Andrew Neil and Jo Coburn are joined by Conservative MP David Davis. We discuss the Olympic preparations and how well David Cameron is managing his party.
Browse content similar to 12/07/2012. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
Afternoon, folks. Welcome to the Daily Politics. 3,500 troops are
being drafted in to help the security for the London Olympics.
It last-minute measure after the G4s failed to recruit enough staff.
The Home Secretary offers 10,000 Olympic tickets to the soldiers'
families. We have the late egs.
How have David Cameron's relations with his backbenchers turned ugly?
After the biggest rebellion on Lord's reform, we hear from the man
David Cameron beat to become the Lord of the party. And Britain's
canal waterways, a charitable Trust. ? And we hear from the electoral
commission about electing today. So, all of that is coming up.
With us, senior Conservative backbencher and trouble maker,
David Davis. He has no chance of getting into the House of Lords.
Welcome back to the Daily Politics. Some things don't change.
Let's kick off with the news that William Hague has ordered EU powers
and how they impact on the life in the United Kingdom. The Foreign
Secretary is due to make a statement to the House of Commons
in half an hour. Well, like so many European things
this could deliver rather more than is expected. If it is a real audit
it will show all sorts of handicaps and prob Lord Mayors coming from
Europe. He thoughs that, surely? I asked
for, this and the place went into meltdown. Saying that I can't do it
Saying that it will be leaked. This will be leaking for weeks.
Will it bring on side some of the Tory backbenchers who have been
calling for repatriation of powers and a referendum at some stage once
renegotiation has taken place? I presume, if they are doing a
comprehensive audit, it is a stepping stone to seeing what is
not working? I think that is right. Two things will come out of it. One
is the people that want out, that situation will be energised by it,
but it could also give them a useful negotiation template if you
like. That this is the sort of thing they want fixed. It could be
a rational thing, but more likely it will raise the temperatures.
2014 is the time it will be computed, a year before the general
election, how do you think that the Liberal Democrats... It has their
agreement? I assume that we have their agreement, but it could be
before or after the elections. It does not say specifically wen in
2014, the timing could be important. Think of the combination of a bad
performance in the Euro elections and this together.
What are you hoping for? Nothing. I am hoping for a rational outcome.
Is the Foreign Office to be amended? Would you trust the
Foreign Office? Has not William Hague gone native.
You can stop with that. The Foreign Office is in charge of
EU things? It would have to be Whitehall-wide. There are all sorts
of things, trade policy, you have all of the various employment laws,
everyone will have to have their finger in it.
You know there is a tourist walking down Whitehall, he asked a police
officer, what side is the Foreign Office on? The police officer said
it was a very good question. Now, it is time for our daily quiz,
which today is all about UFOs. Yes, the MoD has released the latest
batch of documents about UFO sightings. The files show that the
MoD launched an investigation in the 1990s, into whether
unidentified phenomena were not of this earth, and if so, what their
purpose was. So, what was the purpose of the UFO visits? Was it:
Military reconassiance, scientific exploration, or tourism? David is
going to help us give the answer. The truth is out there.
I think they were queuing for Olympic tickets.
So, two weeks to go until the greatest show on earth gets under
way in London. Yes, the 2012 Olympics is set to go and the man
in charge, sew Sebastian Coe, is urging us to get behind the games.
I'm going to New York. The stadiums are built. Tens of thousands of new
Olympic tickets are arriving on door mats, especially if you are an
MP and Britain's athletes are limbering up for the events, but we
Brits are never far from have a whinge about something. The
Olympics is no exception. So, what do we have to moon about now? There
is a fair amount of complaining about the Games, mostly over the
security issues. 3,500 troops are on standby as the contractor, G4s
may not be able to provide the guards it had guaranteed. Despite
being paid �300 million. The Chief Inspector of Borders warned that
border officers are Manning immigration desks at Heathrow
Airport. This on top of complaints this week from the select committee
chairman, Keith Vaz, who said queuing was so bad people were left
stacked in corridors. Computers, sorry, commuters are not happy as
junctions two and three of the M4, the main motorway link to the
airport will not reopen as planned and Transport for London are
working on contingis if not re- opened before the Olympics. In East
London, the residents lost a high court challenge not to have
missiles put on the roof of their toor blocks and the Olympic
organisers have banned retailers on site other than McDonald's, from
selling chips, unless served with fish. Four MPs are not complaining,
members of the select committee, including John Whittingdale who
accepted tickets for the men's 100m final. Theresa May has been
answering questions in the House of Commons on the Olympic security.
This is what she had to say. Concerns have ariz been the ability
of G4s to deliver the required number of guards for the Olympic
venues and in the time skails available. The Defence Secretary
and I along are other ministers have been monitoringing the
situation and security contracts over many months. In consultation
with LOCOG and G4s we have agreed it would be prudent to deploy
additional military support. I have therefore requested additional MoD
support and the Defence Secretary authorised the deployment of a
further 3,500 military personnel. That brings the total number of
military personnel, supporting the safety and the security of the
Games in a variety of roles to 17,000, including the military
deployed on wider functions of venue security.
Theresa May answering urgent questions in the Commons on Olympic
security. Now we are joined by former secure
minister, Lord West and by the Conservative MP Mr Nurser.
We asked to speak to a Home Office Minister, but none was available.
So, Lord West you can't get into the country as Heathrow Airport is
blocked. You can't get into London as the M4 is closed and if you
manage another way in, the security companies fail to provide security
guards, who more can go wrong? latest thing with G4s was a
surprise and a worry. I think we have to look at this
carefully, G4s are used widely. Think think that they can do things
and provide it, but they have not done it they should have let us
know before. This is too close to the Games.
The last time I looked, two things, it is not a surprise that the
Olympics are opening at the end of this month, we have known for a
while, years and years! And there are 2.5 million people unemployed
in this country? Why could they not get the guards on time? Alarm bells
should have gone off earlier, about two years ago it was clear that the
number of people required for the Olympic security would have been
bigger than predicted and G4s were having difficulty in vetting the
people, ensuring that they had clearances, getting them recruited
and ensuring that they were available for use. That is why we
agreed that 13,500 military... it was originally to be that?
was suppose ed -- supposed to be a blue Games, but then it became
clear that would not be the case. At that stage I believe the
Government should have been over this company like a rash, saying if
they cannot deliver here, that we need to be certain that they can,
and they should have been drilling down and making sure, clearly, the
company kept saying they can, they can, now here at the last moment
they cannot. To suddenly find 3,500 extra, 17,000, Theresa May,
mentioned, there are also,000 contingency, that is 19,000 army,
Navy military personnel. If they are watching in Buenos
Aires, now would be a good time?! Maybe we should have just brought
them in from the start? Well, in the all-party... I published this
yesterday it is an all-party parliamentary group on Olympic
security. I discusseded it with Lord West and David Davis. We
published this yesterday, but we were looking for some time...
you see this coming? We identified a problem with G4s. In fairness to
the Government they have therefore started the military contingency
planning, but the bitter irony of this is that only last week waerp
hearing that the very soldiers and my -- last week we were hearing
that the very soldiers and my own regiment, with P45s in tear pocket,
have to -- in their pocket, have to come from post Afghanistan tour
leave and now are to carry out Olympic security around the Olympic
tennis, then they will be fired. A great way to treat people who
have risked their lives for this country? All I say is thank God we
have an army, Navy and air force that can react to Government plans
that can react on short notice. That is the key point. I'm on
record as saying that we have cut the forces too far. These people
are brilliant in training. They can turn their hand to anything,
whether it is foot and mouth, flooding, fires, Olympics, we need
to think carefully before we start cutting this down in stature. There
we are, we able able to get 20,000. Thank goodness.
I was going to ask a question, which is, I remember being briefed
on the Special Forces element of this five years ago. It is, is two
weeks long nuch to get them trained and planned into the system?
problem is, David, we are clearly deploying a brigade. That is what
this is. If you sent every Gurkha in the army and sent him, it would
not be enough to fulfil the commitment. It is expensive. The
ministers have delayed until the last safe moment before pressing
the moment on a plan that is going to cost a great deal of money.
7,500 were to be planned in checking cars, looking in handbags,
now that is increasing to 11,000. That is a juch.
I if were an army veteran, to have risked my life in Helmand province
and come back here and then told to search handbags in the Olympics, I
is the point. You can say to these guys, scrap your leave, you are not
going on holiday, scrap all the plans. They will do it, and do it
with a smile. People are seeing how brilliant these men and women are.
Jo? Can we talk to Katie Rowlett? We have been talking in the
pseudoabout the 3,500 additional military personnel to be deployed.
What has been revealed is that G4s, in terms of recruitment policy,
were given the contract in March, but did not open the recruitment
office until January of this year. They did not leave enough time, did
they? No. We have heard from a copyle of people employed by G4s.
They applied last year and did not hear from the company until April,
I think. So they are doing handbag security on the gates of the
Olympic Park. There does seem to be some sort of issue arising about
the administrative side of G4s. Looking now, the backdrop is
amazing, the weather is great. For today, but what is in practical
terms, the feeling around the Olympic Park weeks before the
I have been here this morning, but did not have entrance to the park.
It has been a hive of security. Army personnel manning the entrance
gates, as well as security people. There does seem a large-scale
security operation going on here. It is a shame for 3,500 extra are
needed. For point is this, whilst we were writing the report, it
became clear at the were plenty of people who wanted to do it. Some
have already been trained and vetted. But the money offered was
not good and that there was the recruitment process. If it had not
started until January this year, it wasn't enough time. Are they going
to be any penalties? All in the usual British way, nobody is to
blame? Katie, will there be any penalty against G4S for failing to
fulfil the contract? I think there has been some rumours that there
may be a penalty, yes. The MoD had said they will be reimbursing any
military personnel who have been put out, who have booked holidays
and now have to cancel them and they will get they leave
entitlement. As far as the military that are involved, they should get
their leave back. These are MoD costs. And there has been an
agreement already. The MoD are paying for Olympic security. The
MoD, as we know, have got no money. It is outrageous. Are we going to
get soldiers getting overtime? I do not think so. They will have none
of their overseas allowances. will they stay in London? There is
accommodation for 3,500 which was built by G4S, but it is not very
good. The army will be used to not a very good. Any of you watch the
sitcom called 2020? I love it. is so much worse than that. Katie,
thanks very much. David Cameron hasn't exactly had a
trouble-free time of late. Most of the heavy flak seems to have come
from his own side. Backbenchers are in a rebellious mood. That was just
the latest in a long line of issues where Tory MPs have got moody and
not always over policy. David Thomson found out if morale could
Legend has it, or Winston Churchill once advised a young Tory MP who
referred to the Labour benches as the enemy. No, that is the
opposition party. The enemy is sat around his. David Cameron must know
exactly what the great man meant. Lords reform, EU referendum? You
get the drift. It is not only policy, according to one of his
most senior backbenchers, Conservative MPs are not feeling
the love. They are two asides to senior management. One is to set
objectives and motivate people to achieve them. But the second is to
notice when people are falling by the wayside. Put your arm around
them, show some sympathy and ask how you can help. That is one of
the management skills David Cameron does not have. Another wise man
once said, it is better to be feared than loved. David Cameron
does have his teddies, the whips, to you and me, to lean on
backbenchers. -- his head lease. What is that about? People who
wanted to be promoted can still work to an extent. But MPs have
been champions in their local area, they are much more interested in
what their constituents might think that what the whips office might
think. What if anything, can David Cameron do to stop his backbenchers
giving him a kicking? He needs to bring on some of the new people,
even though it will be very difficult because there are older
people waiting their turn. He needs to get them in and get them
involved pretty quickly. He needs to use their talents and get them
to help him along the road. even that suggestion is not without
dangers. This whole business of quotas, I know it is not called
quota, but it is. Wanting more people of a particular gender, or
particular background in his front line team, seems to me to be wrong.
He put the best people in the best jobs and that is another lacking of
management skills. Many people feel no matter what they do, their
chance will never come. That is causing concern. Some think that
what David Cameron needs is a few more people a bit less like him.
want David tamarind to create a tent where everybody is involved in
the project. But people are being left behind. -- David Cameron.
There is a feeling people being left behind are not quite from his
background. Come in under not so friendly fire from the backbenches
is not unique to this PM - just ask Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, John
Major and even Winston Churchill. But to David Cameron, sometimes it
feels like it is personal. David Davis, is David Cameron's
problems are rooted in his problems -- policies or structure? Structure
is the way policies are right that. A lot of the backbenchers on the
conservative side feel the Liberals, who are one 6th of the Government
have almost half of the sake. -- says. Part of it is organisation.
I'm afraid the Government has not done enough to make their own
backbenchers feel involved and engaged in policy. This issue on
the Lords shouldn't been a surprise. The opponents to the Lords reform
have been coming for a long-time, there are 110 of them, how could
you not notice? It is not one single thing. Some of it is not
unique, John Major had bigger troubles. Even Margaret Thatcher
had trouble from time to time. spoke to someone from the US state
department whose job it is keeping an eye on British policy. They have
been over visiting and they said to me, they were amazed how little
support or warmth that there was for David Cameron on the Tory back
benches? He wouldn't be the first person to say it. To be fair to him,
he has a difficult knife-edge to walk on, to do we the Liberals and
his own side. But I am surprised at how little care has been put in to
managing his own party. He cannot give out ministerial posts because
over 20 have gone. The house he dealt with the Lib Dems better than
he has dealt with his own backbenches? I suspect that is what
the feeling is in the Tory backbenches. When the coalition was
first signed up, the Liberals had a vote on it. It was not put to the
Tory backbenchers. But they had several votes on it. So, there is a
feeling to some extent it is more their property than ours. Or so,
they talk about the coalition agreement as if it has some
constitutional gravitas. It is just a deal between the parties. It does
not have the standing of a manifesto. And manifesto was
approved by the people. A coalition agreement is have proved by hook,
exactly? When you are dealing with the Lords, you cannot claim the
same rights as a leader, as you could as if it was explicitly laid
out in a manifesto. Are Tory backbenchers right to think if
you're not from the right set, you won't get into the David Cameron
Government? We will only know that question after the reshuffle. In
your package, there were people hinting at that. Paul Goodman was
hinting at it, Brian Binley was hinting. People being left behind,
are people not quite from his background. That is a remarkable
thing for a Tory MP to say of the Tory Prime Minister in the 21st
century? That is what I am saying, it will show. The first time around
he had to do the reshuffle, not the reshuffle, created Government on
terms he was not expecting, as part of the coalition. This time he has
had time to think about it. We will see what the outcome is. I would
actually put up a reshuffle for a long time. The moment he does it,
lots of people will say, we told you so. Or they will feel left out
and for what other reason they will be irritated. What Brian Binley was
talking about of course, you have got to be a woman or a minority
group in order to get promoted. I don't think that is as strong as it
is claimed, but we will see. regional coalition agreement you
have been talking about has kind of run its course. They have either
done what they agreed to do, or they are unable to agree to do.
They used to be talk of there would be a 2.0 coalition agreement, the
next stage. Am I right in thinking it has gone? There is nothing much
they can agree on? It looks like it has gone. On Wednesday, it was
asked and was pushed back. The person who asked the question is a
capable young businessman, and the sort of things you would expect to
be in the Government. Are their feelings among story MPs, on the
basis of that question, if there isn't much you can agree on, will
we get there sooner or later? of them will think that is what the
last year looks like. I don't believe that. The Liberals have the
best seats on the aeroplane but no parachutes. They cannot get out.
They could agree to go to a minority Government and leave the
Tories in Government but not go to an election? What happens for
example to the fiscal rebalancing programme? The major parts of the
cuts come in the second half. What other things hitting the Liberals?
Cutting back on spending, tuition fees was driven by that. All those
sorts of things will be political poison to the Liberals. If they
will be pulling back out of the Government and giving up the
benefits of governments, they won't be delivering the prize. Let's go
on to the Lords reform, David Cameron floating the idea may be we
could get rid of the 1992 hereditaries and elect another 92
people in their place as a first stage. Any kind of that ducking and
diving compromise it going to work? I doubt it. They will take three to
six months over this and try and pick of people and ask what weeks
they would like. There are 110. 110 rabbles. But there are probably
more now. Now he has effectively said he is only going to have one
more go, others may join up. You have to get that to under 74 him
having a chance of winning. They are over 800 people in the Lords
anyway. David Steel put down a motion which we could pass tomorrow.
Which was? Retirement, criminals getting thrown out and all this
sort of thing. We could be down to 200 by the end of the year.
will have to get a Lord on to do about that. Are you enjoying your
rebellious years? You have come late to them. I am enjoying my
freedom. It is seen by some as an attempt to
refloat David Cameron's Big Society idea. England and Wales 2000 miles
of canals and rivers were handed over to the Canal and River Trust,
a shiny new charity. Ministers say it is a milestone. But can it keep
its head above water? We have generations of history in
our canals. Initially set up and created to refill the Industrial
Revolution and transport goods around. Now it is a leisure pursuit.
Millions of people use the canals in England and Wales every year.
Scotland will stay under public ownership. What is happening with
this, ownership and responsibility for the waterways transfers to a
specially formed canals and rivers Trust, away from which was British
Waterways. It will mean it has a secured income from the Government
that for the next 15 years, �800 million has been handed over by the
Government. It will cover the overheads. The rest of things, the
charity status, recruiting volunteers, any money it can make
from its commercial exploits on the water, that will give the trust the
rest of the money it needs to run the canals. It is not just the wet
bits, but a historic buildings like this. It takes it almost into the
League of the National Trust, but on a smaller scale. He will become
the third largest owner of historic buildings in the UK after the
Church of England and the National Trust.
What has been the political motivation?
It is an example of the Big Society. What was formerly British Waterways,
an agency of the Government must have thought we cannot secure our
income for years to come. It was their decision, almost like a
management buyout to go to the Government and say, what if we took
control of everything, ran things ourselves? With the guaranteed
income for the next 15 years, in England and Wales, we are only
talking about England and Wales, but the guaranteed income with
their maintenance costs, so much history here, expensive and
difficult to maintain, is covered. They then can decide how they want
to grow the business and Grove Charity in the future. It brings
their destiny under their own controls. What they're doing is
launching an appeal for thousands of volunteers across England and
Wales to take part in 50 projects to rejuvenate, especially the
towpath. So many people come here for leisure, we have seen boats,
people jogging and walking dogs. The idea is to get some of those
people to put their money where their mouth is and help out, to be
part of the Big Society plans for Well you are bound to encourage
more volunteers on a day like this. The perfect occasion to be messing
about on boats. Thank you very much. We are joined by the Environment
Minister Richard Benyon and by the poet, Ian McMillan who support the
change. Welcome to you both. Is this a success story for the Big
Society? It is massive. There is nothing new about the Big Society.
What the Government is doing is making it easier for people to
volunteer, to get involved and handing over this massive asset.
Which troughis have down the years salivated over. �14 million of
assets. This is now handed back to the people who know, use and love
the waterways, it is a great moment. And a great idea, but what about
the streams of money, literally, where will it come from when the
Government money dries up? We have had tough negotiations from the
charity trustees. The words used at the end was tough by fair. The
Government is putting in a lot of money. How much? �39 million as a
basic core funding amount. We are dealing with the pensions
entitlements and many or aspects of the funding have been sport sorted.
For the long-term as well. Is a years? That is a long time.
It is not that long? It is in terms of Government spending and
commitments. This is 2,000 miles of canals. A very exciting moment when
we are handed something that the public should own, back to them.
Are you excited, Ian McMillan? this is collectivism and
interconnectedness. This was the first kind of information
superhighway. Somehow this reminds us of the great industry that built
it. If we can move it along it will be a great thing it reminds us that
correctivism is a great thing. But will the people put hands to
the pumps? There is a lot of canal enthuse yafpl. The next bit is the
ones in stilettos and brogues who should be convinced to put their
wellies on. Well, maybe, anything gimmick to
get people down to help. Looking at the canals, there, they look
wonderful, peaceful, a different pace of life, but in terms of the
volume of people actively engaged, does it involve that many people?
Probably not, but if you see it on days like this, how it connects
people. Somehow a canal is like a labour rather. A library of water.
So if we get people excited, it is getting people excited about
picking rubbish on the streets is the hard thing.
Have you been on a canal holiday? Many times.
I think that people are more likely to volunteer for an organisation, a
charity that they feel a sense of ownership rather than a Government
body. In my part of the world, there is a core, in my part of the
world the canal is run by volunteers.
So, we have massive charities that people are involved in, this is yet
another one. We have the National Trust. People have local causes
that they are involved in. It could look like a money-saving exercise
on the Government's side and relying on people to take up the
slack? I don't this think that the Treasury would agree! We have
handed over hundreds of millions for them. I think this is
everywhere I go, David is right, there is huge enthusiasm and
passion, not just from boaters. I have caught my first pike in the
Avon Can ap when I was nine -year- old. I know the passions that exist.
Was that legal? If there are police around they may arrest you! There
are kaurls from the opposition to ask the Government to put their
hands in pockets and supply cash to hit areas, are you going to do it?
There is the Bellwin Scheme it kicks in when the local authorities
are hit. They have been hit what you
planned? They will receive money under the Bellwin Scheme. Places
such as heb done bridge, many of us have visited since the first flood.
Now they have been visited again, they shrn flooded again. We want to
ensure that the Government is doing its bit alongside the local efforts
that are made. Will we have to get used to more
flash flooding and you have to change the way that we deal with
it? We know that the climate weather patterns are changing. We
have been facing two droughts and now really horrendous rain. I'm not
saying it will be as extreme as that, but yes, we have to plan for
this kind of weather patterns to continue. We have to make sure that
Government carries on doing what it is supposed to do. That is building
flood defence schemes. That is what we are doing, investing �2 .1 7
billion on that and helping out when we can when the emergencies
occur. I think that the response has been good, but most of the
people that have been flooded, you could not stop the torrent of water
that they faced. On the public paths on the canals,
are they a public right of way? They are part of the deal.
So no tolls put up for us to walk along the canals, is that right?
Yes, and we want to see them wider so that the cyclists and walkers
can use them. So, we know where to come to now...
Send the bills to Richard Benyon. He will send a fish back! Now, the
Olympics are posing a massive challenge to the security services
and shining a spotlight on the tools that Government has to keep
us safe. How effective are they? Last week a suspected terrorist was
charged with breaching conditions imposed ats part of the
Government's new terror monitoring powers. It is believed to be the
first time that there has been breach of the so-called TPIMs, this
is Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures.
They replace control orders earlier this year as the system for dealing
with terrorist suspects who cannot be tried or deported.
People who are subject to a TPIMs can be electronically tagged and
restrictions placed on who they can meet and where they can go.
Unlike control orders, though, TPIMs are time-limited to two years.
Some say that TPIMs are no more than control orders lite, that they
place restrictions on the freedoms of people not charged with offence.
We are joined now to discuss this by Robin Simcox from the Henry
Jackson Foundation who writes about Al-Qaeda and other terrorists and
David Davis, you are still against TPIMs, because they are too
draconian or not draconian enough? I am against them because they
don't work. This is not the first occasion that this has happened.
This man went there five times before he was pulled up. Lord knows
what he was doing. Another one under the previous control orders
got to within ten foot of Jack Straw and Dominic grieve, until he
announced himself. So again, they don't work. They are not control
orders. They are uncontrol orders. So we corrupt the system and we
have a system that does not work. What do you say to that? Nobody
would say that these are a perfect, ideal system, but unfortunately it
is the best that we have. This is something that came about as
detention, deportation, prosecution, control orders were not seen as
acceptable. So we were left with basically what we could get through
legally of the with some of the individuals, the people that David
Davis mentioned that got within ten feet, after he was released after a
big civil rights campaign on his behalf, he ended up back in
Afghanistan and killed in a US missile strike. So it proves the
point that these are serious individuals. The man that breached
the Olympic security, he would not be there at all if the control
orders were in place. Originally he was under a relocation order. It is
when the TPIMs came back and we lost the power to relocate, we were
Australian unable to track him. Well, he walked away, he was not
released. He absconded, so let's get the fact right. He left the
country. Secondly, you said that they, the
reason was done because prosecuting them was wrong? Absolutely the
opposite. We said ewe should be prosecuting them, put him in prison,
then they could not walk around either near leading politicians or
into the Olympic Park. The problem, in fact, was brought about as the
Government said we could not deport people. Not one of the people on
control orders are subject to deportation orders. They are all
British citizens. We have taken a problem and created a mefplnifpl
and used it for something differently -- mechanism and used
something different as the orders do not do the job it is supposed to
do. The American FBIs put their men in prison, we put them under a
control order. With every single control order
case, not a single case at that time, could have been prosecuted
unless there was evidence allowed. Who did the review? A Government
review. The Americans do prosecute more, but America places a lot more
for example, FBI agents under cover and they have plea bargaining, but
would we be happy with that? We don't have the exact same legal
system in the UK as in the US. Is it your position, David Davis,
that there should be nothing inbetween walking free, without a
control, and prosecution? Nothing inbetween? For British citizens, I
think that prosecution is the be all and the end all. I'm afraid
that the Government's arguments on this are plum wrong on interception.
You go to the Department of Justice, as I have, talk to the Australians,
New Zealanders, the Canadians, they say you don't use intercept
evidence? They clean up every single trial on terrorism in the
United States and most of trials on organised crime, using intercept
tape, all of them. You can't do it without that. They could not clean
up the Mafia without the intercept tapes, now they do it. We should be
doing it here. We should not be prissy about it, if we not, we
would not have to corrupt the whole legal stement.
Do you side with the security services when they say they don't
want intercept material used? That is still their position? Well, no,
they don't. This is one of those things where
to the extent, I believe if that is what they say it would weaken the
security system, perhaps. Why do our people say that, when
the Americans and the Canadians are saying that it doesn't? If you look
at the Government review they did a lot of models replacing intercept
evidence into the British legal system, they said it would not work.
That is their position, but it comes back to the point they looked
at every case with control orders and tried to use intercept evidence
and said it would not lead to prosecution. Lord Lloyd was the
Intercept Commissioner, he knows the system backwards and forwards.
He moved a private members' bill in the House of Lords to try to bring
intercept into court. The man who knew the most about it, things that
we should bring it back. The people who don't have an interest in not
going to court, they have interest in disruption, rather than
conviction. It is the wrong approach.
Is there a chance of it happening? It may be. It will be revisited
again this year. The Committee that is dealing with it is still sitting.
They nearly recommended the use of intercept, then there was a last-
minute scare on a finish case. It may well happen. It will allow us
to cut back on silly things that bring us into disrepute.
If we are going to solve the evidence on waiting intercept
evidence coming in, we are in for a long wait. There is real and
necessary security threats that we have to deal with today, that is
why TPIMs is still used. Now, just over 65% of us made the
trip to the polling station at the last election. That is down from a
high of 83% in the 1950 election. It seems that the young are the
least likely to vote. Research suggests that go thirds of 18-year-
olds have little trust in politicians. Radio's Newsbeat took
young people to meet the Conservative MP, lie ease
Menchmench and others to see what they made of politics and
I and 22, from south-west London and I want to know why MPs that
don't care about young people unless it is election time. I am
from Glasgow and I want to know why you think you should be trusted
after that there expenses scandal. I am from Portsmouth. I was about
to become a student and now I have to pay up to �9,000. Your age group
is the least likely to vote. have got to wonder why that is.
There is a responsibility the young people to get in touch and get
involved. The public perception with young
people is you are all the same, you fiddled your expenses, you have
these cushy pension deals and they have not taken on board all of the
reforms that have happened. A lot of people voted because of the
tuition fees and then you made a U- turn on that. I am a Lib Dem and
I'm will put my hand and say I voted not to increase tuition fees.
When was the last time you had to make a perfect decision?
One of the problems in this job, is it we spend so much time in this
building, in means I spent the vast majority of the week with the same,
slightly strange people - no offence! And very little time with
the people I represent. It is one of the reasons politicians get out
of touch. You are an MP and you are calling other MPs strange. Imagine
how young people feel? I agree, we should rebalance it so
all MPs get the chance to spend time in their constituencies.
have to do a lot more to change your lineage and rather than come
in and say "we are different." you have a lot more to do. David Davis.
-- change your image. But young people don't vote.
What is new? They don't vote anywhere? You are quite right. When
you and I were student politicians we had trouble getting them out to
vote. They're interested in politics. But the number of people
voting is going down throughout the population in Britain. In France,
80 this cent turnout in the French presidential election? Why? Because
there was a really big difference between the candidates. If this can
do that is over here, and this candidate is over there and they're
having a real argument, there is a reason to go and vote. It you think
they are broadly the same, orc as during the Tony Blair years, you
think they will win anyway, which is another problem you just might
as well stay at home and watch Coronation Street. We did not know
who was going to win the last election, but nobody did win it in
the end. We are surprised the turnout was not higher? I was. It
was a challenge and a potential turning point. We also had the TV
debates. And they were quite good. They were watched by a lot of
people. When we were watching the first one, my family had a
sweepstake on how soon I would leave the room. I stayed until the
end. I suspect I am typical in that respect. I don't find it terribly
exciting. But they were very good debates and it did not galvanise
people to turn out. The lack of difference, lack of idealism is the
problem. Too much managerial politics. The research from this
University says 63% of young people are interested in politics, even if
they don't vote. And I am told if some of them get out of bed in time,
they watch this programme. Politicians are estranged Reid,
that is why people don't vote. was normal about Winston Churchill?
Hands up if you are political anorak? If you think of yourself as
the top political nerd, you should be interested in this. The
Electoral Commission has published its report on the way election
counts are organised and what happens next will change the all-
night election night. And yes, staying up all night to enjoy
scenes like these. Can we predict something in this
election. I was looking at some of these results. Just half a dozen
results to come throughout London and the South East. Now I am
handing you back to David Dimbleby. I think that about wraps it up this
morning. A 4th Conservative term with a substantial majority is in
prospect. Peter? As Jon Sopel was saying, not an uplifting time for
the Liberal Democrats. 1979, Mrs Thatcher beat Mr Callaghan. We will
interrupted because Labour has victory and a guaranteed third term.
We should look at Big Ben 1 small and see things how they are on the
ta Big Ben. The country cannot afford to just not have a
Government for a week or more, why people do the rounds and talk to
each other. Everybody feeling warm and nostalgic. Is the traditional
election night safe? We have been joined by Alex Robinson and
Jonathan Isaby. Welcome to the programme. Alex, pressure from
returning officers to count the next day, what are you saying?
we have been doing is talking to returning officers who are
responsible for conducting elections. We have been talking to
politicians and broadcasters and there are a number of different
elections taking place, sometimes on the same day. Although we don't
think there is a single answer for any of them. Although for a General
Election, default counting should be overnight. But returning officer
should consult but politicians and broadcasters early. They should
make a decision in January for an election in May. They should make
their decision public and that will lead to the right decision being
arrived at. You have to persuade them to count overnight hoping the
pressure will bear fruit? It is the dialogue between politicians and
broadcasters which I think will lead to the right decision. Does
that satisfy you? I am happy Electoral Commission has decided
overnight counting is the right thing to do. Before the last
General Election I ran a campaign to save General Election night. A
lot of returning officers were talking about counting on the
Friday. It was a retrograde step. If people are taking the trouble to
vote, they should be counted. as it matter, bearing in mind,
quite a lot of people sleep when they have voted and don't sit up
all night and this is about just having a very good television
programme? She is talking as out of a job!
not just political nerves. It is the one time, every five years
where there is this national carnival of democracy where people
sit around the television and watch results coming in and fill part of
the Democratic Process. If you're going to get more counts coming
together and one might, mistakes will be made? Let's look ahead to
the next General Election. We could have constituencies with new
boundaries. We could have House of Lords reform - I grant you not
looking too hopeful. There could be local elections. How will they
manage it all? The important thing is the result is accurate and
timely. Accurate is probably the key. From talking to returning
officers, in some circumstances, last year we had geographical
constituencies. The Western Isles do it. They count on the night and
a helicopter the vote between islands. It is done in 45 minutes
because they throw resources at it and it is a small constituency. You
cannot roll that out across the rest of the nation? Over the last
50 years more counts have happened on the night. Northern Ireland
counted on the Thursday night, previously they had to do it on a
Friday night for security reasons. It should be everyone counts on the
night and we can find out on the Friday morning he the Prime
Minister is. On the Friday morning, a lot of the council not coming in
until halfway through the Today programme. Would a few more hours
make that much difference? If you started on the Friday and got all
the results? It you counted on the Friday you wouldn't have the shared
experience of people following the results coming in. Most people on
the Friday would be at work, looking after the kids or doing
something else. What do you think? I used to like having the next day
count because then I could watch people suffering all night. I agree,
but the sooner the better. Returning officers can make the
decision themselves, they cannot be forced to do overnight count?
their decision and the need to make sure it is an accurate results and
practically, as soon as possible afterwards. The campaign Jonathan
was involved in, is they were not going to count the votes before the
end of the poll. Would it be sensible to hold a national
referendum on something like Europe and the same day as a General
Election? Unique to look at each set of elections on their own merit.
We look at the one last May, which took place at the same time as
Northern Ireland, and we decided it was important they took place and
got them out of the way. That was use saying no, wasn't it? We need
to have a vote on Europe before the next General Election Next this
next item is called screamer. of you had been in touch to ask a
replay of our splendid highlight from yesterday's Prime Minister's
Questions. As humble public servants we are happy to oblige. It
was a question from Tory MP called Anne Marie Maurice.
This Government has a greater Records on reform. After the
success of the university's technical college, would become --
Prime Minister confirmed he will support...
What was the point at of the sling if you are going to wave your arm
around. How is your hearing? What? It's was incredibly loud close-up.
What was she saying? I do not know. I was worrying about her arm. I
thought she was going to break her arm again. It was quite a drama.
Will she have that down? It will haunt her? I think people will have
affection for that. It was done with some passion. If her arm
wasn't broken, it is now after that. Do we have time for the quiz?
David? As a keen UFOs sturdier? Military reconnaissance. It is all
three. Some of them were asylum-seekers. I
like the idea of tourism. That's it for today. Thanks to our
guests. Thanks to David Davis. I will be back at 11:25pm tonight on
BBC One with this week. It is earlier than usual as there is no
question time tonight. I will be joined by Alan Johnson, Michael
Portillo plus Gloria Hunniford talking about care for older people.