:00:44. > :00:47.Welcome to the Daily Politics where the Government is getting cracking
:00:47. > :00:54.with fracking. Ministers have said energy companies can resume
:00:54. > :01:03.drilling for gas out of shale rocks. So, is this North Sea oil Mark two
:01:03. > :01:13.in the cheap energy era or the pursuit of fool's Gold. Earthquakes
:01:13. > :01:13.
:01:13. > :01:16.and water pollution is in line. The Mayor of Amsterdam trying to ban
:01:16. > :01:19.students from smoking dope in schools. So it really time to
:01:19. > :01:24.liberalise the drug laws here at home?
:01:24. > :01:26.And, the Church of England failed to vote for women bishops. It's
:01:26. > :01:32.fighting gay marriage and the census suggests fewer of us believe
:01:32. > :01:37.in God. So what is the future for the church in an ever more secular
:01:37. > :01:43.world? All that coming up in the next hour.
:01:43. > :01:48.With us for the duration, MP Caroline Lucas, the first, so far
:01:48. > :01:53.the only green MP in the Commons, until earlier this year she was
:01:53. > :01:56.also the party leader. Why are the Greens going nowhere? I do love
:01:56. > :02:02.your introductory questions! I don't think we are going nowhere.
:02:03. > :02:08.We have seen our first MP elected, myself, and our first green Council
:02:08. > :02:13.so we have a minority administration in Brighton and Hove.
:02:13. > :02:16.You are Brighton? The London Assembly, you remember that the
:02:16. > :02:20.mayoral candidate came third beating the Liberal Democrats into
:02:20. > :02:24.fourth place so things are on the up. Really? There have been 12
:02:24. > :02:31.Parliamentary by-elections in this Parliament since the coalition took
:02:31. > :02:36.power. You stood in seven of them. How did you do? Very badly and we
:02:36. > :02:40.do do badly in by-elections because we don't have the resources to put
:02:40. > :02:44.into every seat that comes up. The by-elections are used to build
:02:44. > :02:48.ready for the local elections, so often our strategy with the by-
:02:48. > :02:52.elections is to get our message out on the doorsteps to as many people
:02:52. > :02:56.as possible and then identify which are the good wards we can work on
:02:56. > :03:00.to become councillors. In Norwich, we are using that strategy and we
:03:00. > :03:05.have the Greens on Norwich city council being the official
:03:05. > :03:10.opposition. In Lancashire and Oxford we have many, many Greens.
:03:10. > :03:17.There was a net increase of 11 this year, but in every by-election, you
:03:17. > :03:21.lost your deposit? I tried to explain the strategy. Losing money?
:03:21. > :03:27.We are a small party of scarce... You only chose seven out of 12. I
:03:27. > :03:30.understand you picked seven. Even in the ones you cherry-picked, you
:03:30. > :03:33.lost your deposit in every single one and it's interesting because
:03:33. > :03:36.the Liberal Democrat votes in a number of areas is crumbling,
:03:36. > :03:46.certainly in by-elections and you would think that an element of the
:03:46. > :03:52.Lib Dem vote would go to you, not all but an element. But no. Respect
:03:52. > :03:56.is another party and doing better than you? Well, it's a slightly
:03:56. > :04:00.unusual one. UKIP are always way ahead of you? UKIP is doing well,
:04:00. > :04:05.it's a good single issue party and gets the message across effectively.
:04:05. > :04:12.What Greens are dog is targeting resources we have which are far
:04:12. > :04:16.fewer than UKIPs sadly. That's why when we can put our resources into
:04:16. > :04:22.Oxford, Lancaster, we can see the results. We have an electoral
:04:22. > :04:25.system that's hugely weighted against smaller parties. We know
:04:25. > :04:29.that. The electoral system itself not being proportional. If you look
:04:29. > :04:32.at the European elections, what we are expecting in 2014 is we are
:04:32. > :04:36.going to increase by another three seats because we were a couple of
:04:36. > :04:41.votes off in three other areas. When we have a proportional system,
:04:41. > :04:46.the Greens do well. Over a million people voted Green at the last
:04:46. > :04:50.European elections. I know it's a negative picture looking at by-
:04:50. > :04:53.elections under a first-past-the- post system. European elections and
:04:53. > :04:57.elections under a proportional system, a million people voting
:04:58. > :05:04.Green is good. A councillor in Cambridge, you had one there, what
:05:04. > :05:08.happened to him? People do defect. There are defections from any
:05:08. > :05:12.political party. But why did he defect to the Labour Party? He said
:05:12. > :05:17.he wanted to be "Part of a bigger party that has real power to make a
:05:17. > :05:23.difference to people". There's always going to be that. There is a
:05:23. > :05:29.serious issue there, you can try and make us look foolish. Whether
:05:29. > :05:35.it's more fective to work in more mainstream parties, that's a
:05:35. > :05:38.legitimate argument to be had -- more effective. That's
:05:38. > :05:41.understandable, although not what I agree with, but the real question
:05:41. > :05:46.is, how do you put pressure on the big parties to change and there's a
:05:46. > :05:53.lot of evidence that when you join them, you become subsumed amidst
:05:53. > :05:57.them, whereas if there's a party outside that that's pushing others
:05:57. > :06:00.in a Green direction, that's effective. We have seen that. Other
:06:00. > :06:03.parties can't afford to ignore the environment, they have to respond
:06:03. > :06:07.more on social justice. The Greens are a small party but playing an
:06:07. > :06:11.important role and I would love us to be bigger and I think at the
:06:11. > :06:15.next European elections we will be. We'll see if you are still saying
:06:15. > :06:20.that when the Tory minister joins us later in the programme. Time for
:06:20. > :06:23.the daily quiz about twither. Everyone's at it these days --
:06:23. > :06:29.Twitter. David Cameron, the Pope and Andrew Neil tweets all the time.
:06:29. > :06:35.We want to know what political event of 2012 generated the most
:06:35. > :06:45.tweets. Are you grumbling from the sidelines? Yes. According to
:06:45. > :06:53.
:06:53. > :06:58.At the end of the show, Caroline will be pleased to know she'll give
:06:58. > :07:03.us an answer. The big story of the day, are we
:07:03. > :07:06.about to see another dash for gash? The go-ahead has been given to
:07:06. > :07:10.fracking, the extraction of shale gas. It was halted after it was
:07:10. > :07:16.believed to have caused some minor earth tremors in the north-west of
:07:16. > :07:21.England. A moratorium was imposed but that's been lifted this very
:07:21. > :07:27.morning. What is this fracking all about? I chose my words carefully,
:07:27. > :07:31.Yes and said it carefully. It's a method of extracting natural gas
:07:31. > :07:34.locked in shale rocks deep beneath the ground. Water, sand and
:07:34. > :07:39.chemicals are pumped in under high pressure to force the gas out of
:07:39. > :07:42.the rock. Test drilling in Blackpool was stopped last year
:07:42. > :07:46.after there were two minor earthquakes. Today, the Government
:07:46. > :07:51.has lifted the ban but under strict environmental conditions.
:07:51. > :07:54.Supporters say that fracking could help bring down rising gas prices
:07:54. > :07:57.but there are still major concerns about the technique's safety and
:07:57. > :08:01.the environmental impact on burning gas to generate electricity.
:08:01. > :08:06.Speak in the Commons this morning, the Energy and Climate Change
:08:06. > :08:11.Secretary, Ed Davey, cautioned against some of the more optimistic
:08:11. > :08:15.predictions about the potential of shale gas. I'm absolutely clear
:08:15. > :08:20.that the most responsible and sensible way forward energy policy
:08:21. > :08:25.is to have a diverse set of resources and sources for our
:08:25. > :08:29.energy and I believe if you look at some of the press, they have got
:08:29. > :08:34.very excited about the potential for gas prices falling. I have to
:08:34. > :08:39.say, when one looks at the independent analysis, you don't see
:08:39. > :08:43.that. That was Ed Davey. Energy consultant joins me now. He advised
:08:43. > :08:47.the fracking industry in this country. One thing that Ed Davey
:08:47. > :08:51.said was that we shouldn't bet our house on fracking? Well, certainly
:08:51. > :08:55.gas is going to be a part of the gas is going to be a part of the
:08:55. > :08:58.energy mix and will work in concert with renewables. What about
:08:58. > :09:02.consumer bills. That's what people want to know. Will it bring down
:09:02. > :09:09.the amount of money people have to pay for their energy? We must look
:09:09. > :09:14.at this in a global context. Shale gas is revolutionising the shale
:09:14. > :09:22.and energy industry worldwide. I would anticipate, of course, that
:09:22. > :09:25.increased supply will lower prices. Unfortunately, what Caroline Lucas
:09:25. > :09:28.and a number of other people are betting on is that gas prices will
:09:28. > :09:32.forever rise and that is certainly not the case.
:09:32. > :09:35.But is there evidence to actually say - you say you are confident -
:09:35. > :09:43.but is there evidence to show that it will bring down prices
:09:43. > :09:46.significantly for consumers? Well, if the expectations that Cuadrilla
:09:46. > :09:53.resources have, I would anticipate that they must be. One of the big
:09:53. > :09:57.problems of UK energy policy is that we have no idea of exactly
:09:57. > :10:01.what the gas price is and what the other charges are. We have much
:10:01. > :10:03.more transparency at the retail level. I think that would help
:10:03. > :10:09.greatly. How much money is the fracking
:10:09. > :10:13.industry going to make out of this? Well, you have to look at how much
:10:13. > :10:23.money is the UK going to make out of it because this is the UK's
:10:23. > :10:26.national resource. It's taxed at 62%, so while hopefully the
:10:26. > :10:30.industry will be profitable, so will the Chancellor. And remember
:10:31. > :10:35.there are five to six miles worth of steel pipe in each well, so
:10:35. > :10:39.that's go ing to be looking at the chemical and seal industry and what
:10:39. > :10:42.have you. And the Exchequer is hoping to make some money out of
:10:42. > :10:46.this too. Some might argue that's why the Chancellor is so in favour
:10:46. > :10:51.of it. How long will it take to get gas flowing at the sites? Hard to
:10:51. > :10:58.say at this point. I think it will be earlier than many anticipate
:10:58. > :11:03.because of the special geological gift that we have here in the UK.
:11:03. > :11:11.The shale gas layer is up to 40 times those of the United States.
:11:11. > :11:18.Thank you very much. John Hayes joins us and Caroline
:11:18. > :11:22.Lucas is still here. If the potential of shale gas is
:11:22. > :11:26.realised, if it actually happened, what would it mean to this country?
:11:26. > :11:35.It could mean a great deal. It's too early to gauge the scale of it.
:11:35. > :11:40.But look at America, the unit price has gone $12 to $3 or $ 4.
:11:40. > :11:44.natural gas? Gas extracted, yes and other gas. That's had a big effect
:11:44. > :11:47.on the American economy because it has an incredible effect on
:11:47. > :11:51.competitiveness. If you can get the price of energy down, it will
:11:51. > :11:55.affect the whole economy. We don't know yet how much of our shale can
:11:56. > :12:01.be extracted commercially so it's hard to estimate its effect. It's
:12:01. > :12:05.an exciting potential. We shouldn't ignore that, should we? Why should
:12:05. > :12:08.we ignore it? Two reasons - one is there is a lot of evidence that the
:12:08. > :12:13.price here won't be anything like the drop that you have seen in the
:12:13. > :12:17.US, pricing will go up and people like Deutsche Bank, the
:12:17. > :12:23.International Energy Agency and some others in John's own
:12:23. > :12:26.department are saying that. If we go down this route, some are saying
:12:26. > :12:29.we'll bust our climate targets that are legally binding under the
:12:29. > :12:32.climate change Act. So give than there are other ways of getting the
:12:32. > :12:38.energy we need and given that all of the evidence that we are looking
:12:38. > :12:42.at suggests that prices are likely to be going up, not down, it's gas
:12:42. > :12:47.that is leading to higher oil prices, it doesn't seem right to do
:12:47. > :12:52.that. The price of gas won't go down, it will go up, according to
:12:52. > :12:57.some people who comment on that, like Deutsche Bank and whatever the
:12:57. > :13:01.price, we'll bust our CO2 emission targets? Price, as you know, is a
:13:01. > :13:05.feature of the relation shi between supply and demand. If you increase
:13:05. > :13:08.supply, you are likely, as your expert suggested, to have an effect
:13:08. > :13:13.on price. Again, we can't gauge what that might be. It's certainly
:13:13. > :13:17.true to say these things are hard to predict, Caroline's rite, but
:13:17. > :13:22.nonetheless, shale has had that big effect that you describe in America
:13:22. > :13:28.and could have significant impacts here. We wouldn't want to pool
:13:28. > :13:32.their eggs in one basket though. Specifically that creates
:13:32. > :13:36.conditions with a mixed economy of generation for exactly the same
:13:36. > :13:41.reason that when predicting a long time ahead you want to keep a
:13:41. > :13:45.number of doors open. What about CO2 emissions? They are on target.
:13:45. > :13:54.If you look at the short-term targets, the 2020 targets and 2050
:13:54. > :13:56.targets, we are on target to meet what we said we were. Do you
:13:56. > :13:59.disagree with the Committee on Climate Change when it said it
:13:59. > :14:04.won't be possible to meet the targets if we go down this road?
:14:04. > :14:08.You know as well as I do that we were always going to invest heavily
:14:08. > :14:12.in gas simply to guarantee energy security. No. We have to do that.
:14:12. > :14:17.That is to replace existing capacity. Now, what Caroline won't
:14:17. > :14:21.want me to say, is that it's simultaneously putting �1 billion
:14:21. > :14:26.into carbon capture and storage which means gas can be abated and
:14:26. > :14:31.can become a clean technology. So actually, this prejudice against
:14:31. > :14:36.gas will be as silly as a gas against renewables. Is it your
:14:36. > :14:40.policy that we should have no gas out all? No. But to be investing in
:14:40. > :14:42.the major dash for gas which is being proposed by the Government is
:14:42. > :14:45.simply irresponsible. To make the comparison with the US, we need to
:14:45. > :14:49.be clear that the situation in the US is very different. In the US,
:14:49. > :14:52.you have the wilds of Texas where you probably don't have lots of
:14:52. > :14:57.planning permission issues. Like the wilds of Lancashire? A lot of
:14:57. > :15:01.people don't want to see the number of fracking wells that will need to
:15:01. > :15:05.be drilled. We are talking about around 2,400 wells. If you think
:15:05. > :15:08.about the opposition we already have for onshore wind and things
:15:08. > :15:11.like that, the opposition that there will be against that degree
:15:11. > :15:14.of intensity of fracking wells, I would suggest, is going to be very
:15:14. > :15:21.high indeed. The north-west of England, particularly the black
:15:21. > :15:24.pool area, is a depressed area, and that's where the fuel that was with
:15:24. > :15:29.the moratorium was will now start again to investigate how much is
:15:29. > :15:35.there and whether it can be taken out in commercial quantities. Do
:15:35. > :15:39.you envisage, if there was to work, I emphasise "If" this was to work,
:15:39. > :15:41.will there be an economic revolution in the north-west?
:15:41. > :15:48.infrastructure already in Britain provides thousands, hundreds of
:15:48. > :15:52.thousands of jobs. So energy is important to the economic purposes
:15:52. > :15:56.of creating growth and skills and jobs. We know the country is
:15:56. > :16:06.weighted to the south, would this make a difference in economic terms,
:16:06. > :16:14.would the economic balance shift to It could be very good news for the
:16:14. > :16:18.North West. But the community have to accept that it is safe and
:16:18. > :16:23.secure. That is why you put the regulations and protection measures
:16:23. > :16:30.in place. The MP for that area has been a great advocate of it.
:16:30. > :16:37.certainly need more jobs, but if you look at it per unit of energy
:16:37. > :16:41.created, there are far fewer jobs in it. That is preposterous.
:16:41. > :16:45.Docking about price, the Committee on Climate Change, which John is
:16:45. > :16:51.anxious to avoid addressing today, have put out a new report saying
:16:51. > :16:58.that if we go down the gas rich, we will put �600 on tig fuel bills by
:16:58. > :17:05.2030, whereas with a low-carbon rich, it is more likely to be �100.
:17:05. > :17:11.I will certainly deal with that. Let me nail the issue on jobs first.
:17:11. > :17:21.The oil and gas sector is estimated to support 350,000 jobs. A per unit
:17:21. > :17:22.
:17:22. > :17:25.of energy? Real jobs, real skills. Don't deliberately misunderstand me.
:17:25. > :17:29.I am saying the that of course right now, there are more people
:17:29. > :17:33.employed in oil and gas than in renewables. That is because of more
:17:33. > :17:38.investment over many years. But if you look at the potential for job
:17:38. > :17:44.creation around fossil fuels versus renewables, it is more labour-
:17:44. > :17:50.intensive to invest in renewables, more people are needed for
:17:50. > :17:57.renewables than fossil fuels. Creating jobs matters. There are
:17:57. > :18:03.many more to be created in renewables. Have figures from
:18:03. > :18:09.across the industry. A generous estimate of renewables would be a
:18:09. > :18:14.small proportion. But it is important, and we want to encourage
:18:14. > :18:18.those green jobs. But I am balanced about this. You are unbalanced.
:18:18. > :18:22.balance sounds like such a friendly word. But it means you are giving
:18:22. > :18:25.completely mixed messages to investors. That is why even the CBI
:18:25. > :18:30.has criticised your energy policy, saying it is not giving a clear
:18:30. > :18:34.signal to investors who want to invest in green energy. At the
:18:34. > :18:40.moment, we have a number of gas- fired stations and we are building
:18:40. > :18:48.more. These gas fired stations use imported gas, many from the Middle
:18:48. > :18:52.East, not Russia, as many think. And also Norway. Is it your aim
:18:53. > :18:56.that shale gas would replace that imported gas? It is hard to say how
:18:56. > :19:01.much shale gas would replace it, because we don't know the scale of
:19:01. > :19:05.production. But yes, domestically produced gas could play an
:19:05. > :19:10.important part in driving costs down. At the moment, we still get a
:19:10. > :19:15.lot of gas from the North Sea, which still has many decades to go
:19:15. > :19:21.in terms of oil and gas. But we import gas as well. If Caroline is
:19:21. > :19:27.keen on gas, as she has now said she is, relatively, would she
:19:27. > :19:30.prefer to import that gas from abroad or to produce it locally?
:19:30. > :19:35.You have the final word on this. you know, we are part of the
:19:35. > :19:40.European gas market, so the idea that if we create gas in the UK, we
:19:40. > :19:44.use it in the UK, that is misguided. The US can do that. But we are part
:19:44. > :19:49.of a European gas market and there is no guarantee that the gas we
:19:49. > :19:55.create in the UK would be used in the UK. The gas created in
:19:55. > :20:03.Lancashire could go to Europe? Absolutely. How would that happen?
:20:03. > :20:07.There are no pipes into Blackpool. You could use the gas we are
:20:08. > :20:16.generating to go to other places. How would it get there? There are
:20:16. > :20:19.pipes. No wonder the Green Party are losing votes. If we create the
:20:19. > :20:29.gas here, there is no guarantee that it will stay here. It the
:20:29. > :20:29.
:20:30. > :20:38.people off Blackpool will not let anybody take their gas. They like
:20:38. > :20:45.their gas. We are sticking with energy now.
:20:45. > :20:48.This is an important show, and what an important subject. We have to be
:20:48. > :20:52.nice to him now! Imagine a world where green campaigners embrace
:20:52. > :20:56.nuclear power, have their doubts about organic farming and think GM
:20:56. > :21:00.crops might not be that bad. Sounds like Caroline Lucas' worst
:21:00. > :21:03.nightmare, but they are out there. Their detractors call them neo-
:21:03. > :21:08.greens, but they believe their ideas could finally moved their
:21:08. > :21:12.party into the mainstream. But are they an internal irritation, or a
:21:12. > :21:19.sign of things to come for the green movement?
:21:19. > :21:22.We are here to stop this vessel delivering coal. The Greens. They
:21:22. > :21:26.have gone from radical protest movement to established political
:21:26. > :21:30.party with a presence inside and sometimes sympathisers outside the
:21:30. > :21:34.House of Commons. We all think we know what green campaigners believe
:21:34. > :21:38.in. They hate nuclear power, love wind farms and if it is not organic,
:21:38. > :21:44.they will not eat it. But it turns out there is a new breed of
:21:44. > :21:46.activists in town, and their ideas go against the grain. Chris Goodall
:21:46. > :21:51.was the Green Party candidate for Oxford West at the last general
:21:51. > :21:54.election, but for many of his colleagues, to say he thinks the
:21:54. > :21:58.unthinkable is putting it mildly. We need to look at nuclear power.
:21:58. > :22:02.There is a strong case for using nuclear to get rapid
:22:02. > :22:06.decarbonisation. Then we need to look at GM foods. I am not
:22:06. > :22:10.convinced, but we will run short of food in the next 30 years as the
:22:10. > :22:13.population explodes. We also need to look at assumptions about
:22:13. > :22:16.agriculture. Should we push for organic agriculture, or will that
:22:16. > :22:24.make it more difficult to feed people? Then there are things about
:22:24. > :22:28.whether we should use more plastics, because plastics have a low
:22:28. > :22:33.environmental footprint and can be recycled. We need to look at
:22:33. > :22:36.everything that has held the Green Party together. So within the party
:22:37. > :22:41.call people like Chris neo- greens, and it is not meant as a compliment.
:22:41. > :22:47.A few of the founding fathers of and the movement think that at best,
:22:47. > :22:51.they are tilting at windmills. There are people who have looked at
:22:51. > :22:56.the accelerating climate change story, are understandably scared by
:22:56. > :23:01.it, and have almost persuaded themselves that it is that bad that
:23:01. > :23:05.any port in a storm will do, even if it is a nuclear port at. So out
:23:05. > :23:10.of desperation, they throw their lot in with the nuclear industry.
:23:10. > :23:16.But even a second glance would remind them of how foolish that is.
:23:16. > :23:21.At worst, it could be a danger to the movement and themselves. One of
:23:21. > :23:28.my concerns has been the degree to which some of these spokespeople
:23:28. > :23:32.for a new wave green ideas have been seized on by their respective
:23:32. > :23:36.industries and made ruthless use of. I am sorry to say they are in for a
:23:36. > :23:40.rough ride when it comes to their views being used and abused by the
:23:40. > :23:43.nuclear industry. But greens like Chris said they are addressing a
:23:43. > :23:48.problem so profound that it is stopping the party from growing up.
:23:48. > :23:55.But effective, the Green movement must move into the centre of
:23:55. > :23:58.British politics. At the moment, it is almost a cult on the edge of the
:23:58. > :24:02.extreme left. That has to change. The green movement must push the
:24:02. > :24:06.Green Party into the mainstream of British politics if it is to have
:24:06. > :24:09.any effect on the way things happen in this country. In turn will
:24:09. > :24:16.descend is hardly a new thing for political parties of any size. The
:24:16. > :24:19.question for greens is whether the attack from within will prove to be
:24:19. > :24:22.just growing pains, or something much more profound.
:24:22. > :24:26.The energy minister John Hayes is still here, as is the Green MP
:24:26. > :24:32.Caroline Lucas. Caroline, do you agree with Chris Goodall that the
:24:32. > :24:35.Green Party at least needs to look at nuclear-power? I'll come not
:24:35. > :24:39.ruling out nuclear power in some ideological way to say that if that
:24:39. > :24:43.were the only way of dealing with climate change, we should not look
:24:43. > :24:48.at it. But right now, there are more cheap, effective and efficient
:24:48. > :24:53.ways of getting the likes to be kept on and they are safer, so why
:24:54. > :24:57.go down the nuclear rude? Nuclear is a distraction. Over the next 15
:24:57. > :25:03.years, we should invest in renewables, as they have done in
:25:03. > :25:09.Germany. 25% of their electricity comes from renewables. We need to
:25:10. > :25:13.invest in energy efficiency. That is what will keep the lights on.
:25:13. > :25:17.People do not take into account that to get an nuclear power online
:25:17. > :25:22.would take another 50 years minimum, and it is far more expensive as
:25:22. > :25:28.well as all of the safety issues. It is a distraction and will take
:25:28. > :25:38.years to come online? Well, nuclear energy has contributed up to 30% of
:25:38. > :25:42.our needs. As high as that? A up to 30%. Last year, just under 20%. So
:25:42. > :25:47.nuclear power is already providing energy needs. We know it is
:25:47. > :25:53.reliable. It has a long pedigree in this country. We know there are
:25:53. > :25:58.people interested in investing in it. But it has been difficult
:25:58. > :26:04.without a subsidy to get people to commit. We have committed to build
:26:04. > :26:09.new nuclear energy without subsidy. That is not true. Up it is true.
:26:09. > :26:18.The previous Secretary of State for Energy agreed that there would be
:26:18. > :26:22.new nuclear energy without... subsidy is when the Government
:26:22. > :26:28.gives support. The Government does give support to renewables. But you
:26:28. > :26:35.said you would do nuclear without that. The coalition agreement says
:26:35. > :26:38.without a subsidy, and you are redefining it. I am not. No support
:26:38. > :26:45.will be available to nuclear that was not available to other
:26:45. > :26:49.technologies. Nuclear has the capacity to provide security, jobs
:26:49. > :26:53.and skills. Caroline says she is not against it ideologically. Then
:26:53. > :26:58.in what way is she against it? Because it will cost us more and be
:26:58. > :27:02.much less safe and take us much longer. If you said to me that we
:27:02. > :27:06.were against the wall on climate change and are run the choice was
:27:06. > :27:11.climate change or nuclear, of course I would not be up against it
:27:11. > :27:16.in a fundamentalist way. But it is unsafe and unnecessary. But Chris
:27:16. > :27:19.Goodall himself says we need to look at it, a member of the Green
:27:20. > :27:24.Party. Congratulations on finding the one person in the Green Party
:27:24. > :27:28.that would hold that view. I don't think he has got a point and he
:27:28. > :27:32.certainly does not represent more than himself in the Green Party in
:27:32. > :27:35.saying that. The Green Party websites as a deadline for phasing
:27:35. > :27:40.out nuclear power would be said when we came to office and all
:27:40. > :27:45.nuclear power plants would be phased out within the state. That
:27:45. > :27:50.is exactly the position I am taking, which is contrary to the position
:27:50. > :27:53.Chris Goodall is taking. The EU are saying it will be phased out. I am
:27:53. > :27:58.against nuclear unless somebody says to me that the only way we can
:27:58. > :28:03.meet our climate change targets is nuclear. But don't you understand
:28:03. > :28:09.that to a balanced energy mix, renewables, gas, nuclear, which can
:28:09. > :28:12.meet those targets and keep the lights on? And it will cost more.
:28:12. > :28:16.Don't you care about those with energy bills which are already high,
:28:16. > :28:20.and you will make them higher by going down the nuclear route? At a
:28:20. > :28:29.Methodist cheaper, safer and more efficient, why would you not do
:28:29. > :28:35.that? Nuclear must be delivered affordably. The energy bill is
:28:35. > :28:40.designed to give a long-term price certainty. We will negotiate a
:28:40. > :28:46.price on nuclear that is in the taxpayer's interest. The big doubt
:28:46. > :28:51.comes in with the energy gap. Can you fill the energy gap with
:28:51. > :28:58.renewables? If you combine it with a big investment in energy
:28:58. > :29:01.efficiency, yes, you can. The 25%? At in Germany, they have 25% of
:29:01. > :29:06.energy coming from renewables because they have a very different
:29:06. > :29:10.energy policy, one which includes smaller scale generators, not just
:29:10. > :29:14.six big energy companies that have the whole case sewn up. We heard in
:29:15. > :29:21.the House this morning from one of our colleagues, a former energy
:29:21. > :29:25.minister, that Germany are building coal power stations now. Why are
:29:25. > :29:31.they allowed to do that? They will burn coal that is even dirtier than
:29:31. > :29:35.ours. How can they do that, but the EU tells us we have to close hour
:29:35. > :29:40.coal-fired stations? You must not inside me to speak about the
:29:40. > :29:44.European Union and say something I regret. But you are right that we
:29:44. > :29:48.need to ensure there is consistency across the European Union. I spoke
:29:48. > :29:53.to the commissioner last night on the subject of carbon captor and
:29:53. > :29:56.storage, and emphasised that we need consistency across Europe.
:29:56. > :30:02.you don't know why the Germans can open new coal-fired stations and we
:30:02. > :30:07.are being forced to close arts? are, we are all kinds of stories. I
:30:07. > :30:14.would be happy to find out. As a result of the question today, I
:30:14. > :30:19.have asked my officials to look at exactly that. I am happy to come
:30:19. > :30:24.back on your show and tell you. before you go, have we got enough
:30:24. > :30:27.onshore wind farms? I think onshore wind is a matter of community
:30:27. > :30:31.interest and community benefit. Where people want them, they should
:30:31. > :30:34.have them. The Secretary of State says the Government is clear that
:30:34. > :30:38.meeting our energy goals is no excuse for building wind farms in
:30:38. > :30:48.the wrong places. Local people and their councils should not feel
:30:48. > :30:56.
:30:56. > :31:06.Nuclear has been generating 14% of our electricity, gas 37%, coal 45%,
:31:06. > :31:06.
:31:06. > :31:12.wind 1.6%. Hydro1.2%. The French connector giving us nothing and the
:31:12. > :31:22.Irish connector nothing but Dutch 0.2%. For those watching us in
:31:22. > :31:28.
:31:28. > :31:32.Holland, we thank you for the 101 megawatts you are sending us now.
:31:32. > :31:39.The European Central Bank has won new powers to supervise 200 of the
:31:39. > :31:44.biggest European banks directly and the right to intervene in present
:31:44. > :31:52.ones doesn't come in until 2014. One of the Finance Ministers
:31:52. > :31:55.stepped from the negotiating chamber. This on a day when the
:31:55. > :31:57.Prime Minister heads back to Brussels for a two-day summit with
:31:57. > :31:59.all the European heads of Government and the question for
:31:59. > :32:03.David Cameron is whether this represents another step towards a
:32:03. > :32:07.more centralised Europe which many in his own party do not want to be
:32:07. > :32:11.part of. Our Europe editor is Gavin Hewitt. Welcome to the programme.
:32:11. > :32:15.We hear the Finance Ministers were up all night and that they have
:32:15. > :32:18.agreed this deal. How significant is it?
:32:18. > :32:23.Jo, I think it is significant. It's something they've been talking
:32:23. > :32:28.about for at least six months and what does it represent? It
:32:28. > :32:32.represents a large transfer away from national authority towards a
:32:32. > :32:38.European institution and in the future, as you have said, the
:32:38. > :32:42.European Central Bank will supervise some of those largest,
:32:42. > :32:45.150-200 banks, but will also have sweeper powers to be able to
:32:45. > :32:49.intervene if they sense that a smaller bank is getting into
:32:49. > :32:53.trouble. What all this is aimed at is trying to break that link
:32:53. > :32:56.between banks that get into trouble, then off-loading the problem on to
:32:56. > :33:00.Governments which, of course, that only pushes up their debt. So it's
:33:00. > :33:05.trying to break that loop. The other thing it's trying to do, and
:33:05. > :33:09.I think this is important, once the supervise ore, this banking
:33:09. > :33:13.supervisor is in place, countries will be able to access the
:33:13. > :33:16.eurozone's main bail out fund and use money from that to directly
:33:16. > :33:22.recapitalise banks. That is seen as particularly important for
:33:22. > :33:28.countries like Spain. And further acknowledgement and a signal of a
:33:28. > :33:31.two-speed, two-tier Europe? Well, it is and it isn't. Certainly in
:33:31. > :33:38.terms of the direction of travel, what we have seen in the last few
:33:38. > :33:40.hours and what we will again see in the summit will be a blueprint for
:33:40. > :33:44.further integration, further integration particularly for
:33:44. > :33:48.eurozone countries and a building towards what they call a genuine
:33:48. > :33:52.economic and monetary union. Now, in terms of Britain, David Cameron,
:33:52. > :33:56.we know, some time in the New Year, is going to sketch out his vision
:33:56. > :34:01.and it seems it's likely to be moving in a very different
:34:01. > :34:05.direction. What was interesting hear was that Britain pushed to
:34:05. > :34:09.ensure that its voice would not be diminished in this banking area.
:34:09. > :34:12.George Osborne says he was quite successful and actually lining up
:34:12. > :34:16.with him were not only countries like Sweden and the Netherlands,
:34:16. > :34:20.but Germany was sympathetic too. Certainly, I detected over recent
:34:20. > :34:23.weeks that there is a real awareness here in Europe that they
:34:23. > :34:31.need to reach out to Britain because of the political pressures
:34:31. > :34:35.in the UK. So two-speed Europe definitely there is a two-speed
:34:35. > :34:38.Europe but there is an awareness on behalf of other countries that they
:34:38. > :34:41.don't want to make that bigger than it already is.
:34:41. > :34:44.We now welcome viewers from Scotland who've been watching the
:34:44. > :34:48.First Ministers questions. We have not seen it but I'm sure it's
:34:48. > :34:52.lively. We are discussing European banking regulation. Thought that
:34:52. > :34:56.would get your attention! No, don't go and make a cup of tea, it's
:34:56. > :35:03.really interesting, because we've got Labour's Shadow Europe Minister
:35:03. > :35:06.emMo Reynolds and Mark Field, welcome to your both. The Europeans
:35:06. > :35:11.are heading towards a eurozone banking regulator, a very powerful
:35:11. > :35:16.body, as we heard, huge powers to intervene in European banking, but
:35:16. > :35:22.it won't cover the biggest centre of finance in Europe which is
:35:22. > :35:24.called London? What could possible go wrong? Well, I think this is an
:35:24. > :35:27.important development and we have important safeguards that have been
:35:27. > :35:31.negotiated by the Government for the City of London's decision. I
:35:31. > :35:39.think it's a very important template that is being set for what
:35:39. > :35:49.is going to be a two-speed Europe that you have eurozone members
:35:49. > :35:49.
:35:49. > :35:52.voting for a civil majority -- simple majority. It will be
:35:52. > :35:56.interesting. We have to be careful what we wish for in the City of
:35:56. > :36:00.London. There is a concern that if you have an all-powerful eurozone
:36:00. > :36:04.with its powerful institutions, pairing off a few of the weaker
:36:04. > :36:07.members, that will become an issue for the City of London and we have
:36:07. > :36:11.to be aware of that. I think George Osborne's negotiated well with
:36:11. > :36:17.these arrangements today. Surely as this new regulator finds its feet
:36:17. > :36:21.it's bound at some stage to imping on the City of London, that's
:36:21. > :36:26.inevitable? It's going to affect the way London operates? There
:36:26. > :36:30.certainly is a concern that if decisions that are taken by the
:36:30. > :36:34.eurozone, if they have to be approved by a majority of those
:36:34. > :36:38.member states not in the banking union that there will be a
:36:38. > :36:44.spillover effect from the regulations that affect it. It will
:36:44. > :36:47.be regulated by the European banking regulator? Yes and the City
:36:47. > :36:51.provides more banking than any of the other member states put
:36:51. > :36:56.together so the City is an incredibly important financial
:36:56. > :36:59.place. Not only for, as you say, British banks, but European banks.
:36:59. > :37:04.Hopefully other European leaders have appreciated that the city's
:37:04. > :37:06.not only a strength for the UK but the euro. Given that, as I
:37:06. > :37:11.understand it, both the major parties, even the Liberal Democrats
:37:11. > :37:14.now, you don't think we should be part of the eurozone or part of the
:37:14. > :37:19.regulatory structures, we have no choice now but to be on the
:37:19. > :37:21.sidelines. Is that Labour's policy? Look, the vast majority of policy
:37:21. > :37:26.areas, as Caroline will know well, having spent years in the European
:37:26. > :37:30.Parliament, are still going to be at 27. Yes, when it comes to the
:37:30. > :37:34.Single Currency, and when it comes to some forms of economic
:37:34. > :37:38.integration, it will be at the 17, but for the vast majority of other
:37:38. > :37:42.policy areas it will be still decisions taken at full EU members.
:37:42. > :37:47.But on the eurozone - I mean today the summit was on to eurozone
:37:47. > :37:52.fiscal integration - that means the coordination of national budget
:37:52. > :37:59.decisions and of economic policy, the Germans and French pushing for
:37:59. > :38:04.varieties of this, a version of it will happen again. Inevitably, we
:38:04. > :38:11.are bound, or a version of the 17 are bound to get closer together,
:38:11. > :38:13.become a clear two-speed Europe which will be inevitable? As far as
:38:13. > :38:17.the financial services are concerned, it's important to
:38:17. > :38:20.remember that we are not just a European Centre, we are like a
:38:20. > :38:24.global Centre for The rest of the world. We have a huge amount of
:38:25. > :38:29.business coming in from all parts of the glob, not just from Europe -
:38:29. > :38:35.- globe. Yes, what is important is that we are on the negotiating
:38:35. > :38:39.table. It's a very crucial part of it that we need to be there to make
:38:39. > :38:45.our case. I think as far as banking in England is concerned within the
:38:45. > :38:49.eurozone, yes, there would be concern in the longer term if there
:38:49. > :38:51.was pledgeling Vietnamese or Chinese bank took the view we have
:38:51. > :38:57.this powerful eurozone area, of course we have a representative in
:38:57. > :39:00.the City of London, but maybe the operation should be out in
:39:00. > :39:03.Frankfurt or Paris or somewhere like that. We need to be careful.
:39:03. > :39:07.The strength we have in the UK is that we are a safe haven because we
:39:07. > :39:15.are outside the Single Currency, we have the benefit of low interest
:39:15. > :39:20.rates. Lowest rates in Europe? most countries. I think the real
:39:20. > :39:29.issue would be there's still a lot of road for this can to be kicked
:39:29. > :39:33.down, but it would be a time for the City of London. To you agree
:39:33. > :39:37.with Boris Johnson that there should be a full-scale
:39:37. > :39:42.renegotiation of our relationship with Europe? I've always believed
:39:42. > :39:50.that I don't think there's any option of having a full-scale
:39:50. > :39:55.renegotiating. It's dangerous. We have the status quo with bells and
:39:55. > :39:59.whistles and George Osborne's made sure we are safe in our position
:39:59. > :40:02.outside the European zone. I don't think fundamental renegotiation or
:40:02. > :40:06.pe rateration of powers, despite what some of my colleagues on the
:40:06. > :40:10.Conservative benches say is an option. You don't think the other
:40:11. > :40:14.European countries would in effect agree to us remaining a member of
:40:14. > :40:20.the club without a lot of the responsibilities that go with
:40:20. > :40:25.membership? I think that's right. There has been a lot of unease. On
:40:25. > :40:29.the one hand we are proud of not being there. That's given us more
:40:29. > :40:33.options in the global economic Crisis over the last four years.
:40:33. > :40:38.It's all very well for Britain to say they are not in the eurozone
:40:38. > :40:44.but they are a roadblock in the other areas in the sense that we
:40:44. > :40:48.all need to be in the club. Would the Greens have, as part of the
:40:48. > :40:52.inner core? We have never been in favour of the Single Currency, so
:40:52. > :40:55.to that extent we have always said trying to impose one set of
:40:55. > :40:59.interest rates on different economies and histories and so
:41:00. > :41:04.forth was going to be bound to fail and it's always been against the
:41:04. > :41:11.Single Currency. What we need to do is have a real debate about the EU.
:41:11. > :41:14.I'm worried about the way in which those who're taking Euro-sceptic
:41:14. > :41:19.positions have the high ground at the moment in terms of they are the
:41:19. > :41:24.ones leading the debate. For those who believe the EU needs to be
:41:24. > :41:29.reformed - and it certainly does - but we are better off with the
:41:29. > :41:33.environmental standards, but those in favour need to make the case
:41:33. > :41:38.stronger. The way it's constituted at the moment, where is Labour now
:41:38. > :41:44.on a referendum, you were playing footsie with it ce lintly but have
:41:44. > :41:51.you gone off the idea? -- recently. Ed Miliband made it clear that he
:41:51. > :41:57.thinks the referendum now would put at risk what is already a very
:41:57. > :42:01.economic different time. Is not now. What about in the future? It
:42:01. > :42:03.depends about the debate we are having today about how the eurozone
:42:03. > :42:07.integrates. We shouldn't underestimate the difficulties that
:42:07. > :42:11.eurozone member states will have in agreeing something with political
:42:11. > :42:15.union, whatever people mean by political union... Orificical
:42:16. > :42:19.union? Yes, I think there are great difficulties along the way and it
:42:19. > :42:24.will tame some time. You have ruled out a referendum for now then. What
:42:24. > :42:28.would change that could bring a referendum back? If there were a
:42:28. > :42:32.fundamental change in our relationship with the EU... Such
:42:32. > :42:38.as? We have said in the past for example, if we had advocating going
:42:38. > :42:44.into the euro, which we didn't, that would be a fundamental
:42:44. > :42:50.constitutional change. Sure. That's not going to happen? No, but for
:42:50. > :42:52.example - no, we are not, just to clarify, we are certainly not.
:42:52. > :42:55.interestings, we must leave it there.
:42:55. > :43:00.We'll chat about the consequences of what you said. I thought there
:43:00. > :43:05.was a story there. He's right and Damian Green's right. It's my job
:43:05. > :43:08.to reck naiz a story when I see one! -- recognise. The Church of
:43:08. > :43:12.England has been having a time of it lately. The census suggested the
:43:12. > :43:16.number of people saying they are Christian has plummeted over the
:43:16. > :43:20.last decade. There is a row over gay marriage and the church has
:43:20. > :43:25.been tying itself in Notts over whether or not to allow women to
:43:25. > :43:31.become bishops -- knots. Ben Bradshaw led the debate about the
:43:31. > :43:34.issue of women become bishops. So, in announcing on the eve of the
:43:34. > :43:39.debate that they will have another go in July, the bishops really do
:43:39. > :43:44.need to be sure they will win. The process must be concluded quickly
:43:44. > :43:48.in months and not years and if they aren't sure they can deliver, they
:43:48. > :43:52.should ask Parliament for help. Many of us will have been contacted
:43:53. > :43:59.by priests and lay members of the church since the Synod vote
:43:59. > :44:05.appealing to Parliament to act. A priest from Lancaster wrote to me
:44:05. > :44:10.saying "Please, please, please help." Does he not agree with me
:44:10. > :44:13.that it's vital that the trajectory and progress should be considered
:44:13. > :44:20.given that women bishops are already part of the Anglican
:44:20. > :44:23.community including in can za, the US and Australia and New Zealand? -
:44:23. > :44:25.- Canada? The message that should come from the House is that we are
:44:26. > :44:31.concerned, we want to nudge the church in the right direction and
:44:31. > :44:37.we hope it moves in that direction, but we should not completely rule
:44:37. > :44:40.out taking the matter in our our own hands. There's nothing in my
:44:40. > :44:44.New Testament that says you will have churches and deacons, bishops
:44:44. > :44:48.and priests and they'll all be men. I may have missed something, but I
:44:48. > :44:53.have at one stage or the other read the New Testament and there's
:44:53. > :44:56.nothing there that says that. House of bishops expressed it
:44:56. > :45:03.continuing commitment to enabling women to be consecrated as bishops
:45:03. > :45:08.and I'm glad to say, it intends to have fresh proposals to put before
:45:08. > :45:15.General Synod at its next meeting in July. This is not an issue that
:45:15. > :45:20.can be part - this is not an issue that can just be adjourned
:45:20. > :45:29.generally for some other time in the future - it has got to be
:45:29. > :45:32.worked at until a solution is found. We've got Tony Baldry, the church
:45:32. > :45:39.representative in the House of Commons here with us now. He's come
:45:40. > :45:43.straight from a meeting with the designate Archbishop. What did you
:45:43. > :45:48.say to him? It's more about what he said to us. It was a packed meeting
:45:48. > :45:52.in the House of Lords. He said he's determined that legislation for
:45:52. > :46:00.women bishops will be moved forward as speedily as possible, it's got
:46:00. > :46:06.to happen and it's got to happen as quickly as it can. Bearing in mind
:46:06. > :46:11.all what's happened, it's been a mess. He admitted that? We all
:46:11. > :46:21.acknowledge that. It's got to be sorted. When he says speedily,
:46:21. > :46:25.
:46:25. > :46:29.where are we looking at? 2015 What sort of guarantee is there
:46:29. > :46:33.that the outcome will be any different? Were can only continue
:46:33. > :46:38.to work at it. Everyone recognises that this has been a disaster for
:46:38. > :46:41.the Church of England. Today, up and down the country, clergy will
:46:41. > :46:46.be out of burying the dead, looking after the bereaved, helping people
:46:46. > :46:48.prepare for marriage, opening food banks. That is the mission of the
:46:48. > :46:53.Church, and it has been really distracted by this debate on women
:46:53. > :46:57.bishops. Until it is resolved, we can't get on with the important
:46:58. > :47:05.work, so it has to be sorted out. So there would be a vote on the
:47:05. > :47:10.issue of women bishops next June lie? That would be the start of the
:47:10. > :47:16.process -- next July. But if we can all get agreement on that, we can
:47:16. > :47:20.move things forward reasonably quickly. There are procedures
:47:20. > :47:26.within the Church, but within those Scopes, everything will move as
:47:26. > :47:30.fast as it can. What do you think the initial rejection of women
:47:30. > :47:35.bishops did in terms of the image of the Church of England in the
:47:35. > :47:39.eyes of the public? I think it was hugely damaging. It looked as if
:47:39. > :47:43.the Church was out of touch with where most it are. And the majority
:47:43. > :47:47.of people in the Church did want to go down this road, so everyone got
:47:47. > :47:51.bemused by the different voting systems within the Church haricot
:47:51. > :47:55.which meant that despite the fact that dig, a majority were in favour
:47:55. > :47:59.of changing, that change did not happen. That system has done the
:47:59. > :48:05.Church no favours. The Church of England is currently exempt from
:48:05. > :48:08.equality laws. If it is ever to reflect the nation, shouldn't this
:48:08. > :48:15.exemption be removed? We have no exemptions that other faith groups
:48:15. > :48:20.do not have. We are treated the same as every other faiths. But you
:48:20. > :48:25.don't think that should be removed across the board? A once you have
:48:25. > :48:31.women priests, everyone acknowledges that we need not have
:48:31. > :48:34.women bishops. Women clergy have done fantastic work up and down the
:48:34. > :48:39.country. The Church of England could not function without women in
:48:39. > :48:43.the clergy. The sooner we have women bishops, the better. This has
:48:43. > :48:47.been an extraordinarily frustrating period of time, but we will get
:48:47. > :48:53.there. And in Justin Welby, the Church of England is fortunate in
:48:53. > :48:55.having a very clear new leader. it is not the only issue
:48:55. > :48:59.destabilising the Church of England. There is also the issue of gay
:48:59. > :49:06.marriage. Did you agree with the idea of making it illegal for gay
:49:06. > :49:09.couples to...? De Church of England is not destabilised by gay marriage.
:49:09. > :49:13.Nor is the Church of England asking for privileges in relation to this.
:49:13. > :49:18.The fact is that canon law, the laws which apply to the Church of
:49:18. > :49:23.England, are also the laws of England. So whatever is in the Bill
:49:23. > :49:27.has to comply with canon law. The judge in England simply says, as
:49:27. > :49:37.far as we are concerned, marriage has always been an institution of
:49:37. > :49:40.complementarity between man and woman. We believe in long term
:49:40. > :49:45.covenanted relationships between same-sex people, but that is not
:49:45. > :49:48.the same as marriage. But a lot of people were under the impression
:49:48. > :49:52.that the legislation would allow gay couples to get married in the
:49:52. > :49:56.Church of England. Were you one of them? Yes, I was, and there are
:49:56. > :49:59.some in the Church of England who would be happy to do it. So there
:49:59. > :50:02.is a distinction between saying much it should be forced to
:50:02. > :50:07.undertake these marriages against their will, and going to this
:50:07. > :50:10.extreme on the other hand, which is an outright prohibition on doing it.
:50:10. > :50:15.That's is the same position as we have had on civil partnerships for
:50:15. > :50:18.a long time. The law in relation of two civil partnerships is bad faith
:50:18. > :50:22.groups as a whole either opt in or opt out of holding civil
:50:22. > :50:27.partnerships. A do you agree that the impression given was different?
:50:27. > :50:33.A bit of that is because this is important legislation which has
:50:33. > :50:36.been taken at an unnecessary crack of a pace, bearing in mind that the
:50:36. > :50:41.Bill will be carried over into the next session. To get to the
:50:41. > :50:45.position where we are having urgent questions before a statement led to
:50:45. > :50:49.a bit of confusion. Perhaps if we could take this in a more measured
:50:49. > :50:57.way, we will all get there. No one wants to be disruptive, we just
:50:57. > :51:01.want to make sure whatever legislation comes forward works and
:51:01. > :51:06.respects people's religious and civil freedoms. We had the census
:51:06. > :51:11.figures out this week, showing that the number of Christians has fallen
:51:11. > :51:17.in England and Wales. What is your reaction to that? What is happening
:51:17. > :51:21.to society? Perhaps people are less happy to fit themselves into boxes.
:51:21. > :51:25.If you asked a question about whether people felt some kind of
:51:25. > :51:30.spiritual awareness and detachment and whether they found those
:51:30. > :51:33.elements of their lives important, they would say yes. They do not
:51:33. > :51:39.want to dig a box which means you have to sign up to every part of
:51:39. > :51:42.the faith in question. Things are changing. People feel more open to
:51:42. > :51:46.saying that actually, they did agree with everything in every
:51:46. > :51:53.religion. So I am not surprised by it, but we should not then conclude
:51:53. > :51:58.that we are a nation of Cordless people. -- godless people. I agree
:51:58. > :52:06.with that. Faith groups will be judged by the support they give to
:52:06. > :52:12.those in need and distress. The census showed that there are
:52:12. > :52:17.now more miners in Kensington and Chelsea fan in Gateshead.
:52:17. > :52:27.For why would they ask that question?! The Jedi Knight seemed
:52:27. > :52:31.
:52:31. > :52:35.to be growing. There are no miners in Gateshead. It is because there
:52:35. > :52:42.is a school of mining in Kensington, and they regard themselves as
:52:42. > :52:46.miners. The use and possession of most
:52:46. > :52:49.narcotics has been criminal since the Misuse of Drugs Act became law
:52:49. > :52:52.in 1971. Since then, the arguments about whether prohibition is
:52:52. > :52:55.effective and whether it does more harm than good have raged. This
:52:55. > :53:00.week, the Home Affairs Select Committee wade into the argument,
:53:00. > :53:05.publishing a report calling for a review of all UK drugs policy by a
:53:05. > :53:10.royal commission to report by 2015. The MPs also recommended looking at
:53:10. > :53:15.the Portuguese unpenalised system, where possession of small
:53:15. > :53:18.quantities of drugs for personal use, although still illegal, is not
:53:18. > :53:22.prosecuted. They also urged the Government to look at the
:53:23. > :53:28.decriminalisation of marijuana or in parts of the United States and
:53:28. > :53:32.the proposed state monopoly on cannabis in Uruguay. Caroline Lucas
:53:32. > :53:36.is still with us. She wrote to the Guardian this week, calling for the
:53:36. > :53:39.need to move away from a system that bans the personal use of drugs
:53:39. > :53:47.towards what she calls an evidence- based public health approach. We
:53:47. > :53:50.are also joined by Melanie Phillips, a columnist for the Daily Mail. The
:53:50. > :53:55.committee is not recommending that people take drugs. It is not
:53:55. > :53:59.recommending legalisation or even the decriminalisation. It is
:53:59. > :54:02.recommending a royal commission. What is wrong with that. Firstly,
:54:02. > :54:07.it is a strange thing that a committee has been taking evidence
:54:07. > :54:12.for about a year that produces a weighty report, and the purpose of
:54:12. > :54:15.the report is to say we need a commission. The purpose of the
:54:15. > :54:19.Royal Commission is to put legalisation on the agenda. The
:54:19. > :54:26.committee has carefully not said it wants to legalise or liberalise
:54:26. > :54:31.drugs, but the logic of this is inescapable. It wants to put
:54:31. > :54:33.legalisation on the agenda. It is an amazing thing that the Home
:54:33. > :54:37.Affairs Select Committee seems to be in thrall to the legalisation
:54:37. > :54:42.lobby. And it has been for some time. Not every member of the
:54:42. > :54:46.committee is in that camp, but this report has been heavily influenced
:54:46. > :54:53.by the legalisation lobby and by people such as Richard Branson.
:54:53. > :54:58.you think it is a ruse. Would it be fair to describe you as part of the
:54:58. > :55:01.legalisation lobby? But it is important to make the distinction
:55:01. > :55:05.between legalisation and decriminalisation. When you talk
:55:05. > :55:08.about legalisation, nobody wants to see people pushing drugs outside
:55:08. > :55:13.school gates. We want to see the reduction of harm associated with
:55:13. > :55:18.drugs. There is an interesting example from Portugal and elsewhere
:55:18. > :55:22.around decriminalisation. I support the idea of the commission. It is
:55:22. > :55:25.not some kind of Trojan horse. The evidence in this case is difficult
:55:26. > :55:31.to assess. A committee of MPs is not necessarily the best body to
:55:31. > :55:36.look at that evidence. You think that people carrying small
:55:36. > :55:42.quantities of cannabis for their own use of should not be arrested,
:55:43. > :55:49.that that should be OK? That is my position. What about other drugs?
:55:49. > :55:54.That is why I want a commission. It is clearer with cannabis, but at
:55:54. > :55:58.the same time, you need regulation alongside that. With cannabis, the
:55:58. > :56:01.trouble is that people do not know what they are taking. The skunk on
:56:01. > :56:06.the streets is damaging in some cases. If you regulate the market,
:56:06. > :56:10.you can make sure that what people are having is a poorer -- pure form
:56:10. > :56:13.of it so that it does not do the damage skunk does and you would not
:56:13. > :56:18.waste police time. To let me deal with the Portuguese red herring.
:56:18. > :56:23.The Portuguese statistics have been grossly misrepresented by the
:56:23. > :56:29.legalisation lobby. Since Portugal decriminalised drug use in 2001,
:56:29. > :56:35.drug use has gone up. Drug-related crime has gone up. We where are
:56:35. > :56:40.your figures from? For from the Portuguese addiction agency. These
:56:40. > :56:43.are official statistics. On cannabis, I find it astonishing
:56:43. > :56:49.that the Home Affairs Select Committee recommended, on the
:56:49. > :56:54.casting vote of the chairman, Keith Vaz, that cannabis should be
:56:54. > :56:59.recalibrated down again from category B to category C. It was
:56:59. > :57:04.reclassified up from C de B on the advice of experts including the
:57:04. > :57:10.director of mental health, that the harm done to young people,
:57:10. > :57:14.particularly due to psychosis from cannabis, is overwhelming. What
:57:14. > :57:17.Melanie has just said points to the importance of having some kind of
:57:17. > :57:20.commission that will look at this. For every bit of evidence that
:57:20. > :57:24.Melanie will cite Thatcher will show you that the Portuguese
:57:24. > :57:28.experiment has led to certain outcomes, there are other bits of
:57:28. > :57:32.evidence I can cite that would 0.2 other results. That is why we need
:57:32. > :57:35.a commission to evaluate this. couldn't the committee do it?
:57:35. > :57:39.Because there is a wealth of evidence from many different
:57:39. > :57:43.countries in a lot of detail and a lot of scientific reports. A
:57:43. > :57:48.committee that meets once a week could not do that. A Royal
:57:48. > :57:53.Commission would be better placed to do that. It needs to be based on
:57:53. > :57:56.evidence, and our current policy is not. The evidence on cannabis is
:57:56. > :58:01.overwhelming. If you legalise or decriminalise, more young people
:58:01. > :58:05.will have more harm to their brains. The reason why the select committee
:58:05. > :58:10.did not consider this was because they took so much evidence from the
:58:10. > :58:14.legalisation lobby. Just time before we go to get the
:58:14. > :58:22.answer to our quiz. Caroline, what was the most tweeted about
:58:22. > :58:29.political event from 2012? I have been thinking about it. I would go
:58:29. > :58:39.for either Osborne or Nick Clegg, probably Nick Clegg. You are wrong.
:58:39. > :58:43.
:58:43. > :58:48.It was this. "political event". That was not a political event! It
:58:48. > :58:53.was just an event! Anyway, that is it. The One O'clock News is
:58:53. > :58:56.starting on BBC One. I will be back on BBC One tonight after Question