13/12/2012 Daily Politics

Welcome to the Daily Politics where the Government is getting cracking

with fracking. Ministers have said energy companies can resume

drilling for gas out of shale rocks. So, is this North Sea oil Mark two

in the cheap energy era or the pursuit of fool's Gold. Earthquakes

and water pollution is in line. The Mayor of Amsterdam trying to ban

students from smoking dope in schools. So it really time to

liberalise the drug laws here at home?

And, the Church of England failed to vote for women bishops. It's

fighting gay marriage and the census suggests fewer of us believe

in God. So what is the future for the church in an ever more secular

world? All that coming up in the next hour.

With us for the duration, MP Caroline Lucas, the first, so far

the only green MP in the Commons, until earlier this year she was

also the party leader. Why are the Greens going nowhere? I do love

your introductory questions! I don't think we are going nowhere.

We have seen our first MP elected, myself, and our first green Council

so we have a minority administration in Brighton and Hove.

You are Brighton? The London Assembly, you remember that the

mayoral candidate came third beating the Liberal Democrats into

fourth place so things are on the up. Really? There have been 12

Parliamentary by-elections in this Parliament since the coalition took

power. You stood in seven of them. How did you do? Very badly and we

do do badly in by-elections because we don't have the resources to put

into every seat that comes up. The by-elections are used to build

ready for the local elections, so often our strategy with the by-

elections is to get our message out on the doorsteps to as many people

as possible and then identify which are the good wards we can work on

to become councillors. In Norwich, we are using that strategy and we

have the Greens on Norwich city council being the official

opposition. In Lancashire and Oxford we have many, many Greens.

There was a net increase of 11 this year, but in every by-election, you

lost your deposit? I tried to explain the strategy. Losing money?

We are a small party of scarce... You only chose seven out of 12. I

understand you picked seven. Even in the ones you cherry-picked, you

lost your deposit in every single one and it's interesting because

the Liberal Democrat votes in a number of areas is crumbling,

certainly in by-elections and you would think that an element of the

Lib Dem vote would go to you, not all but an element. But no. Respect

is another party and doing better than you? Well, it's a slightly

unusual one. UKIP are always way ahead of you? UKIP is doing well,

it's a good single issue party and gets the message across effectively.

What Greens are dog is targeting resources we have which are far

fewer than UKIPs sadly. That's why when we can put our resources into

Oxford, Lancaster, we can see the results. We have an electoral

system that's hugely weighted against smaller parties. We know

that. The electoral system itself not being proportional. If you look

at the European elections, what we are expecting in 2014 is we are

going to increase by another three seats because we were a couple of

votes off in three other areas. When we have a proportional system,

the Greens do well. Over a million people voted Green at the last

European elections. I know it's a negative picture looking at by-

elections under a first-past-the- post system. European elections and

elections under a proportional system, a million people voting

Green is good. A councillor in Cambridge, you had one there, what

happened to him? People do defect. There are defections from any

political party. But why did he defect to the Labour Party? He said

he wanted to be "Part of a bigger party that has real power to make a

difference to people". There's always going to be that. There is a

serious issue there, you can try and make us look foolish. Whether

it's more fective to work in more mainstream parties, that's a

legitimate argument to be had -- more effective. That's

understandable, although not what I agree with, but the real question

is, how do you put pressure on the big parties to change and there's a

lot of evidence that when you join them, you become subsumed amidst

them, whereas if there's a party outside that that's pushing others

in a Green direction, that's effective. We have seen that. Other

parties can't afford to ignore the environment, they have to respond

more on social justice. The Greens are a small party but playing an

important role and I would love us to be bigger and I think at the

next European elections we will be. We'll see if you are still saying

that when the Tory minister joins us later in the programme. Time for

the daily quiz about twither. Everyone's at it these days --

Twitter. David Cameron, the Pope and Andrew Neil tweets all the time.

We want to know what political event of 2012 generated the most

tweets. Are you grumbling from the sidelines? Yes. According to

At the end of the show, Caroline will be pleased to know she'll give

us an answer. The big story of the day, are we

about to see another dash for gash? The go-ahead has been given to

fracking, the extraction of shale gas. It was halted after it was

believed to have caused some minor earth tremors in the north-west of

England. A moratorium was imposed but that's been lifted this very

morning. What is this fracking all about? I chose my words carefully,

Yes and said it carefully. It's a method of extracting natural gas

locked in shale rocks deep beneath the ground. Water, sand and

chemicals are pumped in under high pressure to force the gas out of

the rock. Test drilling in Blackpool was stopped last year

after there were two minor earthquakes. Today, the Government

has lifted the ban but under strict environmental conditions.

Supporters say that fracking could help bring down rising gas prices

but there are still major concerns about the technique's safety and

the environmental impact on burning gas to generate electricity.

Speak in the Commons this morning, the Energy and Climate Change

Secretary, Ed Davey, cautioned against some of the more optimistic

predictions about the potential of shale gas. I'm absolutely clear

that the most responsible and sensible way forward energy policy

is to have a diverse set of resources and sources for our

energy and I believe if you look at some of the press, they have got

very excited about the potential for gas prices falling. I have to

say, when one looks at the independent analysis, you don't see

that. That was Ed Davey. Energy consultant joins me now. He advised

the fracking industry in this country. One thing that Ed Davey

said was that we shouldn't bet our house on fracking? Well, certainly

gas is going to be a part of the gas is going to be a part of the

energy mix and will work in concert with renewables. What about

consumer bills. That's what people want to know. Will it bring down

the amount of money people have to pay for their energy? We must look

at this in a global context. Shale gas is revolutionising the shale

and energy industry worldwide. I would anticipate, of course, that

increased supply will lower prices. Unfortunately, what Caroline Lucas

and a number of other people are betting on is that gas prices will

forever rise and that is certainly not the case.

But is there evidence to actually say - you say you are confident -

but is there evidence to show that it will bring down prices

significantly for consumers? Well, if the expectations that Cuadrilla

resources have, I would anticipate that they must be. One of the big

problems of UK energy policy is that we have no idea of exactly

what the gas price is and what the other charges are. We have much

more transparency at the retail level. I think that would help

greatly. How much money is the fracking

industry going to make out of this? Well, you have to look at how much

money is the UK going to make out of it because this is the UK's

national resource. It's taxed at 62%, so while hopefully the

industry will be profitable, so will the Chancellor. And remember

there are five to six miles worth of steel pipe in each well, so

that's go ing to be looking at the chemical and seal industry and what

have you. And the Exchequer is hoping to make some money out of

this too. Some might argue that's why the Chancellor is so in favour

of it. How long will it take to get gas flowing at the sites? Hard to

say at this point. I think it will be earlier than many anticipate

because of the special geological gift that we have here in the UK.

The shale gas layer is up to 40 times those of the United States.

Thank you very much. John Hayes joins us and Caroline

Lucas is still here. If the potential of shale gas is

realised, if it actually happened, what would it mean to this country?

It could mean a great deal. It's too early to gauge the scale of it.

But look at America, the unit price has gone $12 to $3 or $ 4.

natural gas? Gas extracted, yes and other gas. That's had a big effect

on the American economy because it has an incredible effect on

competitiveness. If you can get the price of energy down, it will

affect the whole economy. We don't know yet how much of our shale can

be extracted commercially so it's hard to estimate its effect. It's

an exciting potential. We shouldn't ignore that, should we? Why should

we ignore it? Two reasons - one is there is a lot of evidence that the

price here won't be anything like the drop that you have seen in the

US, pricing will go up and people like Deutsche Bank, the

International Energy Agency and some others in John's own

department are saying that. If we go down this route, some are saying

we'll bust our climate targets that are legally binding under the

climate change Act. So give than there are other ways of getting the

energy we need and given that all of the evidence that we are looking

at suggests that prices are likely to be going up, not down, it's gas

that is leading to higher oil prices, it doesn't seem right to do

that. The price of gas won't go down, it will go up, according to

some people who comment on that, like Deutsche Bank and whatever the

price, we'll bust our CO2 emission targets? Price, as you know, is a

feature of the relation shi between supply and demand. If you increase

supply, you are likely, as your expert suggested, to have an effect

on price. Again, we can't gauge what that might be. It's certainly

true to say these things are hard to predict, Caroline's rite, but

nonetheless, shale has had that big effect that you describe in America

and could have significant impacts here. We wouldn't want to pool

their eggs in one basket though. Specifically that creates

conditions with a mixed economy of generation for exactly the same

reason that when predicting a long time ahead you want to keep a

number of doors open. What about CO2 emissions? They are on target.

If you look at the short-term targets, the 2020 targets and 2050

targets, we are on target to meet what we said we were. Do you

disagree with the Committee on Climate Change when it said it

won't be possible to meet the targets if we go down this road?

You know as well as I do that we were always going to invest heavily

in gas simply to guarantee energy security. No. We have to do that.

That is to replace existing capacity. Now, what Caroline won't

want me to say, is that it's simultaneously putting �1 billion

into carbon capture and storage which means gas can be abated and

can become a clean technology. So actually, this prejudice against

gas will be as silly as a gas against renewables. Is it your

policy that we should have no gas out all? No. But to be investing in

the major dash for gas which is being proposed by the Government is

simply irresponsible. To make the comparison with the US, we need to

be clear that the situation in the US is very different. In the US,

you have the wilds of Texas where you probably don't have lots of

planning permission issues. Like the wilds of Lancashire? A lot of

people don't want to see the number of fracking wells that will need to

be drilled. We are talking about around 2,400 wells. If you think

about the opposition we already have for onshore wind and things

like that, the opposition that there will be against that degree

of intensity of fracking wells, I would suggest, is going to be very

high indeed. The north-west of England, particularly the black

pool area, is a depressed area, and that's where the fuel that was with

the moratorium was will now start again to investigate how much is

there and whether it can be taken out in commercial quantities. Do

you envisage, if there was to work, I emphasise "If" this was to work,

will there be an economic revolution in the north-west?

infrastructure already in Britain provides thousands, hundreds of

thousands of jobs. So energy is important to the economic purposes

of creating growth and skills and jobs. We know the country is

weighted to the south, would this make a difference in economic terms,

would the economic balance shift to It could be very good news for the

North West. But the community have to accept that it is safe and

secure. That is why you put the regulations and protection measures

in place. The MP for that area has been a great advocate of it.

certainly need more jobs, but if you look at it per unit of energy

created, there are far fewer jobs in it. That is preposterous.

Docking about price, the Committee on Climate Change, which John is

anxious to avoid addressing today, have put out a new report saying

that if we go down the gas rich, we will put �600 on tig fuel bills by

2030, whereas with a low-carbon rich, it is more likely to be �100.

I will certainly deal with that. Let me nail the issue on jobs first.

The oil and gas sector is estimated to support 350,000 jobs. A per unit

of energy? Real jobs, real skills. Don't deliberately misunderstand me.

I am saying the that of course right now, there are more people

employed in oil and gas than in renewables. That is because of more

investment over many years. But if you look at the potential for job

creation around fossil fuels versus renewables, it is more labour-

intensive to invest in renewables, more people are needed for

renewables than fossil fuels. Creating jobs matters. There are

many more to be created in renewables. Have figures from

across the industry. A generous estimate of renewables would be a

small proportion. But it is important, and we want to encourage

those green jobs. But I am balanced about this. You are unbalanced.

balance sounds like such a friendly word. But it means you are giving

completely mixed messages to investors. That is why even the CBI

has criticised your energy policy, saying it is not giving a clear

signal to investors who want to invest in green energy. At the

moment, we have a number of gas- fired stations and we are building

more. These gas fired stations use imported gas, many from the Middle

East, not Russia, as many think. And also Norway. Is it your aim

that shale gas would replace that imported gas? It is hard to say how

much shale gas would replace it, because we don't know the scale of

production. But yes, domestically produced gas could play an

important part in driving costs down. At the moment, we still get a

lot of gas from the North Sea, which still has many decades to go

in terms of oil and gas. But we import gas as well. If Caroline is

keen on gas, as she has now said she is, relatively, would she

prefer to import that gas from abroad or to produce it locally?

You have the final word on this. you know, we are part of the

European gas market, so the idea that if we create gas in the UK, we

use it in the UK, that is misguided. The US can do that. But we are part

of a European gas market and there is no guarantee that the gas we

create in the UK would be used in the UK. The gas created in

Lancashire could go to Europe? Absolutely. How would that happen?

There are no pipes into Blackpool. You could use the gas we are

generating to go to other places. How would it get there? There are

pipes. No wonder the Green Party are losing votes. If we create the

gas here, there is no guarantee that it will stay here. It the

people off Blackpool will not let anybody take their gas. They like

their gas. We are sticking with energy now.

This is an important show, and what an important subject. We have to be

nice to him now! Imagine a world where green campaigners embrace

nuclear power, have their doubts about organic farming and think GM

crops might not be that bad. Sounds like Caroline Lucas' worst

nightmare, but they are out there. Their detractors call them neo-

greens, but they believe their ideas could finally moved their

party into the mainstream. But are they an internal irritation, or a

sign of things to come for the green movement?

We are here to stop this vessel delivering coal. The Greens. They

have gone from radical protest movement to established political

party with a presence inside and sometimes sympathisers outside the

House of Commons. We all think we know what green campaigners believe

in. They hate nuclear power, love wind farms and if it is not organic,

they will not eat it. But it turns out there is a new breed of

activists in town, and their ideas go against the grain. Chris Goodall

was the Green Party candidate for Oxford West at the last general

election, but for many of his colleagues, to say he thinks the

unthinkable is putting it mildly. We need to look at nuclear power.

There is a strong case for using nuclear to get rapid

decarbonisation. Then we need to look at GM foods. I am not

convinced, but we will run short of food in the next 30 years as the

population explodes. We also need to look at assumptions about

agriculture. Should we push for organic agriculture, or will that

make it more difficult to feed people? Then there are things about

whether we should use more plastics, because plastics have a low

environmental footprint and can be recycled. We need to look at

everything that has held the Green Party together. So within the party

call people like Chris neo- greens, and it is not meant as a compliment.

A few of the founding fathers of and the movement think that at best,

they are tilting at windmills. There are people who have looked at

the accelerating climate change story, are understandably scared by

it, and have almost persuaded themselves that it is that bad that

any port in a storm will do, even if it is a nuclear port at. So out

of desperation, they throw their lot in with the nuclear industry.

But even a second glance would remind them of how foolish that is.

At worst, it could be a danger to the movement and themselves. One of

my concerns has been the degree to which some of these spokespeople

for a new wave green ideas have been seized on by their respective

industries and made ruthless use of. I am sorry to say they are in for a

rough ride when it comes to their views being used and abused by the

nuclear industry. But greens like Chris said they are addressing a

problem so profound that it is stopping the party from growing up.

But effective, the Green movement must move into the centre of

British politics. At the moment, it is almost a cult on the edge of the

extreme left. That has to change. The green movement must push the

Green Party into the mainstream of British politics if it is to have

any effect on the way things happen in this country. In turn will

descend is hardly a new thing for political parties of any size. The

question for greens is whether the attack from within will prove to be

just growing pains, or something much more profound.

The energy minister John Hayes is still here, as is the Green MP

Caroline Lucas. Caroline, do you agree with Chris Goodall that the

Green Party at least needs to look at nuclear-power? I'll come not

ruling out nuclear power in some ideological way to say that if that

were the only way of dealing with climate change, we should not look

at it. But right now, there are more cheap, effective and efficient

ways of getting the likes to be kept on and they are safer, so why

go down the nuclear rude? Nuclear is a distraction. Over the next 15

years, we should invest in renewables, as they have done in

Germany. 25% of their electricity comes from renewables. We need to

invest in energy efficiency. That is what will keep the lights on.

People do not take into account that to get an nuclear power online

would take another 50 years minimum, and it is far more expensive as

well as all of the safety issues. It is a distraction and will take

years to come online? Well, nuclear energy has contributed up to 30% of

our needs. As high as that? A up to 30%. Last year, just under 20%. So

nuclear power is already providing energy needs. We know it is

reliable. It has a long pedigree in this country. We know there are

people interested in investing in it. But it has been difficult

without a subsidy to get people to commit. We have committed to build

new nuclear energy without subsidy. That is not true. Up it is true.

The previous Secretary of State for Energy agreed that there would be

new nuclear energy without... subsidy is when the Government

gives support. The Government does give support to renewables. But you

said you would do nuclear without that. The coalition agreement says

without a subsidy, and you are redefining it. I am not. No support

will be available to nuclear that was not available to other

technologies. Nuclear has the capacity to provide security, jobs

and skills. Caroline says she is not against it ideologically. Then

in what way is she against it? Because it will cost us more and be

much less safe and take us much longer. If you said to me that we

were against the wall on climate change and are run the choice was

climate change or nuclear, of course I would not be up against it

in a fundamentalist way. But it is unsafe and unnecessary. But Chris

Goodall himself says we need to look at it, a member of the Green

Party. Congratulations on finding the one person in the Green Party

that would hold that view. I don't think he has got a point and he

certainly does not represent more than himself in the Green Party in

saying that. The Green Party websites as a deadline for phasing

out nuclear power would be said when we came to office and all

nuclear power plants would be phased out within the state. That

is exactly the position I am taking, which is contrary to the position

Chris Goodall is taking. The EU are saying it will be phased out. I am

against nuclear unless somebody says to me that the only way we can

meet our climate change targets is nuclear. But don't you understand

that to a balanced energy mix, renewables, gas, nuclear, which can

meet those targets and keep the lights on? And it will cost more.

Don't you care about those with energy bills which are already high,

and you will make them higher by going down the nuclear route? At a

Methodist cheaper, safer and more efficient, why would you not do

that? Nuclear must be delivered affordably. The energy bill is

designed to give a long-term price certainty. We will negotiate a

price on nuclear that is in the taxpayer's interest. The big doubt

comes in with the energy gap. Can you fill the energy gap with

renewables? If you combine it with a big investment in energy

efficiency, yes, you can. The 25%? At in Germany, they have 25% of

energy coming from renewables because they have a very different

energy policy, one which includes smaller scale generators, not just

six big energy companies that have the whole case sewn up. We heard in

the House this morning from one of our colleagues, a former energy

minister, that Germany are building coal power stations now. Why are

they allowed to do that? They will burn coal that is even dirtier than

ours. How can they do that, but the EU tells us we have to close hour

coal-fired stations? You must not inside me to speak about the

European Union and say something I regret. But you are right that we

need to ensure there is consistency across the European Union. I spoke

to the commissioner last night on the subject of carbon captor and

storage, and emphasised that we need consistency across Europe.

you don't know why the Germans can open new coal-fired stations and we

are being forced to close arts? are, we are all kinds of stories. I

would be happy to find out. As a result of the question today, I

have asked my officials to look at exactly that. I am happy to come

back on your show and tell you. before you go, have we got enough

onshore wind farms? I think onshore wind is a matter of community

interest and community benefit. Where people want them, they should

have them. The Secretary of State says the Government is clear that

meeting our energy goals is no excuse for building wind farms in

the wrong places. Local people and their councils should not feel

Nuclear has been generating 14% of our electricity, gas 37%, coal 45%,

wind 1.6%. Hydro1.2%. The French connector giving us nothing and the

Irish connector nothing but Dutch 0.2%. For those watching us in

Holland, we thank you for the 101 megawatts you are sending us now.

The European Central Bank has won new powers to supervise 200 of the

biggest European banks directly and the right to intervene in present

ones doesn't come in until 2014. One of the Finance Ministers

stepped from the negotiating chamber. This on a day when the

Prime Minister heads back to Brussels for a two-day summit with

all the European heads of Government and the question for

David Cameron is whether this represents another step towards a

more centralised Europe which many in his own party do not want to be

part of. Our Europe editor is Gavin Hewitt. Welcome to the programme.

We hear the Finance Ministers were up all night and that they have

agreed this deal. How significant is it?

Jo, I think it is significant. It's something they've been talking

about for at least six months and what does it represent? It

represents a large transfer away from national authority towards a

European institution and in the future, as you have said, the

European Central Bank will supervise some of those largest,

150-200 banks, but will also have sweeper powers to be able to

intervene if they sense that a smaller bank is getting into

trouble. What all this is aimed at is trying to break that link

between banks that get into trouble, then off-loading the problem on to

Governments which, of course, that only pushes up their debt. So it's

trying to break that loop. The other thing it's trying to do, and

I think this is important, once the supervise ore, this banking

supervisor is in place, countries will be able to access the

eurozone's main bail out fund and use money from that to directly

recapitalise banks. That is seen as particularly important for

countries like Spain. And further acknowledgement and a signal of a

two-speed, two-tier Europe? Well, it is and it isn't. Certainly in

terms of the direction of travel, what we have seen in the last few

hours and what we will again see in the summit will be a blueprint for

further integration, further integration particularly for

eurozone countries and a building towards what they call a genuine

economic and monetary union. Now, in terms of Britain, David Cameron,

we know, some time in the New Year, is going to sketch out his vision

and it seems it's likely to be moving in a very different

direction. What was interesting hear was that Britain pushed to

ensure that its voice would not be diminished in this banking area.

George Osborne says he was quite successful and actually lining up

with him were not only countries like Sweden and the Netherlands,

but Germany was sympathetic too. Certainly, I detected over recent

weeks that there is a real awareness here in Europe that they

need to reach out to Britain because of the political pressures

in the UK. So two-speed Europe definitely there is a two-speed

Europe but there is an awareness on behalf of other countries that they

don't want to make that bigger than it already is.

We now welcome viewers from Scotland who've been watching the

First Ministers questions. We have not seen it but I'm sure it's

lively. We are discussing European banking regulation. Thought that

would get your attention! No, don't go and make a cup of tea, it's

really interesting, because we've got Labour's Shadow Europe Minister

emMo Reynolds and Mark Field, welcome to your both. The Europeans

are heading towards a eurozone banking regulator, a very powerful

body, as we heard, huge powers to intervene in European banking, but

it won't cover the biggest centre of finance in Europe which is

called London? What could possible go wrong? Well, I think this is an

important development and we have important safeguards that have been

negotiated by the Government for the City of London's decision. I

think it's a very important template that is being set for what

is going to be a two-speed Europe that you have eurozone members

voting for a civil majority -- simple majority. It will be

interesting. We have to be careful what we wish for in the City of

London. There is a concern that if you have an all-powerful eurozone

with its powerful institutions, pairing off a few of the weaker

members, that will become an issue for the City of London and we have

to be aware of that. I think George Osborne's negotiated well with

these arrangements today. Surely as this new regulator finds its feet

it's bound at some stage to imping on the City of London, that's

inevitable? It's going to affect the way London operates? There

certainly is a concern that if decisions that are taken by the

eurozone, if they have to be approved by a majority of those

member states not in the banking union that there will be a

spillover effect from the regulations that affect it. It will

be regulated by the European banking regulator? Yes and the City

provides more banking than any of the other member states put

together so the City is an incredibly important financial

place. Not only for, as you say, British banks, but European banks.

Hopefully other European leaders have appreciated that the city's

not only a strength for the UK but the euro. Given that, as I

understand it, both the major parties, even the Liberal Democrats

now, you don't think we should be part of the eurozone or part of the

regulatory structures, we have no choice now but to be on the

sidelines. Is that Labour's policy? Look, the vast majority of policy

areas, as Caroline will know well, having spent years in the European

Parliament, are still going to be at 27. Yes, when it comes to the

Single Currency, and when it comes to some forms of economic

integration, it will be at the 17, but for the vast majority of other

policy areas it will be still decisions taken at full EU members.

But on the eurozone - I mean today the summit was on to eurozone

fiscal integration - that means the coordination of national budget

decisions and of economic policy, the Germans and French pushing for

varieties of this, a version of it will happen again. Inevitably, we

are bound, or a version of the 17 are bound to get closer together,

become a clear two-speed Europe which will be inevitable? As far as

the financial services are concerned, it's important to

remember that we are not just a European Centre, we are like a

global Centre for The rest of the world. We have a huge amount of

business coming in from all parts of the glob, not just from Europe -

- globe. Yes, what is important is that we are on the negotiating

table. It's a very crucial part of it that we need to be there to make

our case. I think as far as banking in England is concerned within the

eurozone, yes, there would be concern in the longer term if there

was pledgeling Vietnamese or Chinese bank took the view we have

this powerful eurozone area, of course we have a representative in

the City of London, but maybe the operation should be out in

Frankfurt or Paris or somewhere like that. We need to be careful.

The strength we have in the UK is that we are a safe haven because we

are outside the Single Currency, we have the benefit of low interest

rates. Lowest rates in Europe? most countries. I think the real

issue would be there's still a lot of road for this can to be kicked

down, but it would be a time for the City of London. To you agree

with Boris Johnson that there should be a full-scale

renegotiation of our relationship with Europe? I've always believed

that I don't think there's any option of having a full-scale

renegotiating. It's dangerous. We have the status quo with bells and

whistles and George Osborne's made sure we are safe in our position

outside the European zone. I don't think fundamental renegotiation or

pe rateration of powers, despite what some of my colleagues on the

Conservative benches say is an option. You don't think the other

European countries would in effect agree to us remaining a member of

the club without a lot of the responsibilities that go with

membership? I think that's right. There has been a lot of unease. On

the one hand we are proud of not being there. That's given us more

options in the global economic Crisis over the last four years.

It's all very well for Britain to say they are not in the eurozone

but they are a roadblock in the other areas in the sense that we

all need to be in the club. Would the Greens have, as part of the

inner core? We have never been in favour of the Single Currency, so

to that extent we have always said trying to impose one set of

interest rates on different economies and histories and so

forth was going to be bound to fail and it's always been against the

Single Currency. What we need to do is have a real debate about the EU.

I'm worried about the way in which those who're taking Euro-sceptic

positions have the high ground at the moment in terms of they are the

ones leading the debate. For those who believe the EU needs to be

reformed - and it certainly does - but we are better off with the

environmental standards, but those in favour need to make the case

stronger. The way it's constituted at the moment, where is Labour now

on a referendum, you were playing footsie with it ce lintly but have

you gone off the idea? -- recently. Ed Miliband made it clear that he

thinks the referendum now would put at risk what is already a very

economic different time. Is not now. What about in the future? It

depends about the debate we are having today about how the eurozone

integrates. We shouldn't underestimate the difficulties that

eurozone member states will have in agreeing something with political

union, whatever people mean by political union... Orificical

union? Yes, I think there are great difficulties along the way and it

will tame some time. You have ruled out a referendum for now then. What

would change that could bring a referendum back? If there were a

fundamental change in our relationship with the EU... Such

as? We have said in the past for example, if we had advocating going

into the euro, which we didn't, that would be a fundamental

constitutional change. Sure. That's not going to happen? No, but for

example - no, we are not, just to clarify, we are certainly not.

interestings, we must leave it there.

We'll chat about the consequences of what you said. I thought there

was a story there. He's right and Damian Green's right. It's my job

to reck naiz a story when I see one! -- recognise. The Church of

England has been having a time of it lately. The census suggested the

number of people saying they are Christian has plummeted over the

last decade. There is a row over gay marriage and the church has

been tying itself in Notts over whether or not to allow women to

become bishops -- knots. Ben Bradshaw led the debate about the

issue of women become bishops. So, in announcing on the eve of the

debate that they will have another go in July, the bishops really do

need to be sure they will win. The process must be concluded quickly

in months and not years and if they aren't sure they can deliver, they

should ask Parliament for help. Many of us will have been contacted

by priests and lay members of the church since the Synod vote

appealing to Parliament to act. A priest from Lancaster wrote to me

saying "Please, please, please help." Does he not agree with me

that it's vital that the trajectory and progress should be considered

given that women bishops are already part of the Anglican

community including in can za, the US and Australia and New Zealand? -

- Canada? The message that should come from the House is that we are

concerned, we want to nudge the church in the right direction and

we hope it moves in that direction, but we should not completely rule

out taking the matter in our our own hands. There's nothing in my

New Testament that says you will have churches and deacons, bishops

and priests and they'll all be men. I may have missed something, but I

have at one stage or the other read the New Testament and there's

nothing there that says that. House of bishops expressed it

continuing commitment to enabling women to be consecrated as bishops

and I'm glad to say, it intends to have fresh proposals to put before

General Synod at its next meeting in July. This is not an issue that

can be part - this is not an issue that can just be adjourned

generally for some other time in the future - it has got to be

worked at until a solution is found. We've got Tony Baldry, the church

representative in the House of Commons here with us now. He's come

straight from a meeting with the designate Archbishop. What did you

say to him? It's more about what he said to us. It was a packed meeting

in the House of Lords. He said he's determined that legislation for

women bishops will be moved forward as speedily as possible, it's got

to happen and it's got to happen as quickly as it can. Bearing in mind

all what's happened, it's been a mess. He admitted that? We all

acknowledge that. It's got to be sorted. When he says speedily,

where are we looking at? 2015 What sort of guarantee is there

that the outcome will be any different? Were can only continue

to work at it. Everyone recognises that this has been a disaster for

the Church of England. Today, up and down the country, clergy will

be out of burying the dead, looking after the bereaved, helping people

prepare for marriage, opening food banks. That is the mission of the

Church, and it has been really distracted by this debate on women

bishops. Until it is resolved, we can't get on with the important

work, so it has to be sorted out. So there would be a vote on the

issue of women bishops next June lie? That would be the start of the

process -- next July. But if we can all get agreement on that, we can

move things forward reasonably quickly. There are procedures

within the Church, but within those Scopes, everything will move as

fast as it can. What do you think the initial rejection of women

bishops did in terms of the image of the Church of England in the

eyes of the public? I think it was hugely damaging. It looked as if

the Church was out of touch with where most it are. And the majority

of people in the Church did want to go down this road, so everyone got

bemused by the different voting systems within the Church haricot

which meant that despite the fact that dig, a majority were in favour

of changing, that change did not happen. That system has done the

Church no favours. The Church of England is currently exempt from

equality laws. If it is ever to reflect the nation, shouldn't this

exemption be removed? We have no exemptions that other faith groups

do not have. We are treated the same as every other faiths. But you

don't think that should be removed across the board? A once you have

women priests, everyone acknowledges that we need not have

women bishops. Women clergy have done fantastic work up and down the

country. The Church of England could not function without women in

the clergy. The sooner we have women bishops, the better. This has

been an extraordinarily frustrating period of time, but we will get

there. And in Justin Welby, the Church of England is fortunate in

having a very clear new leader. it is not the only issue

destabilising the Church of England. There is also the issue of gay

marriage. Did you agree with the idea of making it illegal for gay

couples to...? De Church of England is not destabilised by gay marriage.

Nor is the Church of England asking for privileges in relation to this.

The fact is that canon law, the laws which apply to the Church of

England, are also the laws of England. So whatever is in the Bill

has to comply with canon law. The judge in England simply says, as

far as we are concerned, marriage has always been an institution of

complementarity between man and woman. We believe in long term

covenanted relationships between same-sex people, but that is not

the same as marriage. But a lot of people were under the impression

that the legislation would allow gay couples to get married in the

Church of England. Were you one of them? Yes, I was, and there are

some in the Church of England who would be happy to do it. So there

is a distinction between saying much it should be forced to

undertake these marriages against their will, and going to this

extreme on the other hand, which is an outright prohibition on doing it.

That's is the same position as we have had on civil partnerships for

a long time. The law in relation of two civil partnerships is bad faith

groups as a whole either opt in or opt out of holding civil

partnerships. A do you agree that the impression given was different?

A bit of that is because this is important legislation which has

been taken at an unnecessary crack of a pace, bearing in mind that the

Bill will be carried over into the next session. To get to the

position where we are having urgent questions before a statement led to

a bit of confusion. Perhaps if we could take this in a more measured

way, we will all get there. No one wants to be disruptive, we just

want to make sure whatever legislation comes forward works and

respects people's religious and civil freedoms. We had the census

figures out this week, showing that the number of Christians has fallen

in England and Wales. What is your reaction to that? What is happening

to society? Perhaps people are less happy to fit themselves into boxes.

If you asked a question about whether people felt some kind of

spiritual awareness and detachment and whether they found those

elements of their lives important, they would say yes. They do not

want to dig a box which means you have to sign up to every part of

the faith in question. Things are changing. People feel more open to

saying that actually, they did agree with everything in every

religion. So I am not surprised by it, but we should not then conclude

that we are a nation of Cordless people. -- godless people. I agree

with that. Faith groups will be judged by the support they give to

those in need and distress. The census showed that there are

now more miners in Kensington and Chelsea fan in Gateshead.

For why would they ask that question?! The Jedi Knight seemed

to be growing. There are no miners in Gateshead. It is because there

is a school of mining in Kensington, and they regard themselves as

miners. The use and possession of most

narcotics has been criminal since the Misuse of Drugs Act became law

in 1971. Since then, the arguments about whether prohibition is

effective and whether it does more harm than good have raged. This

week, the Home Affairs Select Committee wade into the argument,

publishing a report calling for a review of all UK drugs policy by a

royal commission to report by 2015. The MPs also recommended looking at

the Portuguese unpenalised system, where possession of small

quantities of drugs for personal use, although still illegal, is not

prosecuted. They also urged the Government to look at the

decriminalisation of marijuana or in parts of the United States and

the proposed state monopoly on cannabis in Uruguay. Caroline Lucas

is still with us. She wrote to the Guardian this week, calling for the

need to move away from a system that bans the personal use of drugs

towards what she calls an evidence- based public health approach. We

are also joined by Melanie Phillips, a columnist for the Daily Mail. The

committee is not recommending that people take drugs. It is not

recommending legalisation or even the decriminalisation. It is

recommending a royal commission. What is wrong with that. Firstly,

it is a strange thing that a committee has been taking evidence

for about a year that produces a weighty report, and the purpose of

the report is to say we need a commission. The purpose of the

Royal Commission is to put legalisation on the agenda. The

committee has carefully not said it wants to legalise or liberalise

drugs, but the logic of this is inescapable. It wants to put

legalisation on the agenda. It is an amazing thing that the Home

Affairs Select Committee seems to be in thrall to the legalisation

lobby. And it has been for some time. Not every member of the

committee is in that camp, but this report has been heavily influenced

by the legalisation lobby and by people such as Richard Branson.

you think it is a ruse. Would it be fair to describe you as part of the

legalisation lobby? But it is important to make the distinction

between legalisation and decriminalisation. When you talk

about legalisation, nobody wants to see people pushing drugs outside

school gates. We want to see the reduction of harm associated with

drugs. There is an interesting example from Portugal and elsewhere

around decriminalisation. I support the idea of the commission. It is

not some kind of Trojan horse. The evidence in this case is difficult

to assess. A committee of MPs is not necessarily the best body to

look at that evidence. You think that people carrying small

quantities of cannabis for their own use of should not be arrested,

that that should be OK? That is my position. What about other drugs?

That is why I want a commission. It is clearer with cannabis, but at

the same time, you need regulation alongside that. With cannabis, the

trouble is that people do not know what they are taking. The skunk on

the streets is damaging in some cases. If you regulate the market,

you can make sure that what people are having is a poorer -- pure form

of it so that it does not do the damage skunk does and you would not

waste police time. To let me deal with the Portuguese red herring.

The Portuguese statistics have been grossly misrepresented by the

legalisation lobby. Since Portugal decriminalised drug use in 2001,

drug use has gone up. Drug-related crime has gone up. We where are

your figures from? For from the Portuguese addiction agency. These

are official statistics. On cannabis, I find it astonishing

that the Home Affairs Select Committee recommended, on the

casting vote of the chairman, Keith Vaz, that cannabis should be

recalibrated down again from category B to category C. It was

reclassified up from C de B on the advice of experts including the

director of mental health, that the harm done to young people,

particularly due to psychosis from cannabis, is overwhelming. What

Melanie has just said points to the importance of having some kind of

commission that will look at this. For every bit of evidence that

Melanie will cite Thatcher will show you that the Portuguese

experiment has led to certain outcomes, there are other bits of

evidence I can cite that would 0.2 other results. That is why we need

a commission to evaluate this. couldn't the committee do it?

Because there is a wealth of evidence from many different

countries in a lot of detail and a lot of scientific reports. A

committee that meets once a week could not do that. A Royal

Commission would be better placed to do that. It needs to be based on

evidence, and our current policy is not. The evidence on cannabis is

overwhelming. If you legalise or decriminalise, more young people

will have more harm to their brains. The reason why the select committee

did not consider this was because they took so much evidence from the

legalisation lobby. Just time before we go to get the

answer to our quiz. Caroline, what was the most tweeted about

political event from 2012? I have been thinking about it. I would go

for either Osborne or Nick Clegg, probably Nick Clegg. You are wrong.

It was this. "political event". That was not a political event! It

was just an event! Anyway, that is it. The One O'clock News is

starting on BBC One. I will be back on BBC One tonight after Question