:00:41. > :00:44.Good afternoon and welcome to the Daily Politics. Cash for councils
:00:45. > :00:48.who give the go-ahead for fracking. But will it be enough to persuade
:00:49. > :00:52.communities to drop their opposition to drilling? They were accused of
:00:53. > :00:56.killing the high Street, but are these giants themselves now
:00:57. > :01:02.threatened by the online shopping revolution?
:01:03. > :01:06.Poverty porn or a timely expose of Britain's benefit culture? We get
:01:07. > :01:11.the verdict on Channel -- Channel 4's controversial series. The eyes
:01:12. > :01:13.and ears of ministers. We will get the insider's view at the bottom
:01:14. > :01:24.rung of the ministerial ladder. All that in the next hour. With us
:01:25. > :01:29.for the first half of the programme is Baroness Lucy Neville Rolfe,
:01:30. > :01:34.Conservative peer, former executive director of Tesco and a former civil
:01:35. > :01:37.servant. Welcome. Let's start with Europe, because yesterday it was
:01:38. > :01:40.revealed that almost 100 Conservative MPs have written to the
:01:41. > :01:46.Prime Minister asking for Parliament to be given the power to veto new EU
:01:47. > :01:49.laws. But that call has been rejected by the Foreign Secretary,
:01:50. > :01:56.William Hague, as unrealistic. Do you agree? I think I do. I was
:01:57. > :02:03.surprised when I saw the paper yesterday. People feel strongly
:02:04. > :02:07.about Europe and its bureaucracy. But they came out and said, we need
:02:08. > :02:12.to be able to veto things after they have been decided. If you think
:02:13. > :02:15.about the single market, to my mind the greatest achievement of the EU
:02:16. > :02:20.since we have been in there, you couldn't run an EU single market if
:02:21. > :02:24.you came along afterwards and change the arrangements that had been
:02:25. > :02:32.agreed. So is this about something else? Isn't this posturing by
:02:33. > :02:40.Eurosceptic MPs? There is concern about Europe. If the Tories get a
:02:41. > :02:46.victory at the election, we will have a referendum. I would vote in
:02:47. > :02:49.favour. I believe you can reform the European Union from inside. I think
:02:50. > :02:52.the renegotiation will be important. Remember, in the 1980s we
:02:53. > :02:59.had a problem with the budget rebate. Recently the budget
:03:00. > :03:02.settlement was good. We have got problem with benefit tourism. If you
:03:03. > :03:09.have got allies, you can get changes. Equally, it is right that
:03:10. > :03:18.people should get a chance to vote. But is this something different? Is
:03:19. > :03:23.it not about reform but a group of MPs who want to put more pressure on
:03:24. > :03:27.David Cameron to actually pull out, eventually? They want to get their
:03:28. > :03:32.voices heard and they want the negotiation to be real. The scrutiny
:03:33. > :03:36.committee have said they have seen the passage of legislation, year in,
:03:37. > :03:38.year out, and have got frustrated. What I think is interesting in
:03:39. > :03:45.Europe at the moment, although things will change in May after the
:03:46. > :03:49.election, people are questioning more exactly what Europe is doing.
:03:50. > :03:53.They are saying, let's get together and do things better. Modern life is
:03:54. > :03:58.more about getting together and doing things better. Some of that is
:03:59. > :04:05.coming into the Europe debate. Is it a problem, though, for party unity?
:04:06. > :04:08.As far as the Conservative party is concerned, we are together in
:04:09. > :04:11.wanting this referendum so that people can get another look. During
:04:12. > :04:17.the referendum campaign, the people who care about having a single
:04:18. > :04:22.market and care about the rights of the EU, will talk more than they are
:04:23. > :04:26.at the moment, not just the people who are highly sceptical. It is
:04:27. > :04:31.right that we should have a choice. That is what they are saying. There
:04:32. > :04:35.will be some in the group who have a higher level of scepticism. Can the
:04:36. > :04:39.Prime Minister withstand another attack from the right, another
:04:40. > :04:46.assault from his Euro sceptic flank when he clearly has now his colours
:04:47. > :04:50.to the mast? The Prime Minister has nailed his colours to the mast and
:04:51. > :04:57.is showing leadership and showing it in a way that others haven't done.
:04:58. > :05:00.It is fine to have people within the party who are saying something
:05:01. > :05:03.different, because that can contribute to the richness of debate
:05:04. > :05:09.and make sure that in the renegotiation process we are looking
:05:10. > :05:14.at important issues. From a business point of view, the single market has
:05:15. > :05:18.been beneficial. I am involved in Europe are bit because I have the
:05:19. > :05:22.retail Association in Europe. I can see the advantages it brings to
:05:23. > :05:28.consumers across the EU. It would be very different if you came out of
:05:29. > :05:34.the EU. It would raise a lot of questions. We will leave it there.
:05:35. > :05:40.Could local authorities up and down the country be in line for a cash
:05:41. > :05:45.bonanza? David Cameron has announced councils will be able to keep all of
:05:46. > :05:48.the business rates from the proceeds of shale gas exploration, or
:05:49. > :05:54.fracking. Normally, councils keep only 50% of business rates. The
:05:55. > :05:59.Prime Minister claims this could mean councils making up to ?1.7
:06:00. > :06:03.million extra per year from each fracking site. Last year, government
:06:04. > :06:08.commissioned report found that more than half of the UK could be
:06:09. > :06:13.suitable for shale gas extraction. But the practice is controversial.
:06:14. > :06:17.It requires vast amounts of water. It has to be transported to and from
:06:18. > :06:21.the site, and critics believe some of the chemicals used in the process
:06:22. > :06:25.could contaminate the area. What's more, there are concerns the process
:06:26. > :06:30.causes small earth tremors. Environmentalists worry that it will
:06:31. > :06:35.reduce investment in ritual energy. But with the government believing it
:06:36. > :06:39.could inject billions into the UK economy and lower bills, it is
:06:40. > :06:44.likely to be seen as too good an opportunity to miss. Let's talk to
:06:45. > :06:49.our correspondent, Danny Savage, in Salford, where they have been
:06:50. > :06:51.campaigning against fracking. I any of the protesters convinced by what
:06:52. > :06:56.some people are calling on government to bribe, letting
:06:57. > :07:01.councils keep the money from the business rate? Now, they think this
:07:02. > :07:06.is a diversion. They are not swayed by the argument at all. Then you
:07:07. > :07:10.wouldn't expect them to be. These are the die-hard environmentalists,
:07:11. > :07:13.the local people who are objecting strongly to any fracking happening
:07:14. > :07:20.in this part of the country. This morning was a prime example here.
:07:21. > :07:25.There is a camp protesters here. When a couple of big lorries turned
:07:26. > :07:28.up to try to get into the site, if you protesters climbed up on the
:07:29. > :07:31.lorries. It means that police had to get ladders and scaffolding to get
:07:32. > :07:41.them down. The main dual carriageway was closed, causing chaos. When
:07:42. > :07:46.eventually they got them moving, the protesters walked in front of them
:07:47. > :07:56.as slow as they do there, really a snails pace, to the bottom of the
:07:57. > :08:00.lane, fracking site is. -- where the fracking site is. This is a daily
:08:01. > :08:04.ritual here. I was speaking to somebody from the Green party. He
:08:05. > :08:08.doesn't believe the government incentive offered today will make
:08:09. > :08:12.any difference. He called it a bribe as well. Even a Conservative MP
:08:13. > :08:17.today from up in Lancashire, where there are other fracking site, has
:08:18. > :08:21.described the offer from David Cameron as crumbs from the table.
:08:22. > :08:24.The figure bandied about by other local authorities today is that
:08:25. > :08:28.there should be something like a 10% cut of profits from fracking to make
:08:29. > :08:37.a difference to the local communities. Thank you. With us now
:08:38. > :08:42.from Glasgow is Labour's Energy Spokesman, Tom Greatrex, and in the
:08:43. > :08:47.studio I enjoyed by Jane Thomas from Friends of the Earth. Tom Greatrex,
:08:48. > :08:51.is there any difference between you and the government on this? You back
:08:52. > :08:57.the idea of fracking and you would like it to go ahead in the site
:08:58. > :09:02.identified. We haven't got him. We will comeback in a moment. Let's to
:09:03. > :09:07.Jane. The money is what is talking here. I don't mean the money of the
:09:08. > :09:13.two councils but the money that can actually be used to reduce energy
:09:14. > :09:19.bills. That is what might convince people. That is actually an
:09:20. > :09:26.interesting point. Ed Davey has admitted that it will not
:09:27. > :09:31.necessarily bring down energy bills. In that sense, it is a nonstarter.
:09:32. > :09:35.Plus, we also now, and this has been acknowledged by the industry, we
:09:36. > :09:42.know that fracking in any degree will not start until 2021. We need
:09:43. > :09:46.to be moving to renewable energy now. We are facing a crisis now,
:09:47. > :09:50.even if there is a delay. Fracking will be necessary to bridge the gap
:09:51. > :09:55.between the energy we need and we are going to be losing over the next
:09:56. > :10:01.few years. The best way to address our energy needs is to have
:10:02. > :10:05.energy-saving efficiency measures in place. The government could do far
:10:06. > :10:09.more. It has been tested and proven by many academics that energy
:10:10. > :10:13.efficiency measures other thing that can really make a difference in the
:10:14. > :10:18.next few years. We do have to move much more quickly to renewable
:10:19. > :10:25.energy. The problem with fracking is it is a diversionary issue anyway.
:10:26. > :10:35.What percentage of energy comes from renewables? At the moment, around
:10:36. > :10:38.12%. I have got 9.4%. It is interesting. We start from a base
:10:39. > :10:44.point of just a few years ago, where it was 3%. In terms of growth, it is
:10:45. > :10:48.the nominal. The problem is the government hasn't invested in
:10:49. > :10:54.removable. There has been a real decline, especially in offshore. The
:10:55. > :10:59.government could lead here. Let's go to Tom Greatrex, who I believe can
:11:00. > :11:02.hear us now. The support fracking in sites that have been identified for
:11:03. > :11:06.the reasons set out by the government. It will help the energy
:11:07. > :11:13.crisis many people think we are facing. That is right, isn't it? We
:11:14. > :11:22.support the potential of shale gas as a way of displacing imported
:11:23. > :11:25.gas. We use a lot of gas. 80% of UK uses gas for heating. We are going
:11:26. > :11:29.to continue to need a significant amount of gas. In the last ten years
:11:30. > :11:35.we have moved from using more of our own gas from the North Sea to
:11:36. > :11:40.importing it. It is a big change. It is not about the silver bullet
:11:41. > :11:46.answer, which it is sometimes portrayed as. In reality, you would
:11:47. > :11:50.be backing the same policy. You are not against these sites being used
:11:51. > :11:57.for exploration. That is right, isn't it? We shouldn't rule out an
:11:58. > :12:03.indigenous source of gas. What is the difference? What would actually
:12:04. > :12:05.change? If you were in power, these sites that have been identified
:12:06. > :12:11.identified, would now be two councils for them to -- the sites
:12:12. > :12:20.that have been identified would now be put to councils. We set out,
:12:21. > :12:24.nearly two years ago, six conditions for what we thought needed to be
:12:25. > :12:33.done to ensure regular shoe is robust. There is also an issue among
:12:34. > :12:38.motoring. -- monitoring. That is important because, although as
:12:39. > :12:42.people have reflected today, this isn't a new technology, it is a
:12:43. > :12:47.different application of it. It is also something that has quite
:12:48. > :12:50.rightly produced concerns. There is a public acceptability test. The
:12:51. > :12:59.other thing that is significant, and this is where I get frustrated by
:13:00. > :13:03.this debate, is the idea that shale gas is immediate and is abundant.
:13:04. > :13:07.Nobody knows how much we can get out of the ground, firstly. Secondly,
:13:08. > :13:12.the idea that what will happen in the UK is what will happen in the US
:13:13. > :13:16.is highly unlikely because we are part of an integrated European gas
:13:17. > :13:20.network in the way the US isn't, and can't export it. Thirdly, to suggest
:13:21. > :13:24.this is an alternative to doing other things is wrong. We need to
:13:25. > :13:29.move to a low carbon energy mix. But we are not going to be able to do
:13:30. > :13:38.that straightaway either. We need to use a form of gas extraction for
:13:39. > :13:43.heating, and also for producing gas. We have potential options. So you
:13:44. > :13:46.have laid out your concerns. I still don't quite see what the difference
:13:47. > :13:52.would be on the ground in terms of going ahead with fracking. The use
:13:53. > :13:59.-- do you support giving business rates to councils to local
:14:00. > :14:07.communities? Jelena afraid there is a real issue around whether -- there
:14:08. > :14:22.is a real issue around whether it will be done properly. Communities
:14:23. > :14:25.who will be subject to disruption deserve to have some recompense for
:14:26. > :14:30.the disruption. In relation to the level, I'm not convinced,
:14:31. > :14:37.necessarily, that this is precisely what they will be looking for. This
:14:38. > :14:44.is about the impact on the environment as well. Where do you
:14:45. > :14:48.stand on this? A lot of good points have been made. I am in favour of
:14:49. > :14:55.fracking. I have looked at the American economy. I have seen what a
:14:56. > :15:00.difference it has made, both due individual states like North Dakota
:15:01. > :15:03.but also for the manufacturing operations in middle America. They
:15:04. > :15:08.have fuel prices that allows them to compete better. I am in favour of it
:15:09. > :15:16.and I wanted to come about. Clearly, you need proper regulation. He is
:15:17. > :15:23.saying the government are not putting in place the proper
:15:24. > :15:29.regulation. I don't think that is right. I'm sure changes could be
:15:30. > :15:34.made. This is a long-term opportunity, but on the basic
:15:35. > :15:39.question of is it right to add a business rate to the cough is to
:15:40. > :15:45.make this happen, I think that is a very imaginative idea, a good idea.
:15:46. > :15:49.It's saying to the councils who are going to make the decision, here's
:15:50. > :15:53.some money, this will offset Government cuts. I will ask the
:15:54. > :15:58.minister about this later on. And they are more likely to say yes. I
:15:59. > :16:03.think it is an incentive. In this world where you want things to get
:16:04. > :16:10.on and you want green growth, we shall see whether it is enough. I
:16:11. > :16:17.want to see that it is enough so we are not left behind. For example, in
:16:18. > :16:24.France... That is an irony, because they cannot do fracking in France.
:16:25. > :16:29.They know it has huge environmental implications. The Government cannot
:16:30. > :16:32.have it both ways. We either have a very tight regulation, in which
:16:33. > :16:38.case, why do these companies come over here? Or we haven't. Coming
:16:39. > :16:43.back to your point about America, there is no comparison with America.
:16:44. > :16:47.We have different levels of shale. We have very different communities
:16:48. > :16:54.where they want to Frank. They have much bigger areas. Do we want all of
:16:55. > :17:00.the impacts that this is going to bring on these places. On every
:17:01. > :17:03.level, there is an issue. There seems to be a political consensus
:17:04. > :17:08.that even with concerns a - and there will be Lib Dems who are
:17:09. > :17:12.worried about it in their constituencies. But generally,
:17:13. > :17:18.fracking is going to go ahead. The thing I really worry about is
:17:19. > :17:21.listening to the communities that are facing fracking. Whether the
:17:22. > :17:31.political parties agree or not is one thing. You only have to look at
:17:32. > :17:34.one place, hardly the hotbed of environmental extremism, but they
:17:35. > :17:40.express their views very clearly. That has to be taken into the --
:17:41. > :17:45.into account. Coming back to the idea of sweetness. I think the
:17:46. > :17:49.conflict of interest is missing from this debate. If you have a council
:17:50. > :17:53.that has to determine the planning application from a fracking company
:17:54. > :17:58.and makes that decision whether the company can come and frack, knowing
:17:59. > :18:04.that they will be in receipt of some money... I'm sorry, but there are
:18:05. > :18:09.very clear conflicts of interest. How would Labour deal with the sort
:18:10. > :18:13.of protest we saw at the beginning of this item? People are going to be
:18:14. > :18:24.out there day in, day out, trying to prevent the tankers from coming --
:18:25. > :18:29.the fractures from coming in. Different aspects of this debate
:18:30. > :18:33.gets conflated. The legitimate environmental concerns have to be
:18:34. > :18:41.properly dealt with. That is about regulation. And also, crucially, the
:18:42. > :18:46.monitoring of regulation. If anybody wants to see the potential to have
:18:47. > :18:52.shale gas to displace imported gas, not to use more gas in our energy
:18:53. > :18:55.mix but to displace what we import, for energy security reasons, they
:18:56. > :18:59.need to address all of those issues first. That is why some of the
:19:00. > :19:06.rhetoric from the Government today, such as about the number of jobs,
:19:07. > :19:12.well, a report was recently published looking at a strategic
:19:13. > :19:19.environmental impact assessment, and put it much lower than the
:19:20. > :19:24.Government's figure of 4000 new jobs. I don't think that helps in
:19:25. > :19:29.terms of having a robust and sensible bait. Thank you both very
:19:30. > :19:32.much. My guest of the Day, Lucy
:19:33. > :19:36.Neville-Rolfe, became a politician just last year when she was made a
:19:37. > :19:39.Peer by David Cameron. Politics is a job closely rivalled in the
:19:40. > :19:41.popularity stakes, perhaps, with being a boss at Britain's biggest
:19:42. > :19:45.supermarket chain, Tesco - Lucy's previous role. But what have the
:19:46. > :19:49.supermarkets done to deserve our ire? Are they really as bad as
:19:50. > :19:55.politicians? Here's Adam. I have arrived at shopping
:19:56. > :20:02.Shangri-La, Tesco's brand-new flagship store in Watford. Tesco has
:20:03. > :20:09.around 30% of the market, a market that is worth around ?170 billion a
:20:10. > :20:14.year, so this is a good place to ponder the past, present and future
:20:15. > :20:19.of the supermarket. It is the first store in Britain to cut shopping
:20:20. > :20:27.hours in half... They have been part of the retail market since they
:20:28. > :20:31.revolutionised it in the 1950s. In the 1950s, we used to spend about a
:20:32. > :20:38.third of our household budget on food. Now we spend about 10%. So we
:20:39. > :20:43.are getting better products, but more affordable. Supermarkets have
:20:44. > :20:49.driven that and made it much more affordable for consumers. But how
:20:50. > :20:55.I'm grateful we? These places have been blamed for everything, from
:20:56. > :21:00.causing the horse meat scandal to squeezing suppliers. Some have
:21:01. > :21:05.argued that high street shops like this have been killed off. What they
:21:06. > :21:08.have done is create further distance between ourselves and the point of
:21:09. > :21:13.production. We are living further away from where food is produced,
:21:14. > :21:17.and it makes it very difficult to remember, when we go in and see an
:21:18. > :21:29.array of banana as all times of the day, this huge array of food, that
:21:30. > :21:33.it is an illusion. Back in Watford, here is Tescos answer. They have
:21:34. > :21:37.imported a north London coffee shop, with an emphasis on chatting and
:21:38. > :21:43.community. Out goes giant televisions, incomes retro
:21:44. > :21:48.kitchenware. The drink I'll is supposed to feel more like a wine
:21:49. > :21:52.merchant's. Then there is the Artisan bakery, which hires
:21:53. > :21:57.apprentices and donates money to charity. Here is an example of how
:21:58. > :22:02.much thought goes into these places. Tesco very proud this new food and
:22:03. > :22:08.bread -- new fruit and veg area. They have lowered the height of the
:22:09. > :22:13.shelves, there is loads more would around, and there is loads more
:22:14. > :22:19.produce on tables. It feels like an old greengrocer of yore. It feels
:22:20. > :22:23.like everything has been designed to confront the thing is making
:22:24. > :22:27.supermarkets feel anything but relaxed. There's a new restaurant to
:22:28. > :22:31.make it feel less soulless. There's a drive-through for picking up
:22:32. > :22:37.shopping that has been done online, along with more upmarket products to
:22:38. > :22:41.head off posh arrivals. If you hate supermarkets, it might not do
:22:42. > :22:48.anything for you. If you love them, you might just be sold on it.
:22:49. > :22:53.As I was saying, our guest of the day, Baroness Neville-Rolfe, worked
:22:54. > :22:58.with the supermarket Tesco is for 15 years. Do you think the success of
:22:59. > :23:05.the big supermarket chains has, the expense of small retailers? Not
:23:06. > :23:09.really. It reflects society and the way it has changed, which is why
:23:10. > :23:16.that film was interesting, because it started in the 1950s. You have
:23:17. > :23:20.the modern Tesco of today as well. It is a very competitive industry.
:23:21. > :23:27.You find it is changing all the time. Obviously, there has been a
:23:28. > :23:32.bad recession in the UK, which has very much affected the high street
:23:33. > :23:34.in recent years. But before that, many independent retailers said that
:23:35. > :23:44.the big supermarket killed off that individuality. Actually, the big
:23:45. > :23:48.change before the recession was Tesco and Morrison is doing well,
:23:49. > :23:54.but the intermediates, Woolworth and so on, not doing well. The really
:23:55. > :23:57.good specialist stores, the ones that sell ethnic food like
:23:58. > :24:03.delicatessens, they did quite well. But then the recession came along
:24:04. > :24:08.and you are getting more discount stores, more places where you can
:24:09. > :24:13.change your electrical goods. You have this change coming along with
:24:14. > :24:18.time, and every time consumers want something else, it changes again.
:24:19. > :24:23.The big dynamic today is obviously online. That is the biggest
:24:24. > :24:28.challenge, I think. That's why it is quite interesting that George
:24:29. > :24:32.Osborne, in the budget, made some announcements about rates. Rates are
:24:33. > :24:36.charged on property, so that doesn't really hit the online people at all.
:24:37. > :24:41.He brought in something that means the small stores don't pay rates at
:24:42. > :24:47.all now. He has a review of that coming up, which I think will look
:24:48. > :24:51.at this latest dynamic of online. On that subject, we had reports after
:24:52. > :24:56.Christmas and New Year of falling sales for some of the supermarkets
:24:57. > :25:00.and other big retailers. Online shopping did amazingly well. So why
:25:01. > :25:04.have these massive stores? Isn't that going to be the problem for
:25:05. > :25:10.supermarkets like Sainsbury's and Tesco is. They have massive stores,
:25:11. > :25:17.and actually what people want is the smaller stores and online. They have
:25:18. > :25:22.got to adapt. In the film, I found the modern coffee shop interesting,
:25:23. > :25:26.and the children's restaurant. In some places they are putting in
:25:27. > :25:31.leisure centres and there is more space for community work in these
:25:32. > :25:36.big stores. Actually, it is a mixed economy. Saint-Priest and others
:25:37. > :25:42.have little stores as well. -- Sainsbury's and others. When I was
:25:43. > :25:51.at Tescos, we were being asked for more high-street stores. RB is going
:25:52. > :25:56.to be a hostage to fortune, these very big supermarkets? Isn't it
:25:57. > :26:00.because they cannot sell these big spaces off? It is going to be seen
:26:01. > :26:06.as a gimmick. All of the supermarket chains have big rogue programmes
:26:07. > :26:11.which have largely been going into reverse. They have been selling off
:26:12. > :26:17.some sites. They are adapting existing stores so they are what the
:26:18. > :26:22.customer wants. Will people spend all day in the supermarket, doing
:26:23. > :26:27.their shopping, having a meal? They will do a shop, they will have a cup
:26:28. > :26:32.of coffee, they may buy a swimsuit. On other days, they will go to the
:26:33. > :26:36.high street. During the recession, people started shopping in more
:26:37. > :26:43.places. They started shopping in different places. What do you make
:26:44. > :26:48.of the Mary Portas review? That was all about reviving the high-street.
:26:49. > :26:54.Do you think it should be revived? I think it needs to change. You may
:26:55. > :26:59.have fewer shops, you may have different shops, you may have market
:27:00. > :27:05.stalls. There is a place for local endeavour. When I was at Tesco, we
:27:06. > :27:09.had a big programme to have marketing officials in places like
:27:10. > :27:14.the south-west, so you could get local produce and sell it in a few
:27:15. > :27:18.local stores. I think we will see more of that. I live in Salisbury,
:27:19. > :27:24.and the Salisbury market has a terrific mixture, with the
:27:25. > :27:29.marketplace it has big chain stores like Debenhams, but it also has
:27:30. > :27:34.these stores. Food in Britain is terrific. I think we could be
:27:35. > :27:37.producing more food in Britain from our own resources and our own
:27:38. > :27:43.people. And you think people will buy it from those different places?
:27:44. > :27:48.I do. I don't think they will buy it from a bad retailer. You are as good
:27:49. > :27:51.as your own smile and your own results. Thank you very much for
:27:52. > :27:55.coming on today. So MPs have had their first week
:27:56. > :27:58.back, and things are settling down. What's this week got in store for
:27:59. > :28:04.them? Tomorrow, the Liaison Committee are holding their regular
:28:05. > :28:15.questioning of the Prime Minister. Evidence will be heard from the PM
:28:16. > :28:18.on both violence against women and girls, and energy policy and
:28:19. > :28:36.environmental priorities. Wednesday is of course Prime Minister's
:28:37. > :28:50.Question Time. Will the subdued atmosphere from last week continue?
:28:51. > :28:53.Towards the end of the week, we are expecting speeches from Ed Miliband
:28:54. > :28:54.on the economy and George Osborne on Europe. And finally, Thursday
:28:55. > :28:56.evening sees the first Westminster Correspondents' Dinner, where David
:28:57. > :28:57.Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband will all be dining with Fleet
:28:58. > :28:58.Street's finest. It's modelled on the US White House Correspondents'
:28:59. > :28:59.Dinner. Well, to discuss all of these stories I can speak now to the
:29:00. > :28:59.Guardian's Rowena Mason and the Sun's Kevin Schofield. Have you both
:29:00. > :29:00.been invited to that dinner on Thursday? Have you got your invites?
:29:01. > :29:01.I'm afraid I lost out in the ballot for that, so I will not be going.
:29:02. > :29:07.Those tickets are like gold dust, so I will not be there either. Mine
:29:08. > :29:10.must've got lost in the post. I cannot imagine what happened to it!
:29:11. > :29:20.Moving on to next year. Where is this Tory Government backbench row
:29:21. > :29:25.over having a veto on Europe going? Not that long ago, David Cameron was
:29:26. > :29:32.being praised for having united the Tory party on Europe. The piece
:29:33. > :29:38.hasn't lasted for very long, because some of that euro scepticism has
:29:39. > :29:43.come back to haunt him, with these 95 backbenchers, who demanded in a
:29:44. > :29:51.letter to him a veto for the national parliaments on EU laws. It
:29:52. > :29:57.has turned into a bit of a row now, because the Prime Minister has given
:29:58. > :30:01.it short shrift. William Hague has come out fighting against it as
:30:02. > :30:05.well, saying it wouldn't work, and that it would undermine the single
:30:06. > :30:11.market. We have also seen some of the pro-Europeans like Ken Clarke
:30:12. > :30:16.fight back and say that it is right wing nationalist escapism, and is a
:30:17. > :30:20.terrible idea. It is an argument that I don't think is going to go
:30:21. > :30:26.away. David Cameron probably hoped it would do. On that, Kevin
:30:27. > :30:31.Schofield, William Hague has said that demand is unrealistic. It is
:30:32. > :30:36.difficult for David Cameron now. He is in the position of having tried
:30:37. > :30:39.to keep his eurosceptics onside with stronger rhetoric when it comes to
:30:40. > :30:48.Europe. They continue to demand tougher concessions. He was warned
:30:49. > :30:52.last year that you can never satisfy the Eurosceptic wing of the
:30:53. > :30:56.Conservative party. Offer them a referendum and they will just come
:30:57. > :31:05.back with further demands. And so it has proved. It is an unholy mess.
:31:06. > :31:11.Even a seemingly Eurosceptic Foreign Secretary is telling them it is
:31:12. > :31:16.unrealistic to expect a veto over EU laws. It is clear they are not going
:31:17. > :31:22.to get far. Speaking to a few of them, they are emboldened. At some
:31:23. > :31:29.stage, doesn't David Cameron have to call time on these Eurosceptics? I
:31:30. > :31:34.think he wants to, at the fear is that having promised this
:31:35. > :31:38.referendum, some of the hardline Eurosceptics aren't going to give up
:31:39. > :31:41.until they get what they want. Like Kevin says, they are feeling
:31:42. > :31:51.emboldened and they will keep pushing until they get more
:31:52. > :31:58.concessions. Let's look at Scotland. Danny Alexander has surprisingly
:31:59. > :32:03.said the government will guarantee's Scotland debt. Has
:32:04. > :32:11.displayed into Alex Salmond's hand? I think it has. This morning he has
:32:12. > :32:16.said something that always makes me suspicious. I think it gives him a
:32:17. > :32:23.strong bargaining hand if Scotland decides to become independent. The
:32:24. > :32:30.UK have guaranteed all its debts. Scotland would not be any -- under
:32:31. > :32:35.any legal obligation to pay about ?130 billion, which is expect --
:32:36. > :32:39.estimated to be the extent of the debt. Alex Salmond's argument is
:32:40. > :32:45.simple. If you let us keep the pound, we will meet our obligations
:32:46. > :32:51.in terms of debt. If you don't, we will not meet our obligations. It
:32:52. > :32:59.has put the UK government in a tough spot. Thank you both. Joining me for
:33:00. > :33:02.the rest of the programme are parliamentary private secretaries,
:33:03. > :33:12.conservatively Scott, Barbara Keeley, who works for Ed Balls, Andy
:33:13. > :33:17.Lib Dem Testament who works for Vince Cable. -- Tess Munt. Tonight
:33:18. > :33:20.we get the second instalment of the Channel 4 -- Channel 4 series,
:33:21. > :33:28.Benefits Street. It chronicles life on a Birmingham street where many of
:33:29. > :33:33.the residents are citizens on benefits. Some people have hailed it
:33:34. > :33:42.as an expose of Britain's welfare culture. This man has been on
:33:43. > :33:51.incapacity benefit the years, and now the assessors are on his case,
:33:52. > :33:55.too. Anything you want to disclose? I have suspended your claim as there
:33:56. > :34:00.has been a change in your income. Don't worry about it. I had one of
:34:01. > :34:08.them and I ignored it. Then they paid my landlord anyway. Hello,
:34:09. > :34:12.there. I am phoning on behalf of all friend and neighbour of mine who
:34:13. > :34:16.can't actually read and write. He has had a letter saying he has got
:34:17. > :34:20.to attend an appointment at your place in Smethwick. He can't work
:34:21. > :34:30.out why it would be in Smethwick or what it is for. What am I going to
:34:31. > :34:39.do in Smethwick? They are saying you must have made the appointment. I
:34:40. > :34:44.can't make appointments! To discuss the support available to you through
:34:45. > :34:52.the work programme. We I haven't worked in my life! Tess Munt, should
:34:53. > :34:56.programmes like this be shown? I don't think it's a problem. As long
:34:57. > :35:03.as people rip -- recognise this is a reality TV clip. It is good ratings
:35:04. > :35:09.tied TV but it is not really reflective of everything that
:35:10. > :35:12.happens in my constituency, and the majority of people who need benefits
:35:13. > :35:23.need them for the right reasons. They are not funding I style -- a
:35:24. > :35:29.lifestyle like the one shown here. It is helpful to have it as a small
:35:30. > :35:34.part of a large debate, but it does not reflect the majority of people,
:35:35. > :35:44.I think, who claimed benefits. So you think it is poverty porn? I
:35:45. > :35:48.think so. Fraser Nelson spoke about people having a sense of community.
:35:49. > :35:51.There certainly is that. They are coming together and fighting the
:35:52. > :35:57.outside world. We need to review how the outside world use people in that
:35:58. > :36:02.situation. Do you think it is a fair reflection, taking their streets
:36:03. > :36:09.like this where it is claimed the majority are claiming benefits? Or
:36:10. > :36:13.does it demonise people? It would be good to get a wider spectrum just on
:36:14. > :36:20.that street as well. I don't think it is completely refracting --
:36:21. > :36:24.reflecting what is happening. But there is an element it is happening
:36:25. > :36:31.with, and it needs addressing. What was your reaction on seeing that
:36:32. > :36:35.episode? There were parts, particularly involving shoplifting
:36:36. > :36:41.which concern me greatly. It means there are areas to look into. But it
:36:42. > :36:44.has been sensationalised. Do you think the residents have been
:36:45. > :36:48.stitched up on this programme, to some extent? They didn't realise it
:36:49. > :36:51.was going to be called Benefits Street until close to the
:36:52. > :36:58.transmission. Has there been too much focus on the negative side of
:36:59. > :37:02.people who claim benefits? If we were to take a picture of the
:37:03. > :37:07.benefits cake, if you like, you said almost all people in the street were
:37:08. > :37:16.on benefits, but in a typical situation, 40% would be pensioners.
:37:17. > :37:20.20% would be people on low incomes, who get tax credits. In some of the
:37:21. > :37:24.shots, it showed people who were working but we didn't see any of
:37:25. > :37:29.them. The concentration was on a small number of people who were
:37:30. > :37:34.unemployed. It is important to address unemployment. That is an
:37:35. > :37:38.extreme case. Somebody who has been a drug addict who can't read and
:37:39. > :37:44.write. But it does highlight how some people are really struggling to
:37:45. > :37:48.survive. It didn't go on to show, in fact he was called to speak to work
:37:49. > :37:53.provider and he couldn't even the letter. That is an extreme case. I
:37:54. > :37:57.would rather they focus on the difficulties of people in their 50s
:37:58. > :38:04.who have been made redundant. I have got 700 or so people who have not
:38:05. > :38:10.had a job for the first time. What about the impact? You said yourself
:38:11. > :38:14.that it is time to look at the system. Isn't that what, in part,
:38:15. > :38:20.comes out of a system like this? Is the system wrong? That is exactly
:38:21. > :38:31.what Iain Duncan Smith is doing. The system is working. I think he is
:38:32. > :38:33.tackling the issues that matter, certainly one is that my
:38:34. > :38:38.constituents come to me with. We need to help people back into work.
:38:39. > :38:42.That is particularly so with, as Barbara says, young people. I am
:38:43. > :38:47.working with the programme trying to get people into work. It is working.
:38:48. > :38:52.We need to grow it across other areas. But I do come back to the
:38:53. > :38:55.fact that I think this programme is sensationalist. My also think we
:38:56. > :39:01.need a more objective view of everything that has been happening.
:39:02. > :39:07.-- I also think. Doesn't it show there are sections of the public
:39:08. > :39:12.behaving like some of the characters on Benefits Street? There will be
:39:13. > :39:17.people in the whole spectrum who behave in their own way. It is a
:39:18. > :39:20.shame that this shows people who believe they have rights and
:39:21. > :39:25.responsibilities. Actually, the system needs clarity. I hope Channel
:39:26. > :39:29.4 has picked up some of those problems and help the people who
:39:30. > :39:35.have addiction problems or whatever. This, as I understand, was
:39:36. > :39:43.filmed over two years. Over two years, you can drop your guard
:39:44. > :39:51.easily and the truth will out. I think there are responsibilities
:39:52. > :39:56.from people who are placed in this. The system does have to be changed.
:39:57. > :40:00.It has to be fine tuned. I had somebody who had three days of work
:40:01. > :40:05.before Christmas and was told it was a long-term job. On the third day,
:40:06. > :40:09.he was told he wasn't needed any more. He had lost his jobseeker's
:40:10. > :40:17.allowance. He had been managing on ?71 70 per week. Now he is accruing
:40:18. > :40:21.debt while the system is broken. Is there going to be more people like
:40:22. > :40:31.that under the system Iain Duncan Smith is presiding over? Yes, but I
:40:32. > :40:35.think most people access to have some kind of gainful occupation
:40:36. > :40:45.during your day is good, it is good for your mental and physical health,
:40:46. > :40:48.it is good for everything. It was so extreme. It would have been helpful
:40:49. > :40:52.to show some of the low income people. They showed one family who
:40:53. > :40:57.were not able to buy goods at the door because they were living on ?30
:40:58. > :41:04.per week, but it skimmed over that. It skimmed over the difficulties the
:41:05. > :41:07.chap would have not being able to read and write. How is somebody who
:41:08. > :41:13.cannot read or write apply for jobs? I had a constituent who said
:41:14. > :41:17.it is difficult if you don't have IT skills, to apply for a job. These
:41:18. > :41:22.are these of us to be explored, but the most extreme examples. But that
:41:23. > :41:27.hasn't been helped by some ministers, who have, some say,
:41:28. > :41:36.demonise people on welfare who are often of working age and in work. Do
:41:37. > :41:47.you think dealing with was appropriate? -- the language. Hope
:41:48. > :41:53.-- hard people -- hard working people know it is vital to be in
:41:54. > :41:59.work. The policies for Iain Duncan Smith are doing that. It is going to
:42:00. > :42:05.need some fine tuning, no question. I have a constituents come to me.
:42:06. > :42:11.But we have sorted it. Are you going to watch it again tonight? I
:42:12. > :42:15.probably will but I hope it is more informed. Subject to what is
:42:16. > :42:27.happening in Parliament a night, yes. -- tonight. What is the least
:42:28. > :42:32.glamorous job in Parliament? Some would say my three guests are the
:42:33. > :42:36.lucky owners of that title. They are all Parliamentary Private Secretary
:42:37. > :42:41.is. But what is one? If I was to ask you who is at the bottom of the
:42:42. > :42:48.government porn, I have no doubt he was sending some amusing
:42:49. > :42:55.suggestions. -- government ponder. The answer is the Parliamentary
:42:56. > :42:59.Private Secretary, or PPS. Backbenchers selected by a minister
:43:00. > :43:02.to be their bag carrier, their representative in the Palace of
:43:03. > :43:08.Westminster. But what do they actually do? Really, in Parliament
:43:09. > :43:14.returns, they are sort of Jeeves meets George Smiley, and they are
:43:15. > :43:18.there to be bag carrier for their boss but also they are the eyes and
:43:19. > :43:21.ears in this place. Ministers spend most of their time in the
:43:22. > :43:28.Department, doing what they are supposed to be doing, not lobbying
:43:29. > :43:32.and finding support here. PPSs can do that for them. They also
:43:33. > :43:35.represent their bosses at official functions when their bosses can't
:43:36. > :43:46.make them. They are also there to lobby for any policy there boss is
:43:47. > :43:51.trying to get through. And that is, of course, is key to why they do
:43:52. > :43:55.this. It is like a badge preferment, suggesting future promotion. They
:43:56. > :44:00.get influenced and they meet people. They would need to be a reason to do
:44:01. > :44:06.this because it is unpaid and it is hard work. One Secretary of State
:44:07. > :44:09.told me yesterday that they look for somebody who is loyal, has great
:44:10. > :44:13.organisational skills and is allowed to tell the boss they are doing the
:44:14. > :44:17.wrong thing. When you think about it, that is actually quite a good
:44:18. > :44:25.position to be if you are just a humble backbencher.
:44:26. > :44:31.One MP has said the skill a PPS needs more than any is to fill up
:44:32. > :44:36.the ministerial water jug. Is that a fair description? I have never
:44:37. > :44:43.carried a bag, so come no, I don't think it is a good script. Why do
:44:44. > :44:51.you do the job? It is a fascinating area. The economy is one of the most
:44:52. > :44:55.important areas, and it is fascinating to be in it. But you
:44:56. > :44:58.can't do anything else than what your boss says. You are always
:44:59. > :45:06.expected to vote with the government. Not in my case. With
:45:07. > :45:12.your party. Have you ever thought, I would like to say you are wrong? It
:45:13. > :45:16.is not a case of that. We are all a team. The piece there didn't mention
:45:17. > :45:22.a team. There is a team of ministers, shadow ministers, and
:45:23. > :45:24.PPS. We are a valuable link between the shadow minister and the
:45:25. > :45:32.Secretary of State with the rest of the MPs. It is a fascinating and
:45:33. > :45:38.interesting place to be. In your case, it is different. The person
:45:39. > :45:45.you represented anything but a yes person he is a serial critic. Does
:45:46. > :45:51.it make it easier for you? It is a good reflection of how a Coalition
:45:52. > :45:57.can work. It is good to test all the time. One of my main roles has been
:45:58. > :46:01.to make sure that if anybody on any side of the house has a problem in
:46:02. > :46:05.their constituency, to go and scooped them up and make sure they
:46:06. > :46:11.can get seem to talk about their particular area of concern. That is
:46:12. > :46:25.one of the most rewarding part of the job. You were a PPS before, and
:46:26. > :46:30.you did resign, didn't you? That therein lies the conflict for you.
:46:31. > :46:38.They didn't stop you becoming PPS again. Were you surprised? I was
:46:39. > :46:44.pleased. Why we use tax before? I did not vote for tuition fees. I
:46:45. > :46:50.lost my role at that time. What makes a good PPS? Is it someone like
:46:51. > :46:55.you, who stuck to your principles? I believe, in life, if you say you
:46:56. > :47:00.were going to do something, do it. Not all politicians do that, but in
:47:01. > :47:05.my experience, a lot do. Equally, when people come to you from no
:47:06. > :47:11.matter what side of the House it might be, getting constituency
:47:12. > :47:14.issues dealt with, getting people to the Secretary of State, and actually
:47:15. > :47:23.listening and passing things back, and telling the Secretary of State
:47:24. > :47:30.whether they are right or wrong. Do you think, on this, you dream of
:47:31. > :47:35.becoming a minister, as a PPS? I don't see that particular link. For
:47:36. > :47:40.me, the payback for me, for the little bit of extra work that I do,
:47:41. > :47:44.is the fact that I can actually knock on Ministers' doors and say
:47:45. > :47:49.that I want to talk to them about such and such. That is a really good
:47:50. > :47:54.thing for my constituents. That is the payback. For me, it is about
:47:55. > :48:00.having a bit of influence and being able to speak to ministers in other
:48:01. > :48:07.departments. Briefly, is it possible to be a good constituency MP and a
:48:08. > :48:11.PPS? Absolutely. It is possible to do that and be a minister. You can
:48:12. > :48:15.be both. Very loyal, the three of you!
:48:16. > :48:18.Now, we couldn't end this part of the programme without making special
:48:19. > :48:22.mention of Barbara's boss, Ed Balls. He's gained a reputation as a bit of
:48:23. > :48:25.a bruiser. Yesterday it was reported that he'd squared up to the Shadow
:48:26. > :48:28.Foreign Secretary, Douglas Alexander, over Labour's Europe
:48:29. > :48:31.policy back in 2012. More recently, though, Mr Balls has proffered an
:48:32. > :48:35.olive branch to the Lib Dem leader, Nick Clegg, in a move to soften his
:48:36. > :48:38.image. But yesterday, the kick-boxing Deputy Prime Minister
:48:39. > :48:45.was asked, if it came to it, whether he would be any match for Ed Balls
:48:46. > :48:53.in a fight. I do kick-boxer lessons in a gym.
:48:54. > :48:58.Really? Yes, to keep myself fit. So who knows, if I keep on doing that.
:48:59. > :49:05.I'm not going to make ringside predictions in such a closely fought
:49:06. > :49:10.on -- contest. When you are kicking the ball, whose faces on it? By the
:49:11. > :49:15.way, I am rubbish at it. A surprising revelation that he has
:49:16. > :49:20.taken up kick boxing. Slightly strange, but good for him. We are
:49:21. > :49:27.going to find out who is the real Ed Balls. What is he like? He is great
:49:28. > :49:33.to work with. This is not just a PPS being loyal. He doesn't do kick
:49:34. > :49:38.rocks in. He runs, and he runs marathons to keep fit. And he plays
:49:39. > :49:42.the piano. We have people who do interesting things when they are not
:49:43. > :49:46.in the House. He is a very interesting individual. I wonder if
:49:47. > :49:52.that is a euphemism for something else! Is it true that he had a bust
:49:53. > :49:57.up, or nearly had a bust up, with Douglas Alexander back in 2012? I
:49:58. > :50:02.don't know about that. I'm sure that feelings run high in the Cabinet and
:50:03. > :50:05.the Shadow Cabinet. We are all in politics because we believe
:50:06. > :50:10.passionately in what we want to do and what we want the Government to
:50:11. > :50:14.do. Those passions sometimes play out and people disagree. Sometimes
:50:15. > :50:18.in the chamber, sometimes in meetings. I wasn't around for that
:50:19. > :50:23.particular discussion, but it wouldn't surprise me that people had
:50:24. > :50:29.disagreed about things. Do you think he is unfairly portrayed as a
:50:30. > :50:36.bruiser? Identified him a bruiser. I find him great to work with. That is
:50:37. > :50:43.because you agree with him. Our team gets on Rooney well with him, and
:50:44. > :50:50.that is because he is good to deal with. -- get on really well. I am
:50:51. > :50:55.surprised to find out that Nick does his kick boxing, but then I have a
:50:56. > :50:59.boss who dances. Will that be a turn-off for Lib Dem voters, if
:51:00. > :51:05.there is a rapprochement between Nick Clegg and Ed Balls? We are not
:51:06. > :51:12.here to fight. We are here to persuade and to cajole, so I don't
:51:13. > :51:16.think... The point is, we will fight hard and Labour will fight hard to
:51:17. > :51:22.win in the next election, but we will all have to deal with what the
:51:23. > :51:25.electorate decides. That is a reflection, and what has been said
:51:26. > :51:31.about Ed Balls is a reflection of it. You have to go with what the
:51:32. > :51:36.electorate delivered to you. Back to the Government's plan to compensate
:51:37. > :51:40.councils who give them the go-ahead for fracking, letting them keep all
:51:41. > :51:45.of the business rates collected as a result of the drilling. We are
:51:46. > :51:50.joined by the NST -- by the Energy Minister, Michael Fallon. This will
:51:51. > :51:56.help councils say yes to your project for fracking. I think it is
:51:57. > :51:59.being fair to local councils and local communities. Otherwise the
:52:00. > :52:03.profits go back to the companies involved or straight to the
:52:04. > :52:09.Treasury. This gives local communities the chance, as well as
:52:10. > :52:15.getting jobs and growth, the chance to improve local services. I think
:52:16. > :52:19.that is only fair. Because there are Government cuts. The Treasury is
:52:20. > :52:23.going to get an awful lot of extra revenue because of this. We have
:52:24. > :52:27.seen protesters already complaining about future potential fracking, and
:52:28. > :52:33.this is going to make no difference to those communities whatsoever. I
:52:34. > :52:38.doubt accept that. There was already incentives being offered to the
:52:39. > :52:43.communities for each site. 1% of the revenues, if the gas flows, which
:52:44. > :52:47.could mean up to ?10 million for the site. Today, we have announced that
:52:48. > :52:52.local communities will be able to keep all of the business rates. So
:52:53. > :52:57.there's a strong interest here for local communities who are affected
:52:58. > :53:01.by the search for shale gas. I hope all of these things will encourage
:53:02. > :53:06.that search to get under way. It has been promised as the Holy Grail of
:53:07. > :53:11.our energy supplies in the future. Will it live up to that promise? It
:53:12. > :53:17.has made a huge difference in the United States. It is going to cut
:53:18. > :53:23.bills. When will it start to cut bills? It is going to take two or
:53:24. > :53:26.three years of exploration. It would be irresponsible not to encourage
:53:27. > :53:32.companies to go down there and see if they could get it out, just as in
:53:33. > :53:37.the United States. Even Ed Davey has said that it is not going to bring
:53:38. > :53:41.down energy prices -- energy prices in the future, if at all. By
:53:42. > :53:46.claiming that it is going to bring down energy prices to the same level
:53:47. > :53:51.as in the United States is disingenuous. We don't know that
:53:52. > :53:57.yet. All we do know is that we have two or three times more shale gas
:53:58. > :54:01.than was originally estimated. It would be irresponsible to not allow
:54:02. > :54:05.or encourage companies to get down there and explore and see if they
:54:06. > :54:09.could get it out. It could, I repeat could, make a difference to our
:54:10. > :54:15.economy. It is a big gamble. Fracking will read to the
:54:16. > :54:20.industrialisation of our green and present -- green and pleasant land.
:54:21. > :54:26.You are prepared to gamble that on the basis that in the future our
:54:27. > :54:29.energy prices might come down. It is a gamble for the companies
:54:30. > :54:33.concerned, including the very big companies who are prepared to invest
:54:34. > :54:37.millions in this research. But it is not a gamble in terms of the
:54:38. > :54:41.environment. There will be things in place to protect the environment and
:54:42. > :54:45.make sure that any drilling that is done is safe and does not harm the
:54:46. > :54:52.local community. You say you are going to do enough to make sure
:54:53. > :54:56.fracking is safe, but Lord Stern has criticised the Government for
:54:57. > :55:01.encouraging a brush into fracking without a deep analysis of its
:55:02. > :55:07.effects, such as water pollution. You don't know. We do have
:55:08. > :55:11.experience elsewhere. Hundreds of thousands of wells have been drilled
:55:12. > :55:15.or fractured in other countries around the world. We have had
:55:16. > :55:20.onshore drilling in Britain for both oil and gas since the end of World
:55:21. > :55:24.War One. We already have a system of regulation in place, and we will
:55:25. > :55:28.take very great care that there is no damage to the water supply and
:55:29. > :55:32.that there are not any risks in the fracturing before any of it goes
:55:33. > :55:41.ahead. You still have to convince many on your own side. This has been
:55:42. > :55:45.described as some as crumbs to the table, and that the Government would
:55:46. > :55:52.take 60% in tax from each Shale site. ?10 million from each site,
:55:53. > :56:02.once the gas flows, is certainly not crumbs. ?10 million is for the 1% of
:56:03. > :56:06.revenue once the gas begins to flow, and doesn't cover the business
:56:07. > :56:11.rates. These are quite formidable sums of money for each of the local
:56:12. > :56:17.communities. Above all, exploration of shale gas that is successful can
:56:18. > :56:22.have a huge impact on communities in terms of jobs, business and growth.
:56:23. > :56:27.This is an opportunity. We don't yet know whether it can reduce prices as
:56:28. > :56:38.it has done in the United States. We do know that plenty of companies out
:56:39. > :56:40.there want to go ahead and explore, and we should be encouraging that.
:56:41. > :56:43.Thank you. Tessa Munt, do you agree? Are you going to back this
:56:44. > :56:46.wholeheartedly? I think we need to do various things before we go hell
:56:47. > :56:53.for leather at this. I don't think the American comparison stands up.
:56:54. > :56:58.This is a new process. If you look at the basis of the American model,
:56:59. > :57:03.that depends on the fact that methane is really the unwanted
:57:04. > :57:08.by-product of methane, butane and propane for the petrochemical
:57:09. > :57:14.industry that they are really after. We have to rely on the Environment
:57:15. > :57:18.Agency in order to patrol and police this, and I don't think the capacity
:57:19. > :57:24.is there in the environment agent -- the Environment Agency. I live in
:57:25. > :57:29.the Mendip Hills, and we know what Somerset is like for water at the
:57:30. > :57:33.moment. If that goes wrong, it could be catastrophic, so we do need to
:57:34. > :57:38.make sure we get this absolutely pinned down before anyone does
:57:39. > :57:43.anything. There's an awful lot of opposition to this. Are you in
:57:44. > :57:48.favour of it? Do you think there needs to be more analysis done on
:57:49. > :57:53.the environmental impact? It is vital for the regulation to be very
:57:54. > :57:59.stringent. The point that was raised at the start of the interview about
:58:00. > :58:06.bribery... From my experience of local councils, the decisions will
:58:07. > :58:10.be in their hands. They know their area best. But the money might be
:58:11. > :58:14.given them to cajole them to do something that their communities
:58:15. > :58:18.might not want them to do otherwise. I have seen many things where
:58:19. > :58:23.there's been, under previous regime, where monies were offered for
:58:24. > :58:26.different things. I have every faith that local councils will do the
:58:27. > :58:32.right thing for their area, which is the way it should be. Are you in
:58:33. > :58:37.favour of fracking? I believe we need to look into fracking. It is an
:58:38. > :58:42.energy source at a time that we need new energy sources. I'm afraid we
:58:43. > :58:49.have run out of time, but thank you all. The news is starting over on
:58:50. > :58:52.BBC One now. I'll be here at noon tomorrow with all the big political
:58:53. > :58:56.stories of the day. I'll be joined by the former Labour MP and diarist,
:58:57. > :59:01.Chris Mullin. Do join me then. Bye.