as the Holy Grail of

our energy supplies in the future. Will it live up to that promise? It

has made a huge difference in the United States. It is going to cut

bills. When will it start to cut bills? It is going to take two or

three years of exploration. It would be irresponsible not to encourage

companies to go down there and see if they could get it out, just as in

the United States. Even Ed Davey has said that it is not going to bring

down energy prices -- energy prices in the future, if at all. By

claiming that it is going to bring down energy prices to the same level

as in the United States is disingenuous. We don't know that

yet. All we do know is that we have two or three times more shale gas

than was originally estimated. It would be irresponsible to not allow

or encourage companies to get down there and explore and see if they

could get it out. It could, I repeat could, make a difference to our

economy. It is a big gamble. Fracking will read to the

industrialisation of our green and present -- green and pleasant land.

You are prepared to gamble that on the basis that in the future our

energy prices might come down. It is a gamble for the companies

concerned, including the very big companies who are prepared to invest

millions in this research. But it is not a gamble in terms of the

environment. There will be things in place to protect the environment and

make sure that any drilling that is done is safe and does not harm the

local community. You say you are going to do enough to make sure

fracking is safe, but Lord Stern has criticised the Government for

encouraging a brush into fracking without a deep analysis of its

effects, such as water pollution. You don't know. We do have

experience elsewhere. Hundreds of thousands of wells have been drilled

or fractured in other countries around the world. We have had

onshore drilling in Britain for both oil and gas since the end of World

War One. We already have a system of regulation in place, and we will

take very great care that there is no damage to the water supply and

that there are not any risks in the fracturing before any of it goes

ahead. You still have to convince many on your own side. This has been

described as some as crumbs to the table, and that the Government would

take 60% in tax from each Shale site. ?10 million from each site,

once the gas flows, is certainly not crumbs. ?10 million is for the 1% of

revenue once the gas begins to flow, and doesn't cover the business

rates. These are quite formidable sums of money for each of the local

communities. Above all, exploration of shale gas that is successful can

have a huge impact on communities in terms of jobs, business and growth.

This is an opportunity. We don't yet know whether it can reduce prices as

it has done in the United States. We do know that plenty of companies out

there want to go ahead and explore, and we should be encouraging that.

Thank you. Tessa Munt, do you agree? Are you going to back this

wholeheartedly? I think we need to do various things before we go hell

for leather at this. I don't think the American comparison stands up.

This is a new process. If you look at the basis of the American model,

that depends on the fact that methane is really the unwanted

by-product of methane, butane and propane for the petrochemical

industry that they are really after. We have to rely on the Environment

Agency in order to patrol and police this, and I don't think the capacity

is there in the environment agent -- the Environment Agency. I live in

the Mendip Hills, and we know what Somerset is like for water at the

moment. If that goes wrong, it could be catastrophic, so we do need to

make sure we get this absolutely pinned down before anyone does

anything. There's an awful lot of opposition to this. Are you in

favour of it? Do you think there needs to be more analysis done on

the environmental impact? It is vital for the regulation to be very

stringent. The point that was raised at the start of the interview about

bribery... From my experience of local councils, the decisions will

be in their hands. They know their area best. But the money might be

given them to cajole them to do something that their communities

might not want them to do otherwise. I have seen many things where

there's been, under previous regime, where monies were offered for

different things. I have every faith that local councils will do the

right thing for their area, which is the way it should be. Are you in

favour of fracking? I believe we need to look into fracking. It is an

energy source at a time that we need new energy sources. I'm afraid we

have run out of time, but thank you all. The news is starting over on

BBC One now. I'll be here at noon tomorrow with all the big political

stories of the day. I'll be joined by the former Labour MP and diarist,

Chris Mullin. Do join me then. Bye.