19/01/2014 Sunday Politics South East

Morning, folks. Welcome to the Sunday Politics. Nick Clegg says

Chris Rennard must apologise. "What for?", say his friends. We'll ask

senior Lib Dem minister Danny Alexander whose side he's on.

What about the voters? What do they make of the Lib Dems? We hear the

And we have the highest numbers of group. A donkey.

And we have the highest numbers of deaths from one asbestos related

cancer so does the new law that Portsmouth MP Penny Mordaunt's

plunge from the highboard from who else but the Minister for

Portsmouth. And with me, as always, the best and

the brightest political panel in the business: and in London, Boris

Johnson has pledged to recruit more volunteers. Nick Watt, Helen Lewis

and Janan Ganesh, who'll be tweeting throughout the programme.

First this morning, Nick Clegg is considering a fresh investigation

into the behaviour of the party's former chief executive, Lord

Rennard. Last week, a lawyer appointed by the party decided that

no action could be taken against him, but that women who had accused

the Lib Dem peer of inappropriate behaviour "were broadly credible".

More than 100 party activists are demanding an apology. Chris Rennard

say he's nothing to apologise for and the party whip must be returned

to him. Helen, this is not going away. It is turning into a crisis

for the Lib Dems? They have only got seven female MPs. There is no female

Cabinet Minister. There is a reasonable chance that after the

next election there might in no female Liberal Democrat MPs at all.

A scandal like this will not encourage women into the party. Have

they made a complete mess of it? You feel for Nick Clegg, because he

launched an utterly rigorous process. He called in a QC. The QC

looked at it and decided that the evidence did not meet the burden of

proof in a criminal trial. But clearly he felt that the evidence

from these women was very credible and serious. He said it was broadly

credible. Clearly it was serious. Rennard is being advised by Lord

Carlisle, fellow Liberal Democrat peer, who is giving purely legal

advice. He is saying it has not reached that edge-mac, so do not

apologise. This is a political issue, so the agony continues. Nick

Clegg was hoping to keep the party whip withdrawn. But they did not

launch an enquiry, the Webster enquired it was not an enquiry, it

was a legal opinion. You're right, it was an internal opinion. The Lib

Dems distinguished themselves from the other two parties not with

policy, but with ethics. They presented themselves as being

cleaner, and in possession of more Robert Jay than Labour and the

Conservatives. That will be harder to do now. -- more probity. There

are a Lib Dem peers that are more relaxed about taking him back and

letting him pick up the party whip. That is the problem. There is a

generational issue. The older Lib Dems in the House of Lords, the kind

of thing, he did not do anything that wrong. The younger activists

and those outside the House of Lords, they think it is a pollen.

Yes, there is definitely a sort of what you are complaining about sort

of thing. That is symptomatic of a cultural difference. The report last

year found that they tried to manage the allegations. They did not do

what any company would do if there was an allegation of sexual

harassment. If there had not in the by-election in Eastleigh, this story

may not have got the attention it did. Channel four news are the one

that really drove this. Without their reporting, this might not have

come out. It is not going to go away, because the issue of whether

he gets the party whip back will come week. -- will come up this

week. So it's not been a great week for

the Liberal Democrats and none of this will help public perceptions of

a party already struggling in the polls. In a moment, I'll be talking

to the second most senior Liberal Democrat in the land, Danny

Alexander. First, Adam Fleming went to Glasgow to find out what voters

there made of the party. Let's put the Lib Dems under the

microscope in Glasgow. We have recruited some Glaswegians who have

voted for them, and some who have not. Hello, John. Let's get started.

I will be watching them through the one-way mirror, along with the

former Liberal Democrat MP John Barrett. Let's get to the heart of

the matter straightaway. If the Lib Dems were a biscuit, what would they

be? Tunnock's Teacake. Hard on the outside but soft in the middle. They

give in. There is no strength of character there. They just give in

to whoever. Ouch. Rich Tea. A bit bland and boring. Melts and crumbles

under any sort of heat and pressure. Morrison's own brand of biscuit, not

top of the range like Marks Spencer or Sainsbury's or Waitrose.

A custard cream, sandwiched between David Cameron and the Tories. I

think they were concerned that they had one exterior, but something else

was really inside. They did not find it too definitive, too clear, too

concise, too tasty, too appealing. Which means? It is a worry. If that

is their gut reaction, literally, let's find out what is behind it.

The context of them being stuck between a rock and a hard place,

The context of them being stuck between a rock and a hard place for

between a rock and a hard place, for them as a party, I feel slightly

sorry for them. I think people who voted for them will think they are

victims as well, being sold down the river by going to the coalition I

river by going to the coalition. I think the ones, particularly student

fees, that was an important one to a lot of people. People felt cheated.

I agree. Just going back on that, so publicly and openly, it makes you

think, well, what do they stand for? It is trust. Harsh. But our group is

feeling quite upbeat about the state of the economy. What have the Lib

Dems contributed to that? I am not quite sure. It is George Osborne, a

Conservative, who is the Chancellor, so it is mostly down to him. The

Liberal Democrats are mostly on their coat tails, if you know what I

mean. Have the Lib Dems done anything, anyone? I think the

Liberal Democrats were responsible for increasing the tax allowance,

?10,000 for next year. I think they have played a major role in that.

Yes. I am glad somebody noticed that. We will have helped everyone

who is receiving a salary, and it is interesting that nobody has

mentioned that. Now, let's talk about personalities. Everyone knows

him, but what about say, this guy? Alexander. Danny, they got it

straightaway. I actually quite like him. I think he talks very clearly

and it is easy to understand what he says. Fellow redhead Charles Kennedy

is popular as well. He is very charismatic and it is through him

that I voted Liberal the last few times. But who is this? I recognise

him but I cannot tell you his name. That is the party's leader in

Scotland, Willie Rennie, and the party's role in the upcoming

referendum on independence draws a blank as well. It does not feel like

they have featured, it is SNP and Labour and Conservative. They are

last in a four horse race. We have been talking about the biggest issue

in Scottish politics, independence and the referendum and the Lib Dems

are nowhere. They are not mentioned and they seem to think it is all

about Labour and the SNP. The Lib Dems are part of the Better Together

campaign and we are being drowned out among that. Looking to the

future, what messages do voters have for the Lib Dems? Get a backbone. Do

not go back on your policies or your word. Be strong and decisive. If you

will pardon the expression, man up. DIY, do it yourself. Do not award

bankers and other people for failure. Stand up. Be your own

person, party. If that focus group represented the whole country, what

would the result for the Lib Dems be at 2015 in the election? If they get

the message across between now and then, the result could be OK. If

they do not get the message across, the result could be disaster. Maybe

they would do a lot better on their own. I do not think you are seeing

the true Lib Dems because they are in the coalition. They maybe deserve

another chance. Crucially for the Lib Dems, that means there is some

hope, but there is also plenty of anger, some disappoint, and a bit of

bafflement as well. And watching that with me, senior

Liberal Democrat and Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander.

to the Treasury Danny Alexander Welcome to the programme. One of the

things that comes through from the focus group is that if there is any

credit around for the economic recovery, it is the Tories that are

getting it, and you are not? What can you do about that? The first

thing to say is that the economy would not be recovering if it was

not for the Liberal Democrats. If it was not for our decision right

beginning in 2010 to form a strong, stable coalition government that to

deal with the problems, we would still be in the mess that Labour

left us with. Why are you not getting the credit? That was one

focus group. It was interesting to hear opinions. We have to work very

hard to get across the message that the economy would not be recovering

without the Liberal Democrats. People would not be seeing the

largest income tax cuts for a generation without the Liberal

Democrats. The ?10,000 threshold that one of the people referred to

is coming into peoples pay packets this year. Lots of people recognise

that. There was the one person in the focus groups. This is your

measure of success, raising the people at which people pay income

tax. But most of the voters do not even give you credit for that. The

role that we haven't British politics as a party, is that we are

the only party that can be trusted to deliver a fair society and a

strong economy. People know they cannot trust the Labour Party. We

saw it again from Ed Miliband this morning. You cannot trust the Labour

Party with the nation's finances. It may well be your policy, the income

tax threshold, but it is the Tories that are getting the credit? I do

not think that is true. I have spent lots of time meeting photos and lots

of people recognise that if it was not for the Liberal Democrats,

people would not be seeing those tax cuts. We are helping disadvantaged

children in schools. It is right that we have to work very hard

between now and polling day to do several things, to make sure that we

secure the recovery, there can be no complacency. The economic recovery

is in its early stages and we need to make sure it is sustainable. We

need to make sure the benefits of the recovery are shared out people

who have made sacrifices, people on low pay, people who have seen their

savings are eroded. The Tories have now hijacked another Lib Dem

policy, another big hike in the minimum wage. You spoke about the

need to make sure that people on low pay benefit from the recovery, a big

hike in the minimum wage. Did the Chancellor consulting on this? We

have been talking about it for some time. Vince Cable asked the low pay

commission for advice on this. Why did Vince Cable not make this

announcement, why was it the Chancellor? Let me say a few other

things about this. If we are going to secure the recovery, this year we

have to make sure that businesses start investing. We have got to get

Roddick typically rising. An increase in the minimum wage is

something that needs to follow that. We will not do it unless the low pay

commission adviser as it is important for the economy at this

stage. Did you know the Chancellor was coming out with that statement?

I did not know he was going to say something on that particular day. We

have worked together on it in the tragedy to see what the economic

impact would be, and to emphasise that it is the commission, which has

credibility with business, trade unions and government. It must not

be a politically motivated increase. So you did not know, and Vince

Cable, and it is properly a matter for him as the Business Secretary,

he did not make the announcement? I don't think that's right. I don't

clear every word I say with him, I don't expect him to do the same to

me. The Lib Dems have told us before it was the Treasury that was

blocking this from happening. We were going to ask the low pay

commission to advise us on bringing the minimum wage back up. During the

financial crisis, wages have been lower-than-expected but it's also

right, we shouldn't act in a hasty way, we should listen to what the

commission has to say, and if they don't recommend an increase we have

to make sure economic conditions are there to get it right. Not only are

the Tories getting credit for that, our Scottish voters group showed

that people have still not forgiven you for ratting on tuition fees,

that people have still not forgiven you for ratting on tuition fees and

you for ratting on tuition fees, and that was a broken promise that

didn't even apply to the people in Scotland, where there are no tuition

fees! Nick Clegg has been very clear about the issues that that brought

up. If you look at our manifesto, the University of London said we

delivered about 70% of our policies in the manifesto. They haven't

forgiven you for the big one. The big promise we made was to cut

income tax the millions of people. That is a policy which is putting

money back into the pockets of working people. It is only possible

because we are delivering our economic plan in government with the

Conservatives. Now we have to make sure, through tax cuts, through

looking at issues like the minimum wage and other groups who have made

sacrifices, make sure that benefit is shared. I am not going to agree

to anything which undermines the confidence of businesses to invest

in this country over the next 12 months. Speaking of Scotland, the

Lib Dems, why do they now look largely irrelevant in the battle for

the union? Not one of our focus group even knew who your Scottish

leader is. I don't accept that. I have spent a lot of time with

Alistair Carmichael and others, we are all making the case every day.

If Scotland votes to be independent, it will be in a much worse financial

position within the European Union. Scotland will be contributing to the

rebate for the UK, rather than benefiting from it. It has been a

disaster for your Scottish based to have joined a coalition with the

Tories. It may have been the right thing to do, you say it is in the

national interest, but Scottish Lib Dems did not expect to be in a

coalition with the Tories. By the way I think it is also in the

national interests and the interests of the people for Scotland, cutting

the income tax of Scottish people, stabilising the economy. We are now

seeing good growth. But you are in meltdown. I don't accept that. We

will see what happens in the 2015 election. I think we have a record

to be proud of, we have played a very important role in clearing up

the mess Labour made in the economy, of making sure the

Coalition government tackles the problems in this country, but does

so in a fair way. I think the biggest risks to the economic

recovery over the next few years is either a majority Labour government

or a majority Conservative government. Labour you cannot trust

with the finances, the Tories want us to play chicken with the European

Union which would truly be a disaster to investment in this

country. You announced this week that if Scotland votes to leave the

UK, it would be the British Treasury that would guarantee all British

government debt. There wouldn't be a negotiation, but the backstop would

be that even if they didn't take anything, we would still guarantee

the debt. What was happening in the markets that you needed to calm them

down? We were getting quite a few questions from the people we rely on

to lend us money. We are still borrowing billions of pounds every

month as a country. Those people were asking us to clarify this

point. It was becoming a serious concern? It wasn't reflected in the

guilty yields. I follow the bond market quite carefully and there was

no sign this was having an impact. That's why the right thing to do was

to clarify this point now, rather than the concerns being reflected in

what you imply, and I think it is a bad idea for Scotland to vote for

separation but it would be wrong to allow for the fact that question is

on the table to cost taxpayers in the UK more money and higher

interest payments simply because Alex Salmond has put that question

on the table. That's why I think it was the right thing to do. There

were a lot of calls from the focus group that you need to be different.

Nick Clegg has embarked on this aggressive differentiation. Where

you can be different is the bankers' bonuses. What conceivable

reason could there be for anybody at RBS getting a bonus twice in their

salary? We have not been approached by RBS in terms of those votes. I

would be sceptical about an approach from RBS if it can. It shows what we

have presided over as a party in government, massive reductions. .

I'm not asking you about that, I'm asking what conceivable case there

can be for a bank that has failed to sell its branches even though

ordered by the Government, still has 38 billion of toxic debt on its

balance sheet, I ask again what possible reason should they get

twice salary as a bonus? Your right to say RBS is in a very different

position to other banks, it is mostly owned by the state. RBS

hasn't put a case to us but they might do so I would like to look at

what they would say, but I would be sceptical as to whether a case could

be made given some of the things you said, but also the fact that it is a

bank that has benefited from the taxpayer standing behind it. Now RBS

has to focus more on domestic retail. Let me turn to Chris

Rennard, ten women have accused him of sexual harassment. He denies

every case. Who do you believe? We have been through a process on this

as a party. A report has been issued on this. I agree with Alistair

Webster on this, he has made clear that while he cannot prove what

happened to a criminal standard that there is clear there has been

considerable distress and harm caused. I agree with him about that

and that's why it is necessary for Chris Rennard to apologise as he has

been asked to do. If he refuses to apologise, should he be denied the

Lib Dem whip in the Lords? I don't think he should be readmitted to the

Liberal Democrat group in the House of Lords until such time as the

disciplinary process, including the apology, has been done properly We

are very democratic party, it is a matter for our group in the House of

Lords in due course to make that judgement. Party HQ has had a lot of

complaints from party members about the fact no apology has been made.

The appropriate committee would need to look at that and decide what

action needs to be taken because these are very serious matters. We

as a party have learned a lot, taken a long, hard look at ourselves, to

change the way we work. The apology does need to be made. We are told

that Lord Newby, the Chief Whip of the Liberal Democrats in the House

of Lords, we are told he has shaken hands with Chris Rennard and

welcomed him back. That decision has not been taken yet. I think Lord

Newby would share my view on this. Have you shaken his hand and

welcomed him back? No, I haven't. Does Nick Clegg have the power to

deny Chris Rennard as the whip? I am making it clear that a lack of

apology is totally unacceptable and therefore we have to take steps if

that is not forthcoming. His view and my view is that Lord Rennard

should not be readmitted to the House of Lords if that is not

forthcoming. In our party, our group in the House of Lords has two in the

end take a view for itself. And they can override Nick Clegg's view? I

hope that when they look at this... Do they have the power to override

Nick Clegg? They have the power to decide who should be the whip. The

failure to follow up the simple human demand for an apology for the

stress that has been caused is totally unacceptable. Your party is

totally down lighted on this -- divided on this. Here is what Lord

Carlile had to say. A total nonsense, hyperbole. It is a

ridiculous statement to make and we have seen Alistair Webster, the QC

who did this investigation, comment on that himself this morning. He has

followed the process the party laid down in its rules, which sets the

standard for the investigation which asked him to report on the evidence

he has found, but he also has a duty of confidentiality and

responsibility under the data protection legislation as well. Here

is what your activists have said in a letter to the Guardian. This shows

there are strong opinions, but why should Chris Rennard apologise for

something he denies, unproven allegations, on an unpublished

report that Chris Rennard has not been allowed to read? He should

apologise because he wants to continue to be a member of the

Liberal Democrats and this is the recommendation that has been made by

the internal disciplinary process. Webster himself said this was not an

inquiry, it is an opinion. If Chris Rennard apologises on this basis, he

opens himself to civil lawsuits. He opens himself to civil lawsuits He

says he is not going to do it. As a Liberal Democrat you join the party

because you believe in its values, you abide by its rules. One of those

rules is that we have a process if there are disciplinary allegations.

The committee of the party supported Webster's recommendations, one of

which was that an apology should be made because he clearly found

distress had been caused. Will there now be a proper inquiry? I don't

think any of these legalistic things, I don't think he can have it

both ways. Will there be a proper inquiry? Alistair Webster did do a

proper inquiry. There was a proper report into what happened at the

time and we have learned a lot from this is a party, and the most

important thing now is that Chris Rennard apologises. You have made

that clear. What kind of biscuits are you? Are you a Tunnocks? Soft on

the inside? It is good of you to be advertising a Scottish product. We

just wondered if you weren't tough enough to take on Ed Balls. Thank

you. More than tough enough is the answer to that.

Generally governments are a bit rubbish at IT projects. They tend to

run way over budget and never quite achieve what they promised. So the

revelations of a former spy that the US and British security agencies

were in fact astonishingly efficient at eavesdropping on the digital

communications of their citizens came as a bit shock. But just how

worried should we be about their clandestine activity?

In his latest revelation, former US by Edward Snowden has claimed that

America's National Security Agency operates a secret database called

Dishfire. It collect 200 million mobile phone messages every day from

around the world, accessed, he says, why British and American spies. This

week, the president has outlined a series of surveillance reforms,

including Ning to the storage of the phone call information of millions

of Americans, and no Morse -- and no more spying on allies like Angela

Merkel. Critics say that the British intelligence agencies have refused

to acknowledge even the need for a debate on the issue. The Foreign

Secretary William six says that we have a very strong system of checks

and balances. -- William Hague. ?? new line Nick Pickles is director of

the pressure group Big Brother Watch. The Labour MP Hazel Blears in

on Parliament's Intelligence And Security Committee. They're here to

go head to head. Welcome to both of you. Hazel

Blears, let me come to you first. President Obama has made some major

changes as a result of what we have learned that the NSA in America was

up to. But British politicians seem to, they are not up for this kind of

thing, they are hoping it will go away? It is not going away and that

is why my committee, the Intelligence And Security Committee,

has decided to launch an enquiry into whether the legal framework is

up-to-date. We have had massive technological change. We have had a

call for evidence. Some of the sessions will be open so that people

can see what the evidence is. Obviously some of the information

will have to be classified, but on the committee, there is a real

commitment to say, there is a big debate going on, let's see if the

system is as Rob asked as we can make it. The big question is

oversight and the call for evidence that the committee has issued is not

mention oversight. It is ten years since the Foreign Affairs Committee

said that the committee should be a fully elected committee chosen by

Parliament and not the Prime Minister. It has changed, actually.

The Prime Minister nominates people and the house gets to him -- gets to

approve. In America, they have a separation of power, the president

does not nominate Kennedy. Basically, Hazel Blears, you're an

establishment lackey? I do not think so. Most of the people on the

committee have some experience of intelligence and these issues. In

this country, we have robust scrutiny, compared to some of her

European neighbours. We have Parliamentary scrutiny, the

interception commissioners, and ministers have to sign the warrants.

But there may be room for improvement, which is why we are

having the enquiry. Do not forget, President Obama said that the agency

should not have the ability to collect data, he wanted to put more

safeguards in. That is essential for the work of the agencies. If you

cannot see the data, you cannot take the connections and see the

patterns. Some people never talk about the threat from terrorism it

about the threat from terrorism, it is all about travesty. There are

several thousand people in this country, as we are talking, who are

actively planning to do a country harm. When this debate started in

the US, the NSA head stood up and said there are 54 plots that have

been detected by this capability that has detected and that in bulk.

Now the head of the NSA has admitted that the number is actually zero. It

is not the intelligence committee in the US that did the work to reduce

that number, it was a Judiciary Committee. The fact that we have two

different bodies doing this in this country, it means that you do not

get the correct view. How can people have confidence in a body when if

you go around Europe, for example, or the world, we are not at the end

not requiring judges to not sign warrants? I do not accept that the

committee failed on that range of issues. You look at the reports on

7/7. Two reports by the committee get to the heart of it. If you look

at that terrorist attack on our country, people will say, why did

you not have them on the radar? The agencies are between a rock and a

hard race. They have got to be subject to oversight, but beanie

capability. Did you know about Dishfire? We go to GCHQ on a regular

basis and I know about the capabilities that we have got. Some

of the names of these programmes, we would not necessarily know. But did

you know that GCHQ had the capability to use Dishfire, or to

get Dishfire material from the NSA? I knew and my committee knew that we

had the capability to collect data, and these days, people do not write

letters, they do not use landline telephones, they use the Internet

and text in, so it is important that the agencies are able to keep up

with that take the logical change. What should happen? The proper legal

framework should include, if a company is cooperating, as Google

and Facebook do, it should be illegal for GCHQ to hack into them.

In the US, Lundberg estimate that this has driven a 35mm and hole in

the US economy because people do not trust but there are systems are

secure. We need to know that GCHQ are not trying to use a different

door into the system, whether by hacking or foreign intelligence. We

need judicial oversight with judges and not politicians signing off. The

and not politicians signing off The final 30 seconds to you. As a result

of the changes in the Justice and Security act, the committee is

accountable to Parliament and not the Prime Minister. Those changes

are taking place, and I am up for the debate if we need more change or

not. But I want British agencies to have more power to protect the

people in this country. Thank you to both of you. It's coming up to

11:40. You're watching the Sunday Politics. Coming up in just over 20

minutes, we'll get the verdict of the Minister for Portsmouth on that

I'm Natalie Graham and this is the dive from the Portsmouth MP. Ouch!

I'm Natalie Graham and this is the Sunday Politics in the South East.

Coming up later. The Government says it wants to go

all out for fracking and will offer more money to councils which say yes

to drilling. We'll be asking whether that money will undermine local

authorities' decision making when it comes to allowing the energy

comes to allowing the energx companies to explore for oil and

gas. Joining us to discuss this and other topics is former BBC

journalist and now Prospective journalist and now Prospective

Parliamentary Candidate for the Conservatives in Brighton P`vilion,

Conservatives in Brighton Pavilion, Clarence Mitchell. And by another

journalist who also wants to become an MP, Jasper Gerrard will stand in

Maidstone and the Weald in the 015 General Election for the Liberal

Democrats. Welcome to you both. Now, before we go on to discuss our

main stories, I just wanted to get your thoughts on one thing. Council

tax is always a big issue for local politicians and councils alhke

tax is always a big issue for local politicians and councils alike and

politicians and councils alhke and in the South East this week we

learned that Kent County Cotncil learned that Kent County Council

will be increasing council tax for the first time in three years and in

Brighton the Green`led administration is going to hold a

referendum on a council tax rise of 4.75%. They say it is to fund

Brighton and Hove's adult social care services. It'll be the

country's first ever poll on a budget rise. They say they have guts

to fund care for the elderlx, budget rise. They say they have guts

to fund care for the elderly, they to fund care for the elderlx, they

are not getting any money for the man, what are they supposed to do?

They should be providing services properly within the council tax that

they have. This is an irresponsible stunt. Do you really think the

people of Britain will vote for a twice inflation increase in council

tax when they're rubbish is not being collected, when they `re fed

being collected, when they are fed up with the green's ideologhcal eat

driven transport policies which are affecting businesses? We think it

will act as a vote of no`confidence in the green administration. Do you

have any sympathy for them? They have not got much money frol the

government, they are being cut, we hear so often from Kent county

council about children and elderly council about children and dlderly

services being cut, what are they services being cut, what ard they

having to do? Kent county council are having to cook severe ctts,

having to do? Kent county council are having to cook severe cuts, they

are having to cook severe ctts, they have closed children's centres, a

lot of those children are on the at risk register and have no one

looking after them. Councils are under huge pressure to save money.

Kent county council has had a bad record with his public viruses, it

lost a fortune in the Icelandic banks, `` with its public fhnances.

I think that sends out a bad message to people when they see thehr

to people when they see their council tax bills rising at the same

time as seeing a lot of waste. So you both agree this should not be

happening. Certainly in the case of Kent, if it does happen, thdy

happening. Certainly in the case of Kent, if it does happen, they should

be honest and go higher than the 1.99% rise, have a proper rdferendum

1.99% rise, have a proper referendum and the debate, do not just sneak in

under the limit so people do not have the say. In the case of

Brighton, the government is offering the money to offset this, and with

Labour supporter last year they still went for a council tax rise.

This is an attempt to shore up their vision on this.

It's an illness that kills lore people a year than road traffic

accidents and the South East has the highest number of incidents in the

country. Mesothelioma is a type of cancer caused by exposure to

asbestos. For many sufferers, claiming compensation has been

difficult but a new law is about to make it easier. But does it go far

enough? Our reporter Sara Ndville enough? Our reporter Sara Neville

went to speak to sufferers `nd campaigners to find out why they say

the bill is a missed opportunity. I started in 1953 as a shipwright

apprentice at 15. Rave from Kent worked at Chatham dockyard. In heavy

industry like thousands of people in the south`east, where use of

asbestos was widespread. He married his childhood sweetheart, M`vis but

his childhood sweetheart, Mavis, but 60 years on, Mavis has

mesothelioma, an aggressive form of lung cancer caused by breathing in

asbestos fibres whilst washhng her husband 's work clothes. I have said

ever since that diagnosis, it was my ever since that diagnosis, ht was my

fourth, I gave it to have because I fourth, I gave it to have bdcause I

brought it home on my clothes. fourth, I gave it to have because I

brought it home on my clothes. We have discussed this at length. I

still feel guilty. I do not think he should be guilty. The government of

the time should be guilty. Nearby in the Isle of Sheppey, Italian Roberto

was a ship maker. He died from a severely two years ago after working

with asbestos for some 30 years. severely two years ago after working

with asbestos for some 30 ydars I with asbestos for some 30 ydars I

have been on my own, and I have just sobbed, you know, because I knew

there was nothing I could do. They never put themselves in that

situation to develop this horrible disease. People in the note new and

chose not to do anything about it. `` people who were in the know, they

knew. People should be held accountable. The south`east has one

of the highest rate of mesothelioma in the world. It is incurable,

usually kills within months of diagnosis, and has ten times less

funding than other Cancer Research. funding than other Cancer Rdsearch.

It can take decades for mesothelioma to develop which means claiming

to develop which means clailing compensation difficult because many

compensation difficult becatse many of the firms were asbestos where use

is no longer exist. Historically, for those who can trace their

for those who can trace thehr company or the company's insurers,

damages of up to ?200,000 c`n be claimed in civil actions. But for

those who could not, there was no hope of any significant pay`out

until now. The government has introduced a new ?350 million

compensation scheme worth an average of ?115,000 per person as p`rt of

of ?115,000 per person as part of the mesothelioma bill. It is a

positive step, but the deal is capped at 75% of the average

positive step, but the deal is capped at 75% of the averagd amount

capped at 75% of the average amount of compensation that sufferdrs would

of compensation that sufferers would have received in a civil case. And

there is the cut`off point for eligibility. Anyone diagnosdd before

July 2012 cannot claim. And there is no extra cash for research. So all

in all, is this a good deal for sufferers? I think the insurance

industry negotiated hard with the government. I think the govdrnment

government. I think the government did a good thing in trying to make

sure that the compensation levels were higher than originally

proposed. So victims will get were higher than originally

proposed. So victims will gdt 7 % were higher than originally

proposed. So victims will get 75% of proposed. So victims will gdt 7 % of

the compensation that they would have ordinarily got if they had gone

through civil process. I tried have ordinarily got if they had gone

through civil process. I tried to get that raised to 80%. I think that

would have meant a better ddal for would have meant a better deal for

victims and would not have cost the insurance industry more. It is a

shame that the government did not shame that the government did not

push harder. Mavis feels let down. There is a lot going on in the USA

and Australia, but not us, not to the extent that they are. They are

really plunging the money into it all. And we just need some loney for

all. And we just need some money for research. I feel that if anxbody

all. And we just need some loney for research. I feel that if anybody was

research. I feel that if anxbody was to unintentionally take somebody's

to unintentionally take somdbody's life, they are up for manslaughter,

aren't they? And, yes, this has been taken so many people's lives. And

what are they given? Hand`ott. So, what are they given? Hand`out. So,

you know, it is not as much as money, this is not as having justice

for those who are going to die with it. The bill comes into effdct later

it. The bill comes into effect later this year. But campaigners say that

does not mean the fight is over. I wanted to make it a better bill We

had crossed party consensus to do that. Unfortunately that did not

happen. I think that we will continue as a cross`party group to

make sure we do get better justice for victims of mesothelioma and we

get more money into research. Use of asbestos was banned in 1999, but

some industrial workers are now paying the ultimate price. @nd the

paying the ultimate price. And the question remains, have government

efforts to give justice to victims been missed opportunity?

We were hoping to talk to the minister who have overseen this

legislation, Mike Penning, but he could not join us. Let's talk to the

Rochester MP. Like Tracy Crouch you wanted this bill to go for the so do

you think it was a missed opportunity? Ashman broke to go

further? I think I am proud of what Tracey has been doing to make it a

better bill and I am sorry she did not succeed on getting up to 80%. We

voted for more research and the insurance industry to support that.

I just wish we could have gone a little further. What do you think

what's happening here? Do you think the government blinked too soon in

the face of opposition from the insurance companies? I think the

government negotiated with the insured and then presented that as a

done deal to Parliament, and I think we could have pushed the insurance

industry a bit further. I feel particularly sorry for Mavis, women

like her, who were washing their husbands overalls and were exposed

husbands overalls and were dxposed that way. It is really sad when we

do not have compensation for people in that scenario. We have Chatham

dockyard here and at least that you will make `` at least that will will

make it better for some people. Labour has accused the government of

having a vested interest, he Labour has accused the government of

having a vested interest, hd says having a vested interest, hd says

the industry has bankrolled the Conservative party for years, do you

think that is what is going on? I do not think that is fair. I think the

insurance industry is putting a lot of money into this, even paxing

of money into this, even paying three quarters compensation is going

to be a lot of money. I wish we had gone a little further. It will be

gone a little further. It whll be good to work with people in

different parties and support Tracey like this, I think it is re`lly

like this, I think it is really deserved for people who havd

deserved for people who have suffered from this terrible

disease, particularly who have been disease, particularly who h`ve been

associated with Chatham dockyard in our area. Another criticism of this

bill is that this cut`off point of July 2012, anyone diagnosed before

them, and many of your constituents must be in that situation, that

seems very cruel. People who can be clear what that employer was, for

the dockyard that is clear, they should be able to get compensation.

The issue is when people have not been able to get hold of an employer

or the employer or insurancd coming or the employer or insurancd coming

gone out of business. That is going gone out of business. That hs going

to help a lot of people, this gone out of business. That is going

to help a lot of people, this Bill. I wish we had been able to go a bit

further. I think it is a good policy which will help quite a lot of

people. Where do we go from here? We have heard about the issue of

funding, there is not much research done into this horrible disease.

funding, there is not much research done into this horrible disdase As

done into this horrible disease. As a result of this deal, therd

done into this horrible disdase As a result of this deal, there will

not be any funding for rese`rch not be any funding for research

coming from insurance companies. What do we do next? We will not be

foreseen that in the litigation because we did not win that vote,

that Tracey and I wanted. I hope the insurance industry will listen to

the strength of support and feeling on this and perhaps on a voluntary

basis support research into this terrible illness because I think

they will get goodwill from that and I think they should recognise the

work Tracey and others have done to push for it for the victims who

deserve that support and understanding. Clarence Mitchell, do

you think the government should have pushed for money for funding? Or

that as good a deal as we could have expected? With something as awful as

this, we should never be satisfied if it is not the full compensation

due to someone who has suffered if it is not the full compensation

due to someone who has suffdred from due to someone who has suffdred from

this awful disease. In Brighton alone, we had 23 registered deaths

in the last year. And those deaths will rise. Exactly, this is the long

tail disease, the effect anx come out in later life and many people do

not have a prognosis. The government should have fought harder with the

should have fought harder whth the insurance companies and get funding

into the disease? Tracey's campaign was fantastic, but the onus is now

on the insurance companies to be sympathetic and understand the way

the bill is moving, and help people, if there is a demonstrable

case for people, they should get 100% compensation. Is it realistic

for the insurance companies to pay 100%? They would argue it is not

their problem, they have had to pick up the pieces over irresponsible

insurance company. I think they have done very well, the governmdnt, to

done very well, the government, to get 75%, it is better than the

Labour Party had got. I think it would have gone a little bit

further, particularly for pdople who further, particularly for pdople who

did not make the cut`off. It reminds me of those soldiers in the 1950s

me of those soldiers in the 195 s who were subjected to nuclear

radiation. Lots of pretty terrible things went on in those days, people

were completed innocent and I found that very moving, the footage of the

poor lady who was innocently that very moving, the footage of the

poor lady who was innocentlx washing poor lady who was innocently washing

her husband's work clothes `nd is now very seriously ill. The trouble

is, the minister is on record as saying, he had to be pragmatic and

get the legislation through, the Labour government, to be fair,

started this. The difficultx Labour government, to be fahr,

started this. The difficulty with started this. The difficultx with

being in government, you have to make ) decisions. And I think that

is what the government have done. All of this would have liked us to

go further. But it is always a fine judgement to see whether you

go further. But it is always a fine judgement to see whether yot could

judgement to see whether you could have pushed it further. We `re in

have pushed it further. We are in agreement that in an ideal world we

would have liked more but it is a good start. You have been both sides

of the set `` fence, the civil service and a journalist, do you

think this is being realistic, service and a journalist, do you

think this is being realisthc, or think this is being realistic, or

should we have gone further? At the moment in the present climate, given

the arguments, I am sure it is as good as it could be at the moment.

We should never be satisfied. Those of us in politics and wanting to get

into politics are there to lake a into politics are there to make a

difference, we should always be idealistic. But you are, once in

government, bound by the re`r `` government, bound by the re`r ``

realities of the situation. But we should keep pushing for something as

clear`cut as this when people are literally dying because of this.

There is still a lot of asbdstos in schools as well. That is the issue,

schools as well. That is thd issue, this could be a time bomb. This will

come back as a major debate at different points. Now the Government

has said it will go all out for shale gas which is of coursd

extracted from the ground using the controversial process of fracking.

controversial process of fr`cking. The Government has now said that

local councils which agree to allow fracking will be allowed to keep

100% of the business rates it collects from the energy colpanies

collects from the energy companies involved. Previously they wdre

offered 50% of the taxes. Hdre's the minister and Sevenoaks MP Michael

Fallon. This could amount to around ?1.

million per year for each site This could amount to around ?1.7

million per year for each shte for million per year for each site for

the local councils, so thesd are the local councils, so thesd are

formidable sums of money and I think it is right that local commtnities

it is right that local communities should share in the benefits. They

will get the jobs that the industrial activity will involve but

they will also be able to keep industrial activity will involve but

they will also be able to keep the money to improve local servhces But

is that money going to win round councils and communities who are

worried about the dangers of fracking? There were huge protests

in the West Sussex village of Balcombe last summer when the energy

company Cuadrilla was carryhng out exploratory drilling and we're

joined now by Charles Metcalfe of the Frack Free Balcombe Reshdent's

Association. Thank you for joining us. Safe to say you are cynical

us. Safe to say you are cynhcal about this? That is understated it!

about this? That is underst`ted it! I think one of the things you have

got to think about is that there are huge costs already for councils

They say ?1.7 million for every site, well, the policing costs for

what happened this summer in outcome alone worth 4.5 million. So should

this money go to the police instead of local councils? I think it is

silly. 1.7 million does not even begin to cover policing costs for

what is by far from being a finished job. They have got to come back and

finished testing and then they have got to exploit it if they are going

to. It is going to make up to ?10 million in policing costs alone

Would any amount of money compensate the village you live in for the

disruption caused so far and that may be caused in the future? To be

honest, I do not think so. There are too many dangers. The oil and gas

industry is very keen to dismiss all of the factual data about how this

has harmed communities in the US, in Canada, in Australia. The poisoning

of the water, the airborne nasty chemicals. The government is

convinced it will be safe. Government, I am afraid, it is not

looking at the data, it is hgnoring the data done by scientists not in

the pay of the oil and gas industry. This field I can abide in

many people in Charles's situation. `` this field like a bribe.

Liberalism is about giving people decisions themselves, the b`sis of

this is not a bad idea. I would like this to go further so we can make

parish councils make the decision so it is decided at the lowest level,

so then they would get more of the revenue as well. This is a step in

the right direction, but I feel very few communities will think that is

enough money. I would personally like it to go further than that.

enough money. I would personally like it to go further than that I

like it to go further than that. I do think there are still concerned

about safety will stop I do not know, I do not go quite as far as

your guest, I think the evidence is different from that and I think

there are a large amount of things which say it is safe. A fundamental

question we had to answer, hf which say it is safe. A fundamental

question we had to answer, if we do question we had to answer, if we do

want energy to meet our needs, and we do want to be serious about

global warning, we have to get energy from somewhere. This money as

a sweetener for the councils, that are actually going to decidd where

are actually going to decide where the drilling gets done, this will

increase cynicism about what is going on here and it makes the

government look desperate. Ht going on here and it makes the

government look desperate. It is perhaps easy for opponents of the

process to portray it as such, this is about providing energy security

is about providing energy sdcurity and jobs, about providing lower

bills, ultimately. And as long as it is properly licensed, and genuine

safety concerns are addressdd, there safety concerns are addressed, there

are still? S `` there are still questions about the environlent

lobby. This is why we are pushing lobby. This is why we are pushing

for this as a government. The financial benefit is not a bribe, it

is a fact that the community that is a fact that the communitx that

allow this in under the proper regulatory structures that `re in

regulatory structures that are in place and tightened as we speak,

they can benefit. The counchl is they can benefit. The counchl is

taking a dining decision to allow a company like Cuadrilla to come in

and explore, if they are given money, it come to my visit. That is

how planning works. If a supermarket wants to set up at the edge of

town, they make the planning contribution. It is only fair that

contribution. It is only fahr that if the government are expecting

rural community to make a sacrifice rural community to make a s`crifice

for national energy needs, they should receive the financial

benefit. The only argument is benefit. The only argument hs

whether you would get more money. Where would you spend the money if

you had it? We are not talkhng about you had it? We are not talkhng about

money coming to our communities. Nick Bowles the other day, hn

money coming to our communities Nick Bowles the other day, in a

Nick Bowles the other day, hn a all`party parliament treat group on

commercial gas and oil, he said he thought the money that came from

that goodness rate relief to councils was going to be spdnt

councils was going to be spent providing the infrastructurd,

councils was going to be spdnt providing the infrastructure, the

providing the infrastructurd, the roads, to enable the drillers to go

about their business without having to chew up tiny little country roads

which is what they are doing at the moment. In Arkansas in the states,

the state received 182 millhon the state received 182 millhon

dollars in revenue, and it cost them 450 to repair the roads. In

Pennsylvania, they received $1. billion, but it costs than 7 billion

to repair the roads. This is not actually going to leave mondy in

actually going to leave money in anyone's pocket except for road

members and the drink underneath. I know we are `` and the drilling

companies. We have to leave it there. Time for around of the other

political events this week. Home Office Minister and MP Norman

Baker said the government whll opt Baker said the government whll opt

out of an European letter session Baker said the government will opt

out of an European letter sdssion on out of an European letter sdssion on

legal highs. He says it come the legal highs. He says it comd the

UK's ability to control substances which are more dangerous th`n

UK's ability to control substances which are more dangerous than some

which are more dangerous th`n some illegal drugs, herring cocaine have

been around for a long time and we know what the effect is on the body.

Two married Conservative cotncillors Two married Conservative cotncillors

are cleared of wrongdoing after moving 150 miles away from the area

they represent. Crawley MP Henry Smith was optimistic about getting

the Downing Street to reverse is closure of the discovery free

school. We did not get a fl`t closure of the discovery frde

school. We did not get a flat no, school. We did not get a flat no,

that is positive. But he was told the school will definitely close.

The council in Brighton is one of 94 in the UK to wheel out to

constituents and new fleet of beans at a 50% smaller. In Kent, the

covenant used a grant to do likewise. `` a new fleet of bins.

If you are standing for election in writing, you have to talk a lot of

rubbish! Far too much rubbish in Brighton and too much is sitting on

the street, it should be collected. The only referendum that counts is

the one in 16 months which will see the Greens leaving office. People

really care about this. People will never rise up in revolution for a

theoretical idea but mess with never rise up in revolution for a

theoretical idea but mess whth the theoretical idea but mess whth the

bins and you will have blood on the streets! Thank you very much. That

is all we have time for. Thank streets! Thank you very much. That

is all we have time for. Th`nk you is all we have time for. Th`nk you

to my guests. Now back to Andrew. houses being built by the mayor.

Andrew, back to you. Welcome back. Now she made quite a splash last

night. I am talking, of course, of the Portsmouth North MP, Penny

Mordaunt. If you missed her first appearance in ITV's celebrity diving

competition show, here she is in action.

APPLAUSE Here is a lady who is more used to

campaigning for votes than diving for them. She created far too much

rotation. Hard work has gone into the start of this dive to try and

control it. That looked painful. Now the Portsmouth North MP got voted

off the show last night but what about the verdict that really

matters? The newly appointed Minister for Portsmouth, Michael

Fallon, is here. Welcome to the programme. I would give her ten out

of ten for bravery. I was cheering her on. She was doing this for a

local charity, raising money for the local swimming pool. She was a good

sport. As Minister for Portsmouth, can we expect to see you in your

swimming trunks for the next series? I do not think I have the

spare time at the moment. But there is a big challenge in Portsmouth.

Penny Mordaunt and the other local MPs there have been remorseless in

asking ministers to help the city. They are losing jobs. There is a

goblin Trinity -- there is a big opportunity to create jobs. Should

she have been on a celebrity television show of their role these

problems in Portsmouth? This was in her spare time and it is raising

money for a good cause. I do not think we should eat two sniffy about

it. Did I not see you dressed up on Thursday night, doing your

programme? This is my job. This is not her job. It was in her spare

time, she was raising money for a local charity. Your Minister for

Portsmouth. Are we going to have a minister for every town? Are we

going to have a minister for Chipping Sodbury? Chipping Sodbury

does not have the issues that Portsmouth have -- that Portsmouth

has. There are jobs at risk in shipbuilding. The government puts in

a lot of money through the regional growth fund, some ?20 million. There

are range of government funding streams going into Portsmouth. My

job is to make sure that is properly coordinated. I need to make sure

that Portsmouth seizes this opportunity to develop a more

broadly -based marine and maritime economy. To make sure a marginal

seat stays Tory at the next election? There are marginal seats

everywhere. There is a Liberal Democrat marginal the -- seat. Vince

Cable and I have been working together for the issues that

Portsmouth is facing. We work on these things together. But I have

the very specific job of making sure that the effort on the ground is

coordinated. So Vince Cable is not the Minister for Portsmouth? I have

been there recently, so has Vince Cable. So there are two ministers

for Portsmouth? Just a minute. I am making sure that the effort is

properly coordinated on the ground. I am determined to turn this

challenging time into a proper opportunity. Should we be to Paul

faced about this? No, good honour. How much money would be have to pay

you to get into a swimming costume? Bid is not enough money in the BBC

covers. Good on her. It took seven years to get a leg there's an MP.

She should be a minister. It is a pity she has the spare time to do

this. She is very talented. It is interesting about the Minister for

Portsmouth, up in the north-east they must be sad that they do not

have any marginal seats. Nick Brown as David Cameron last July, can we

have a minister for the north-east, and the Prime Minister is said no?

Does this mean that Portsmouth is more deprived economic late than the

north-east? No, it means it is a marginal seat.

The Labour Leader Ed Miliband was on the Andrew Marr programme this

morning and he outlined plans under a Labour government for an annual

competition audit. Here is what he had to say. The next Labour

government will have an annual competition at it, not just done by

the regulatory body. Alongside them will be the citizens advice bureau,

setting the agenda for the future, setting the agenda for how we can

ensure that competition will benefit consumers and businesses. I want to

see Labour going into the next election as the party of

competition, the party of the consumer, the party of hard-pressed

working families who are struggling. They need somebody to deal with

those issues and that is what the next Labour government will do. I

thought you were meant to be the party of competition? We are the

party of competition. This is the party that has given us some of

these problems. We have an annual competition review in the energy

sector. We have already tackling banking. What is interesting about

his proposal is it is the smaller ones who are less sure about this,

the smaller banks who think that this could inhibit the growth. It is

the smaller energy companies who think that through interfering with

the market, through his price freeze, that he will hinder

competition. We spoke about this before. It is a clever pitch that Ed

Miliband is making. Under the guise of token markets and claiming to be

the party of competition, he is creating the reason for state

intervention? -- broken markets. Exactly, and it is state

intervention that does not work. There is a proud tradition in

government of smashing open cartels. Teddy Roosevelt did it nearly a

century ago. The problem is, in those situations it was clear and

obvious that the consumers were suffering. I am not sure it is

entirely obvious in this country. In the banking sector we have free

current accounts in the high street. That is not true in all Western

countries. In the energy sector, our bills are not outlandish they high.

It is when we take taxes into account the become unaffordable He

account the become unaffordable. He has to make the case that consumers

are suffering as a result of these monopolies. Ed Miliband would say it

is not about state intervention, but is not about state intervention but

about making markets work. The piece that was written by his intellectual

Duryea about the significance and the importance of Teddy Roosevelt.

He was the Republican president in the yearly -- in the early years of

the last century. He wanted markets to work. There is an interesting

debate on Twitter this morning. Tim Montgomerie is saying, why are we,

the Conservative Party, not seen as the party of Teddy Roosevelt? We are

seen as the party of business. There are smaller energy companies

competing against the big six. In banking, we have seen smaller

companies coming. It was the Labour government that created the big six

energy companies. I think Teddy Roosevelt also invaded Cuba and the

Philippines. That could give us a clue as to Ed Miliband's foreign

policy. Nigel Farage has promised to purge the party of its more extreme

candidates ahead of the European Council elections in May. But that

may not be going so well. Listen to this. The latest in this process is

these homosexual laws. And Thomas I shall manage. I believe that the

Prime Minister, who was warned that disasters would follow a three went

in this direction, he has persisted, and I believe that this is largely a

repercussion from this godlessness that he has persisted in. The

instructions I have got from now on, or is just not to answer in, and not

to give interviews such as this one. So you are ignoring them? I am not

ignoring them. But you are talking to me? You are the last one I shall

be speaking to. I think it is too late. Who would have thought it?

be speaking to. I think it is too late. Who would have thought it It

late. Who would have thought it? It is not global warming that is

causing the floods, it is gay marriage? That explains it. Last

year David Cameron offered a coded retraction of his statement that

UKIP is full of fruit cakes. I think he will be tempted to retract the

retraction. It is a warning to lots of Tories who think that their best

interests are served by flirting with lace -- with UKIP. Nigel Farage

is a very plausible guy, but several layers down, there are people who

are very different. Nigel Farage is saying that he's going to clear the

party out of what Mr Cameron called the fruitcakes. If he is true to his

word, Mr Sylvester's days in the party should they numbered. If Nigel

Farage falls under the bus, what is left of place -- what is left of

UKIP? People say that they like UKIP because unlike other politicians,

they speak their mind. But as it turns into more of a proper

organisation, people speaking their mind will be less acceptable. The

European elections are always a protest vote. People are not happy

with the elite. You will get people saying utterly ridiculous things

like that man in Henley-on-Thames. But this is a chance to vote against

the entire political establishment. I am not sure that comments like

that will make much of a difference. There are lots of arguments about

climate change. That was certainly a new one! They are the only big

protest party at the moment. Protest party is obviously hoovered up lots

of votes. We have got to be clear in European message that we are the

only party that can reform Europe and give people a proper choice, the

and give people a proper choice the first referendum in over 40 years.

Mr Sylvester used to be a conservative. You're probably glad

to see the back of him? David Cameron is right, there are probably

a few fruitcakes around there. I think that mainstream conservatives

will understand that this is the only party that can secure European

reform and give people the choice they have been arguing for. Whatever

happens in the European elections, it is a protest vote. We have almost

run out of time. We will see this week of Chris Rennard gets the party

whip act. There is a battle brewing between Danny Alexander and the

common side of the Liberal Democrats and the House of Lords. If he turns

up on Monday and asks to be let in, I they going to make a big scene at

the gate of Parliament? And the issue will stay in the papers? Yes,

they are clearly nervous that Lord Rennard might be tempted to mount a

legal bid. That is all for today. Thanks to all my guests. The Daily

Politics is back on Monday at midday on BBC Two. And I will be here again

next week. Remember if it is Sunday, it is the Sunday Politics.