08/07/2014 Daily Politics

To answer questions over the department's handling of historical

allegations of sexual abuse. The Government has announced two

separate inquiries to find out if a culture of secrecy allowed serious

crimes to take place. Many hospitals in England charge for

car parking. Is it a fair way for the Health Service to make money or

a stealth tax on the sick? You might be thinking about heading off to the

great British seaside for your holidays, you will be able to get a

stick of rock and a donkey ride, but new rules many beaches are about to

be classified as dirty. The way they cover the news on TV in

America is well, different what we're used to here. It may seem

extreme, but is it for money? -- fun?

You may have heard it is allel rage at Westminster -- all the rage to

bring in a top adviser from America to sharpen up your image. We don't

like to be left behind so we got our own hired gun! It is Frank Lunce. We

have just got him for the next hour! Let's start with the tighter

security facing air passengers travelling to the US. British

Airways warned that anyone who can't turn on an electronic device like a

phone or a tablet will be banned from their flight following warnings

that Al-Qaeda has developed new types of bomb that could be hidden

in electronic devices. Do you regard it as a sensible precaution or too

extreme? Well, I fly over 300,000 miles a year and I'm back and forth

to Europe five or six times, and I can only imagine what it will do to

airport security. I have done a fair bit of Middle Eastern travel. The

challenge we have right now is what is happening in Iraq. You have a

terrorist organisation, ISIS, that is beyond anything that we have

experienced in the last 100 years. Or dangerous, more of a threat and

more random, the violence and the killing is more blood thirsty and it

is so significant that if anything happens to any plane, we will never

forgive our Government. Hasn't that been the case at other points in

history? Is the public behind this in your view? Will they actually

support this tightening of security as they have done, after 9//11, for

example, after 7/7 or will they just think we have had enough of this

increased security and want to get on with our lives and travel where

we want to when we want to? We expect is 100% success. You have got

somewhere between # 5% -- 75% and 80% who would support this. It is

another victory for terrorism. The more hassle that it causes us, the

more of our freedoms that are given up, the more tragic this becomes,

but it is a way of life. You say you travel all the time. What has it

been like? Your flight affected already? It is easier to come here

than to leave. Heathrow has stronger security. Their rules are stricter

than in the States. I've done a lot of travel in the Middle East. If you

do it the right way, you have got to come early, you have got to be

professional about it, you make sure that your devices are charged, it is

not that difficult. But I don't like giving up on our freedoms. I don't

like changing the way that we live because someone doesn't like us or

how we live. Do you think it is too extreme to stop people boarding the

flights even if they take their electronic devices away if they

weren't charged up? I'm not a terrorism expert, but when people

start to be denied that chance to board, you see, it used to be you

would have to throw it into your luggage. If they're going to say, if

you can't turn it on, you can't fly, that's going to be a problem. It is

time for our quiz. And with the holiday just around the corner,

today's question is about your summer reading list. Thanks to

e-books academics say they can work out how many people are finishing

some of this year's must read titles and it is not many! Which of these

is least likely to have you reaching for the final page?

S at the end of the show Frank will give us the correct answer. I think

it is D. Women I've Loved by Bill Clinton! Thanks for adding that to

the list. All eyes will be on the top civil

servant from the Home Office later today when he appears before MPs to

explain the way allegations of child abuse were handled by the

department. His boss, Home Secretary, Theresa May, yesterday

announced two new inquiries, one to look into the handling of documents

about those allegations passed to the Home Office in the 1980s and a

second wider inquiry into allegations of abuse in Parliament,

the BBC, and religious organisations that won't report until after the

2015 election. Here is Theresa May. I want to set three important

principles. First, we will do everything we can to allow the full

investigation of child abuse and the prosecution of its perpetrators and

we will do nothing to jeopardise those aims. Second, where possible,

the Government will adopt a presumption of maximum transparency

and third, presumption of maximum transparency

and we will make sure that wherever individuals and institutions have

failed to protect children from harm, we will expose those failures

and learn the lessons. Theresa May announcing the inquiries yesterday.

We're joined by our political correspondent, Robin Brant. Robin,

so Mr Sedwill is going to be questioned and put under the

spotlight by MPs on the Select Committee. What will the line of

questioning be? Well, it can be a crucible with Keith Vass in the

chair. The thrust assuming we don't get the details on the terms of

reference and the broader remit for the bigger inquiry, the thrust this

afternoon for Mark Sedwill will be a focus on that letter he send to

Keith Vass on Saturday which detailed the review that the Home

Office carried out last year. It began in February. It was headed by

an inspector from H MI C who was unnamed. It reported in the August.

Its conclusions were slipped out, but only really were details added

on Saturday in this letter to Keith Vass and it was that letter that

revealed that tens of thousands of files had been searched and 114 were

presumed missing or destroyed or could not be found and we also

learned on Saturday from this letter that four bits of information which

had been previously undisclosed had now been turned over to the police

for further investigation. So there will be questions about you know,

the person that was brought in to do it. How they did it, the methodology

of their work. There will be more questions about these 100 plus files

which have gone missing. He will be asked to explain, I think, Mr

Sedwill what that means and how could they have gone missing? And he

referred to the fact that 50% of the files -- 5% of the files initially

examined had gone missing, but there is no broader explanation for that

and it is this claim, mixed together with the revelation about missing

files that is fuelling the conspiracies out there. So the

thrust of the questions will be about the missing files, the

methodology, the man who did it and why frankly as well at the time the

are results were just slipped out and there wasn't more publicity

given to the results. That is curious as we're now pouring over

the details as you say that didn't get that much publicity, but what

about the issue that ministers weren't questioned during the

review? Will that be enquired upon? It says in the letter no ministers

were interviewed or questioned. That's partly because Mr Sedwill and

the man who carried out the investigation wanted to try and keep

at arm's length from current ministers, my understanding is that

previous ministers weren't questioned either. There will be

intrigue about that, because, of course, the man at the centre of

this and the man who denies any allegation that he dealt with these

accusations improperly is the Home Secretary at the time. So there will

be questions as I said, not just about the remit and the way the

methodology, the work that was done, but frankly if ministers sitting or

past weren't questioned, what are the validity of the conclusions

reached last summer? Mark Sedwill said having a review of a review.

We're going to get the name of a QC who will help Peter Wanless with

that, but he said the reason for that was to check that the

conclusions remain sound and valid and quayed Vass and others -- Keith

Vass and others will say if you didn't question the politicians

involved or politicians now, the conclusion perhaps isn't sound and

valid already. Robin, thank you very much. Mark

Sedwill will be questioned in a few hours time.

Yesterday, an interview emerged of a former Conservative Whip in which he

suggested that whips had huge amounts of power over their fellow

MPs and would protect them from all kinds of scandals. Here is the MP

who is now dead, speaking in 1995. The scandal involve small boys or

any kind of scandal which a member seemed likely to be mixed up in,

they would come and ask if we could help and if we could, we did and we

would do everything we can because we would store up brownie points.

That sounds a pretty nasty reason, but it is one of the reasons if we

can get a chap ot of trouble when he will do as we ask forever more.

We're joined by the Labour MP who raised that interview during

yesterday's debate in Parliament. You are shocked by that revelation.

I was shocked, but not completely surprised, because the thing we know

about child abuse, it is about trying to exert power over other

people and what we have seen with the trial involving Rolf Harris and

Jimmy Savile and other celebrities is people who are in positions of

power find it particularly easy to cover-up what is happening to their

victims, their victims feel that they can't come forward because this

person is incredibly well respected and well-known and so, I wasn't

hugely surprised that that had happened, but I was obviously

horrified by it and wanted to raise it with the Home Secretary because

when we have got an inquiry of this nature now, what we need to make

sure is firstly, we can get access to any of those records that still

exist in the Whips' Office. If the systems are still in place that

conspire to stop the truth coming to light that they must be challenged

and tackled however uncomfortable is That for political parties, for

Parliament and the Government. Are you reassured by whatever is

announced by Theresa May will get to the truth? No, I very much welcome

the fact she had a change of heart and she has aannounced there will be

an inquiry, but what concerns me, when I raised this in the House

yesterday, it transpired it is not clear how this will work. It is not

clear if those the whips records exist and if they do exist, it is

not clear who owns them and whether they can be made available in the

public domain. What this did actually yesterday was it rang alarm

bells with me and many of my colleagues because these are the

sort of difficulties that arose over the Hillsborough inquiry and as you

know, 25 years later, the families are still fighting for justice and

for the truth to come out and what we cannot afford as a country, in

terms of public confidence and particularly for child abuse

survivors is for this to be yet another inquiry that doesn't get to

the truth. Right, the inquiry which Yvette Cooper asked for, it is vast,

looking at all sorts of institutions and religious organisations and the

BBC. Is it going to be any easier to get to the truth there with such a

big remit? I think it has to have a broad remit because what we have

seen over recent years is there is no part of the country that is

untouched by child abuse and I think people working in the field knew

that already. The point is not that child abuse is happening everywhere,

the point is as my colleague Nicola Blackwood said last year, it can

happen anywhere and that's why we need to be extra vigilant and

actually, for politicians who are in a position of power, our systems

need to be 110% robust to make sure if there are problems that they come

to light. What does this do to the institutions that are going to be

looked at in terms of whether they did enough to protect children from

abuse? Good for you and don't give you and

if you don't get the answer, push and push. The key is, don't make it

Labour, all governments are involved in this. Relugeous institutions have

been -- religious institutions have been involved in this. If you keep

it out of politics, the public will say bravo and don't back down. The

moment it becomes political, that's when the issue becomes we don't

trust politicians anymore because we believe in cover-ups whether it is

about money or sex or power, we don't think they're fighting for us,

we think they're fighting for them. Do you think it will get to the

bottom of it? Will it bring answers? If MPs like you keep the focus on

this every week, again and again, it can. If the BBC does, it can and it

has to because you cannot have this level of cynicism that you have got

in Britain and we have in America and you have to be able to trust

these people. Remember, they have a public trust. They were elected to

represent and OK, maybe they are not role models, but we expect more from

Congress or members of Parliament and if they behave badly, they have

to be held accountable. What about shifts in attitude in public

response to claims of child abuse? Historical or not, there has been a

shift, we have had many people on the programme who have said that in

the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, somehow people did turn a blind eye. It was

not acceptable, but those people were in a way not investigated after

rumours and claims. We want accountability. It has changed. We

want accountability, let the chips fall where they may, and the key

person, if they are alive and they need to be punished. You set out

what you want, to be available to the people looking at this, but why

then not have a judge led enquiry, why not have people swearing an

oath, why not make it that formal, if you think it is that important

and you need to get to the bottom of it. You have used Hillsborough as an

example of where it was difficult. Something that was welcomed

yesterday, the Home Secretary under pressure from MPs said that if the

independent panel that she set up feel that they need statutory

powers, she is very open to giving them to them. But the important

thing here, child abuse thrives in secrecy, it is not fun, it is not

exciting, it is humiliating, it is distressing. It is awful. What we

need to do, all of us, whether it is the media, politicians, anybody in a

position, we need to shine a spotlight anywhere we think that

could have occurred. Keep up the pressure to make sure we have the

right answers for people finally after years and years of living with

this in silence. Thank you very much.

Parking charges are never popular, but the fees charged to park

at many hospitals are, according to one MP, a stealth tax

Hospitals in Wales and Scotland have abolished them,

but three-quarters of hospitals in England do make visitors pay to

Our reporter Jane Dodge went to one hospital in Nottingham.

Really it is coming out of our pocket, isn't it. We pay our taxes

and everything like that and still, it is overpriced for car parks. It

is too much. Especially for patients. They should not have to

pay that much. Should they be paying anything? They should not. If you

are in hospital for a couple of weeks, people have got to I have

been here since 7:15am, now it is 1pm, yes, I expect it to cost in the

region of about ?10. How does that sound to you? It is a lot of money.

The hospital argues that charging the rates they do for car parking

means they can ring fence the budget of patient care, it means they do

not have to take money out of patient care to subsidise parking

for visitors. Do you accept that argument? If you put it that way,

perhaps the patients come first. I can afford the parking. I find it

expensive but I suppose there is people who would find it extremely

expensive. I would only use it in an emergency. I have just jumped off

the bus to come here. ?4 an hour, that is pretty steep. And we are now

joined by Robert Chalfant and from the centre-right think tank reform,

Andrew Halden B. -- Robert Halfon and from the

centre-right think-tank Reform, Andrew Haldenby. Hospital car

parking has become a stealth tax, people do not know why the charges

are there and what it is being spent on, and there are very few

concessions. What you say to that? It seems to be unfair that at a

point in your life when you are vulnerable, going to hospital,

seeing relatives, you are being charged through the nose. It is

wrong to charge people through the nose, but you have got to take it in

a hospital by hospital case. Kingston Hospital, big car park next

to the shops and residential housing, if there were no charges

for that car park, it would be full every day of the week, 24 /7. It is

not what Robert would like to achieve but the thing is, no patient

would be able to get into the hospital. This is the law of

unintended consequences. Some hospitals in London are charging up

to ?500 every week. ?500 every week? ! There are many examples of

horror stories. People have cancer and they are paying huge amounts of

money to park their car. The answer is a simple one, to what Andrew has

said, if you go to a hospital, you would go to a ward, a token or a

ticket would be given to you, and then you would not have to pay, that

would stop people using it for shopping and the issues he has

described. This has become a stealth tax, charges increasing all the

time, it is costing people enormous amounts of money. The charity,

bliss, it is a charity for parents with sick children, they have said

that parents are paying an average of ?34 a week when they have

premature babies. Some of them cannot even go into the hospital to

see their baby because they cannot afford to pay the car parking

charge. How would you pay for it? You say people do not know where the

money goes, and when people are arguing over the cost of cancer

drugs, and vital life-saving equipment, perhaps car park charges

is not the priority. Important question, I would argue this is as

much a front-line issue as it is when you spend money on nurses and

medical machinery. These decisions are made in NHS hospitals every day.

There is money. If we used a generic drug for stat ins, rather than

branded drugs, we would save 200 millions. That is the cost it would

take to scrap hospital car park in charges completely. -- statins. If

there was a way for paying for it, would you look at hospital charges

being scrapped. They can be scrapped now by hospital trust if they want

to but the reason they do not is because they want to spend the money

on clinical treatments and they are afraid that car it is the same

argument as prescription charges, nobody likes prescription charges

but they were introduced because when they were free, people were

taking too much, they were misusing resources. A small charge was

introduced. Most things in your NHS are free at the point of use, a tiny

number of things are charged but they are charged for a good reason.

We can have a debate in the long term about whether there will be NHS

charges, I'm reluctant to have any charges on the NHS, but what we have

seen with car parking, it has become a stealth tax, people do not know

why they are being charged so much money. If they did know and they

were faced with these choices, perhaps they would support the idea.

It is interesting hearing a conservative asking for charges to

be removed, in a controversial debate about general funding for the

NHS. This is quality of life, you have given me an idea that I would

like to take back to the US! We charge a lot of money, it can cost

40, 50 bucks, just for a visit in hospitals in New York and Los

Angeles. You have a bigger issue. Not just quality of life in terms of

parking, what kind of service do you get? The big debate, how long it

takes to get health care services here, how long do you have to wait

for admittance, how long do you have to wait for a doctor to see you?

That is a higher priority. What are the margins? People living pay

cheque to pay cheque, issues like this will matter in a general

election. What about your suggestion, if you are a London

hospital, living near good public transport, trying to encourage

people not to bring their car, you think that is not justifiable, to

have higher charges in the local hospital. We have got to get real,

Sony people who go to hospital are immobile for one reason or another,

parents and relatives go with children, it is difficult to use

public transport. Not every hospital has great communication links. There

are hospitals all around the country. There will be isolated

examples but it is becoming a stealth tax, there is no

transparency and it is hitting the most vulnerable in our communities,

and it is wrong that parents cannot afford to go to hospital to see

premature babies, because they cannot afford to park their car.

That is unjust and that is why the government have got to look at

this. I agree that it is a stealth tax in as much as people do not

understand it. In the NHS, there is only one place where the NHS says,

"you must give us money to fund this service" and that is car parks. It

is unusual when people do not know about it and it should be explained

to them. But I think the principle is correct. The government is not

listening to you, that is not seem to be a will to look at this, are

you getting anywhere? I am a campaigning MP, we have gone to the

backbench committee, 110 members from each side of the house,

including Frank Field, from both sides of the house. We have a

Twitter page, if you join that I can send you all of the other details.

We are on Facebook as well. In a couple of days we have had a

thousand people contacting us. Most horrific stories have been sent to

me, people suffering from cancer paying huge amounts because there is

no concessions. We have got to look at this. You say it is up to

individual hospitals but the governments have done brilliantly,

in getting rid of mixed sex wards. That was a national decision, this

is as much a national decision. Thanks.

Now on this show we can't get enough of opinion polls.

Which is fortunate, as at the moment you can't move for polls

on everything from who do you trust to run the economy to which party

The politicians claim they don't take much notice, although

if that were true our guest of the day here would be out of a job.

Eleanor Garnier's been finding out more.

I think that the only polls that count are on May 22 this year and at

the general election next year... The only one that counts is the one

where people get to vote and decide who they want to run the country...

There is only one poll that counts, that is the one that will take place

tomorrow, Thursday. The only poll that counts is the pall of the

voters... You are beginning to sound like a politician!

They Say they do not matter but political parties still spend

thousands of pounds on polls and on focus groups, they have been used

here in the UK since the late 1970s but they were first pioneered in

America. How many of you without saying any names have a preference

or who should take over the Conservative Party? This is Frank

Luntz, at a focus group for Newsnight during the Conservative

Party leadership election, it saw David Cameron rise to power.

Welcome to the world of 21st-century focus groups. This is in central

London, theories are tested and opinions are listened to and

reactions are recorded. They may be anonymous but the people chosen to

take part in focus groups are scientifically selected. The

questions and queries put to them are detailed and targeted. Instead

of simply "do you like ex-politician?" It is "how would you

describe them if they weren't -- it is, "what kind of animal would they

be? " And what kind of driver might they be? One person said that Nick

Clegg is driving the wrong way up a one-way street, that goes further

than just saying they do not like them, that is a better understanding

of what they dislike. There may be popular with political parties but

not all politicians like the idea of focus groups. If you want to waste

money they are probably a good thing, they do not do any harm, but

the way to find out what people are thinking is to knock on the

doorstep, talk to people, that is how you find out what is worrying

people. Talking to people on the doorstep, you the truth. Focus

groups, they can almost be interpreted to anything. It is

unbelievably arrogant I think for any politician to assert that they

think they know what all voters think on all issues all of the time

or any, any of the time! They need to use all of the tools available to

them, to connect with the public and really understand what they feel,

and they are mad if they do not use focus groups, they are crazy.

They may say that the only poll that matters is the one on election day,

but from this side of the glass, looking on, politicians are

certainly watching and listening. Any thing to help political parties

connect with lost voters. I don't know about you but I agree with

everything they have said! We know they do. They just say

there's only one to look at. Whilst you conducted polls for Newsnight

that propelled David Cameron from behave-on to party leader and it's

been asked many times whether you played kingmaker or spotted a trend

that already existed. Which was it? -- oblivion? I didn't know what he

looked like, the day that I did the session. I had never seen him. I had

a transcript of what he said. I was trying to pick clips so voters could

react. I said that was David Cameron and my initial reaction was he's too

young, they are going to choose someone, maybe not Kenneth Clarke,

maybe not someone that old, someone born in this century! But actually,

my first reaction was, the Tories were older.

The Tory voter is older. I was shocked at how they responded. He

didn't use notes. He did not read a speech. Every other politician gets

up and they are reading. He delivered from the heart and number

two. He gave credit to Tony Blair. It wasn't just a slash and burn. The

British public is tired of these divisions, they are tired of the

anger that seems to be expressed in every speech. Everything the Tories

have done is wrong, everything Labour has done is wrong. They want

someone who can find the sensible centre. The centre ground is what

every politician says that they are after. How do you think that David

Cameron has developed his brand since that time, since that point?

It's interesting to me to watch his communication style because it's not

as informal. Maybe you can't be as Prime Minister. Maybe you have to be

more structured. But to see him attempt to redefine what it is to be

a Conservative was important over the last few years because the

sketch had a bad reputation. I don't believe that Conservatives won in

2010, I believe that Labour lost. The group that was e-Wally as

decisive was the one we did for the BBC which showed Gordon Brown could

have been re-elected if he'd have gone within the first 100 days.

That's tactics. It's not because people's minds change and Gordon

Brown did not demonstrate he was a leader. The focus groups work by

thinks, let's give them a try. And he was a change from Tony Blair?

Which they appreciated. After an hour-and-a-half of watching him,

they'd already had enough. That caught us that timing is everything.

What about Ed Miliband then now? The Labour Party is trying to adopt the

tactics used by the Obama campaign and people say he doesn't compare

very fairly and we'll come on to Obama's popularity, but can it work

here? Can that Stardust work for Ed Miliband? The first thing I learned

is that Labour is spelled LOBOUR, not LABOR and the Americans have to

understand that the language here is not the same as America, the

expectations are not the same. I'm not the kind of guy that wants to

come over here and trash the country but British voters are more

sophisticated, asking more detailed questions, shows like this one get

into more substance and so it's dangerous to have an American

sensibility applied to British politics. So why are so many

politicians, why are David Cameron and Ed Miliband using American

strategies? Have you seen any evidence of David Axelrod on

Labour's campaign? I saw the language he use odd on behalf of

Miliband, on Barack Obama which you pronounce PARRACK. It's the same

thing with British Consul tans because the British political elite

goes to other countries and gives them advice. The key is to

understand the civility of the country. Do you think it's

understood here? It takes years to understand. I went to Oxford here

for three years and over the last five days I've been working my way

through the 80 and 90s politicians and the stuff that I read in British

publications is not necessarily accurate if you really want to

understand the British people. Who is going to win the 015 election? I

can tell you why the Conservatives won't win, they are not getting

credit for the economy. Labour won't win because Ed Miliband is not

sufficiently respected as a leader -- 2015. The Liberals won't do as

well because there is a disappointment in their performance

in the coalition. I can tell you why each person is going to do badly. I

can't give you a winner at this point. Do you think it will be a

coalition again, a hung Parliament? I believe it will be a coal Is again

but I don't know who will lead it. One thing makes me sad - the level

of cynicism in Britain seems to be at an all-time high. Now you have

got this child abuse scandal. It's tragic. This is the cradle of

democracy for the entire globe and I would want to see the population

proud of what British institutions have done globally. Instead, they

are cynical, it's dark and it's depressing. We've got the same thing

in America. If you take that cynicism, some might argue that's

helped the rise of UKIP. Do you agree with that? Do you see echoes?

I see tremendous similarities, the level of anger, disappointment and

the level of fear. The key for the politicians, particularly the party

leaders is to speak with incredible clarity. Put aside the notes, the

talking points and tell people not just what they think you want to

hear, tell them exactly how you feel and why. Simplify it, lardify it

and, most importantly, give voters the chance to be heard. That means,

don't respond to questions, ask questions. I'm waiting for the

political leaders here in this country. Ask your constituents

questions, don't just answer them. The more that you hear them, their

voice, their emotions, their passion, the better the political

person you'll be. All right. Let's leave it there.

Today, the Government's commissioner for victims and witnesses, Helen

Newlove, publishes her first report on her work to improve the way the

criminal justice system treats victims. The Tory peer has ample

experience of that system herself. Helen's husband Garry was murdered

outside their home by a gang of drunk everyone youths. She says she

spent her first year in the job listening to victims, and in the

report, she outlines her priorities for the next 12 months. She calls

for more research into restorative justice where victims can be brought

face-to-face with offenders to tell them how they were affected by a

crime. What's more, she says she wants to

give make sure victims' views are better heard by the police, courts,

prisons and policy-makers. And Helen Newlove, who entered the Lord's in

2010, believes more work should be done to improve the current

complaints system for victims and, where cases are dealt with out of

court, she says the interests of victims should be prioritised. So

that's what she wants to see happen. Will the Government listen? Helen

joins me now. Wok welcome to the prom. Are you being listened to?

Well, I'm not a person that will go away so they have got to listen and

if they don't, I can keep challenging them. What's been the

response so far to the issued you have raised in this last year? It's

become welcoming on some things but on other things not, and the fact

that I recently did a victims contact scheme, we are getting

better training and giving training better care to victims. I've been to

see a section 28 pilot which I have to say was quite good to see, and

I'm not on about the politicians here, but the judiciary, the judge

was victim-focussed, the defence and prosecution were victim-focussed.

That is nice to see, but there's further work to do. You can't fix

this overnight and it cannot be a knee-jerk reaction. Victims need to

be understood, rehabilitated and we need to work with them, not speak

for them. If you surround that your experience and what happened to your

husband, what the complaints that you had about the system chimes with

what other victims say to you now? Sadly, it does. This is seven years

this year that Garry died. So nothing's changed? They have. Nobody

recognised victims, they were part of a process but fitted in when it

suited them, so we are speaking about victims. Victims are really

tired of being asked the same questions time and time again and I

say to the Government, how much more do they need to do. So my review as

Victim's Commissioner goes to if heart of them, exposes the failings

where they are not doing it, makes it quality, independent reports to

place before Government for them, they are the law-makers, along with

the judiciary, to do something to support victims.

So victims treated in a less compassionate way than you would

like. Where does the fault lie? It's bad in every organisation, to be

federal feckly organisation. I wouldn't blame any specific. An

example is, sending a very clinical letter to a victim if you are no

going to go ahead with the case, with principal guidelines. That

means nothing to everybody. For me, it's about language, put it in a

language that they understand, sit with victims to make them understand

and better communication doesn't retraumatise victims. The criminal

justice testimony is supposed to be there to protect them, not to

revictimise them. We have had a barrister on the programme saying,

until a case has gone through, people who're under suspicion have a

right to be defended and rigorous questioning of potential victims. Do

you think that's still fair? If you over protect people in the witness

stand, for example, in the witness box, they still need to come under

vigorous questioning until a verdict? I would like to have

victims to have some protection, never mind over-protection to be

honest. In the States over the last ten years we have switched and we

use that phrase "victims' rights" and it's not yours or your husband's

fault that you happened to be there. The key is to understand the emotion

on it. I'm sorry for you loss. Every day, I'm sure that she relives it

and that's something that we forget. Just because it was seven years ago,

doesn't mean that it goes away. This tragedy is 20 years from now, it

will be the same. So how do you make people whole again? And that emotion

is what the policy needs to be focussed on. How do you, taking that

point, help people, which is what you have had to do, move on with

their lives, get over what's happened and, in some cases, as with

you, these are dreadful things, life-changing. How can you help

victims move on? It's a fair point on the emotion and that's many of

the debates I have is emogs is not recognised in the courtroom. But

actually, emotion is what's happened to victims and their trauma and you

need to support them as they enter the courtroom but also rehabilitate

them. Victims want justice, they believe in a right to a fair trial

but they also want rehabilitation. We always talk about rehabilitating

offenders and it's about time that rehabilitation of victims is

paramount to make sure that there's no further victims in our society.

Are you a big supporter of bringing perpetrator and victim together in

certain cases? I believe it's a victim's choice. That's what I want

to look at in more in-depth reviews. It shouldn't be a political

strapline. Nobody should jump into it and say it sounds very good. For

me, it's what Vic times need. They are vulnerable and traumatised. You

need a specialist area, like the doctors. Let them go at that time

when they want to digest it and if they want to follow it through, it's

a victim's choice, nobody owns an area and it should be for the

victims and what they can get, and happy, healthy lives back from it

that. 's what's paramount in this, not politicians. Good luck. Thank

you very much. If the travel industry is to be believed, 2014

will be the year of the staycation and if you are unfamiliar with that

particular buzz word, it means a holiday here in the UK, perhaps by

the Great British seaside, but no EU standards coming into effect next

year could mean many of the beaches could be reclassified as unfit for

bathing. We have been beside the seaside in Hastings to find out

more. Holiday-makers have been coming to

the seaside town of Hastings for generations.

And it's no different today with over three million day trippers

flocking to the town every year. But, new EU laws could blight one of

the town's biggest attractions. The sea.

Changes in the way that bathing water quality is measured could

strike Hastings and some 50 other English beaches off the list of

recommended places to swim. If the impression is given that Hastings

Beach is not clean, you may choose toe go somewhere else. For a town

that wants visitors in bigger numbers, that could be damaging. The

EU standard is what it is and we'll make sure we do everything we can to

hit it. Although the sea is clean by current standards, the new EU water

quality targets coming into force next year are twice as stringent as

those are bathing areas currently have to meet. On a hot day in high

summer, this beach will be packed. But, from October 2015, the new EU

law means that local authorities will have to display a sign atth

advising against swimming if the water quality fails to meet minimum

standards. Authorities are working hard to

ensure that doesn't happen. Nationally, water companies are

investing ?220 million cleaning up Britain's bathing water in the five

years to 2015. In Hastings, ?3 million has been spent by Southern

Water this year alone with another ?7 million earmarked for next year.

We have spent hundreds of millions of pounds over the years improving

the bathing water quality right around the coast and, if you go back

20 years, less than 50% of the bathing waters past the standard.

All the work we are doing and money we are spending should mean we see

results next year but I can't guarantee it.

So what needs to be done? Well, what we flush away ends up down here.

These Victorian sewers in Brighton are similar to those in Hastings

where campaigners are re-educating people about what not to put down

the drain or flush down the loo. Waste down the toilet will get

treated but contaminated run-off from roads and pavements, domestic

oil and fats down the drain, or dirty water from wrongly connected

pipes will flow directly into the sea. People have been shocked to

hear about the new directives, that they were not aware that not all

water that is thrown away, not all substances that are thrown down the

drain go off to be treated. With just over one year to go, no one is

certain that the sea in Hastings is going to be clean enough to meet

these rigorous EU standards, this bike knowing that the change has

been coming for eight years. Work is underway to address the issues, but

we'll all of the effort payoff? -- but, will all of the effort payee --

pay off? We're joined by the Green Party

leader Natalie Bennett and by the chair of the all-party

parliamentary group for all things He's not beside the seaside

but he's in our Salford studio. Do you support the new regulations?

You have got to support them, they are European mandate, I think of it

like this, people go to the seaside, they do not go there to bathe,

necessarily, but it will affect tourism to a large extent. Do you

support them? Do you think that the Environment Agency said that bathing

water in Britain is far cleaner than it was 25 years ago, what more can

be done? We are talking abstractly about European standards, I

apologise to everyone who is eating lunch but we are talking about two

measures of faecal bacteria. Lovely! This is what we are bathing in, we

need people to be bathing in healthy water. This is based upon the best

signs of what healthy water is, a measure introduced in 2006, we have

had plenty of time to react, I feel sorry for small business people who

may be affected. But example, it is a lovely place to visit, and I hope

that it will meet the standards, but there is a lot of other

attractions. When Natalie Bennett puts it like that, in terms of the

kind of bacteria you could be coming up against, the ball will feel

reassured that coastal communities will have to do their bit to improve

the standard of cleanliness in the water. Most council communities have

been doing that for a long time, to put it into perspective, between the

wars, they would bring battleships to the jetty of my constituency,

people were bathing in oil, and all kinds of stuff! That was when

tourism was at its height. We are in a different world altogether. --

most people will feel reassured. I think that these your chips -- I

think that these yardsticks are probably a little too Draconian,

however, having clean water, good clean water, is never a bad thing.

You represent Morecambe, would you say that the beaches in your area

are clean or dirty? My beaches are clean in my area. Quite recently we

have had a new measurement on our beaches, and two of my beaches have

just failed. These EU mandates are getting more stringent all of the

time. How clean does it really have to be? How clean does it have to be,

we saw in that film, the effect that this is going to have on tourism, if

you have got signs saying, "unfit for bathing, do not swim". That is

going to harm the British tourist industry at the seaside. We have got

to do what we are balancing your, a business cost, health of people

exposing themselves to the sea water. Is there a big health risk.

Yes, that is what faecal bacteria will do, I was reading the brief,

preparing for this, reading the website, and there are suggestions

that if you go surfing in certain areas, surfers, not bathers, talk to

your doctor about having a hepatitis A vaccination! We do not want to be

there! We want to be able to go into water anywhere in Britain. We really

must ask, given that this came in in 2006, privatised water companies,

this is one more example of where the model of privatisation has not

delivered. We have seen improvements but we could have gone much further,

much better. Answer that one. I disagree, in my constituency we have

an outlet with United Utilities, spending millions, I am fighting

them putting an outlet near a populated area in my constituency. I

know that they are spending copious amounts of money to address this, to

say that it is privatised industry is a fallacy. How come you have not

done more, not you, specifically, how come more has not been done when

you have had a number of years to deal with it? The regulation is

going more and more stringent, it is going up rather than down, or even

levelling out, what we are experiencing here is European Union

bureaucracy going crazy as usual, how clear does the water have to be?

bureaucracy going crazy as usual, I went into my local United

Utilities plant, over this discrepancy of a new tube going near

a populated area, they showed me what it comes in as and what it goes

out as. It was fit to drink. If it is of that standard, do we still

have two carry on looking for clean and clear waters? We will ask a

visitor to the country. -- do we still have two carry on looking for

clean and clear waters? Your water is too cold! With all due respect, I

am going to swim in Florida! California! It is too cold here, but

what I would say, you can have a healthy economy and healthy water,

and we have the right to expect both. That is what the British

population would say, the air they breathe should not make them sick,

the water in which they swim should not make them ill, and there has got

to be a focus upon what it does to the economy in the local area.

Nothing short of that is acceptable. You are going to have to heat up the

water to get Frank in! What about the environmental impact? LAUGHTER

That is for another day. Now here

at the Daily Politics we give you Of course we do! But TV channels in

Britain are by law obliged to be That's not the case in the States,

where cable channels are allowed to trumpet their highly charged

and partisan views. Our guest of the day is

a regular contributor to one Lets see what the American people

had to say about that clip. SHOUTING One at a time! Can I ask you a

question, seriously, is this going to be the level of discourse over

the next two years? Yes! Macro shouting point well taken... That

was not presidential... Macro SHOUTING

Warrants stop worrying about what the other person do, we have got to

come together! No, no, no! -- stop worrying about what the other person

do! We are going to stop this conversation now! I am glad that you

were in charge! I lost control. It is difficult! That was one of your

focus groups from 2010, when President Obama had accused the

Republicans of being hostage-takers over negotiations about tax cuts.

And we're joined by Medhi Hasan from the Huffington Post website, he's

also a presenter on al-Jazeera's English language channel

It is more polarised. Except that in Congress, we would never do what you

do in Parliament! I was Congress, we would never do what you

Margaret Thatcher, her final speech, somebody

Margaret Thatcher, her final "hypocrite! ". She is sitting down,

her last speech, somebody screams out. We would never do that in

Congress. But our public is more polarised. At least in Congress we

do not scream and holler at each other. Does it help political

debate, to have parties and shows like Fox News, does it help the

level of discourse or do you end up with a screaming match? Before I

come to that, to take this point, when President Obama gave the state

of the union, a Republican shouted out "liar back Tory" and many would

argue that this is part of a new level of unprecedented polarisation.

One person, one time. -- a Republican shouted out "liar! "

Americans are deciding where to live and who to marry and who to make

friends with on the basis of what they believe, I think... Fox News

and talk radio is not the sole cause of it but it would be mad to think

that it does not feed into it, the idea the news channels are under no

obligation to give you the other side of the argument, they spew out

one-sided use all day long in order to generate heat rather than light.

I was in the States the last time, when Obama care was being discussed

and debated, I watched with interest, and a lot of British

people thought, my goodness, why is there so much vitriol? We take it so

seriously, the promise, we do seek out information, to affirm us,

rather than inform us. I think that is a fundamental challenge. The

issue, we do not know enough, we do not learn enough, we do not read

enough. We do not watch enough. I work for Fox News, I will admit, I

watch an hour or two of MSNBC, I want to know what everybody is

saying. And what they are saying. There was an academic study a couple

of years ago which found that people who watch Fox News are less informed

about MST news in America than people who watch no news whatsoever!

People who watch the daily show were better informed! We have done the

same kind of research, and the Fox News viewer knew more. Did they know

more are all a more engaged? Are they more passionate? Do they know

more? You work for Huffington Post, not exactly mainstream media... It

is the biggest new site in America, but the point about television era,

it is regulated differently, but in America, elevating channels, there

is no difference between comment and news. -- television channel. His

papers are far more balanced here. And they are self regulated. --

newspapers are far more balanced here. Would it be better if

television was like it was in America? This did not help the level

of public discourse, it does not help information, the vast majority

of the British public want impartial news. We know that everybody is

turned off from politics, disengaged, if we made it more

entertaining? Why should we encourage mistrust by saying what

you are getting is not necessarily both sides of the argument? Looking

at Al Jazeera, is it impossible for a news organisation to be completely

impartial? Surely there is always an agenda? There is no such thing as

pure impartiality, but I think the point that would be made by Al

Jazeera, and I present a show for them, but they would say that they

give a different view on the world, it is the first global news channel

not based in the West, for example. In this country, Al Jazeera English

is regulated by off, full to their is the obligation to you

impartiality which was dropped in the late 1980s by America, and it

has been a disaster for the US. It is rich... For someone coming from

your perspective... To condemn America. I will be the first to say

there is issued, but I will defend what they do because our newspapers

are far less biased. We are talking about television. The problem is the

web, just read the comments section, go to Huffington Post, whoever is

watching... For one day, go to the website and read the comments... It

is the most personal, vicious, horrific commentary in politics. You

are talking about the comments below the line, every news organisation

has those, every newspaper. It does not make it right. But in America,

Fox News encourages that on the air! That is enough for the moment! We

have got to be proud of the BBC. I am!

There's just time before we go to find out the answer to our quiz.

to a new academic study, which of these books are readers

Is it: a, Capital, by the French economist Thomas Piketty?

b, Hilary Clinton's memoir Hard Choices?

or c, Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time

I think that it is D, daily politics! LAUGHTER

I have already read on Twitter, it is capital! You cheated!