:00:36. > :00:37.Good afternoon and welcome to the Daily Politics.
:00:38. > :00:39.The Home Secretary is to announce a wide ranging inquiry
:00:40. > :00:42.into allegations of a cover-up of child abuse at the Home Office
:00:43. > :00:52.Teachers, council workers and NHS staff will walk out on Thursday.
:00:53. > :00:58.Does the law need changing to make striking more difficult?
:00:59. > :01:00.It's the EU's newest member but it's already falling out
:01:01. > :01:06.We ask Croatians whether joining the club was really worth it?
:01:07. > :01:11.It did the Tour de France arguably better than the French.
:01:12. > :01:19.Is it time for "God's own County" to become "God's own country?"
:01:20. > :01:22.All that coming up in the next hour, but let's start this morning with
:01:23. > :01:24.the story that's dominating the agenda here
:01:25. > :01:29.That's claims of a cover-up of allegations of child abuse
:01:30. > :01:35.levelled against political figures more than 20 years ago.
:01:36. > :01:37.In the 1980s, Tory MP Geoffrey Dickens passed
:01:38. > :01:47.on information about alleged child abusers operating in Westminster to
:01:48. > :01:49.the then Home Secretary, Leon Britten, who says he handed over
:01:50. > :01:54.No criminal charges or prosecutions were ever brought but last year
:01:55. > :01:58.a Home Office review of information about organised child sex abuse
:01:59. > :02:00.found that whilst "credible" elements of the dossier with a
:02:01. > :02:10."realistic potential" for investigation were sent to police
:02:11. > :02:13.and prosecutors, other elements were not kept - 114 files were missing,
:02:14. > :02:18.destroyed or simply "not found" but the review did lead to four historic
:02:19. > :02:23.called for a "Hillsborough-style" public inquiry into the handling
:02:24. > :02:30.of the abuse claims and Shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has called
:02:31. > :02:31.for an "over-arching" and "comprehensive" investigation.
:02:32. > :02:37.afternoon Teresa May is expected to announce that a senior legal figure
:02:38. > :02:43.will re-examine last year's report and that there will be a new review
:02:44. > :02:45.of public bodies' duty of care towards children.
:02:46. > :02:52.look like the end of this story - yesterday former Cabinet member Lord
:02:53. > :03:01.Tebbitt raised the possibility of a political cover-up in the 1980s.
:03:02. > :03:11.At that time, I think most people would have thought that the
:03:12. > :03:16.establishment, the system, was to be protected. And if a few things had
:03:17. > :03:20.gone wrong here and there, that it was more important to protect the
:03:21. > :03:28.system than to delve too far into them. Now that view, I think, was
:03:29. > :03:33.wrong then and it is spectacularly shown to have been wrong because the
:03:34. > :03:37.abuses have grown. Do you think there was a political cover-up 30
:03:38. > :03:40.years ago? I think there may well have been. But it was almost
:03:41. > :03:45.unconscious. It was the thing that people did at time. You didn't talk
:03:46. > :03:48.about these things? You didn't talk about those sort of things.
:03:49. > :03:52.Let's talk to our Political Correspondent, Robin Brant.
:03:53. > :03:59.Picking up on the comments from Lord Tebbit, how damning are they? The
:04:00. > :04:02.suggestion of a cover-up, unconsciously or not? From a man who
:04:03. > :04:05.was there at the time and at the heart of government, they were
:04:06. > :04:10.incendiary, and that no doubt increased the pressure on the Home
:04:11. > :04:13.Secretary, and that is how we get to today wearing three hours time she
:04:14. > :04:18.will come to Parliament and give quite a detailed explanation. Not
:04:19. > :04:21.just of this review of the review, which is essentially a rerun of the
:04:22. > :04:27.internal investigation they had last year which are detailed just now. He
:04:28. > :04:30.will name the QC who will be leading that. That is about ensuring the
:04:31. > :04:34.process of last year when they looked at the paperwork and what was
:04:35. > :04:39.done with regard to the initial investigation some 30 years before,
:04:40. > :04:44.that that remains valid and sound. We will get more detail and the
:04:45. > :04:46.detail will be crucial today on this wider, overarching independent
:04:47. > :04:53.enquiry which will look at how institutions dealt with abuses and
:04:54. > :04:56.allegations of abuse across the whole of the public sector. The BBC,
:04:57. > :05:01.the NHS, and also now, government departments. Are you suggesting
:05:02. > :05:05.Theresa May and the government have been bounced into this because there
:05:06. > :05:10.was so little publicity surrounding the initial Home Office review of
:05:11. > :05:14.the historic allegations? I will say this. This is very close to what the
:05:15. > :05:19.Labour Party and Yvette Cooper have been calling for for some time. The
:05:20. > :05:26.MP who has led much of the investigation into what Cyril Smith
:05:27. > :05:28.did or did not do, he once a Hillsborough style public enquiry.
:05:29. > :05:33.This will not be a public enquiry, but we hear evidence that it could
:05:34. > :05:37.call evidence and call for it in public and that is very close to
:05:38. > :05:40.what the Labour Party has wanted. Interestingly, it looks like Nick
:05:41. > :05:45.Clegg did not get the memo -- the memo. Senior figures in government
:05:46. > :05:49.have talked about overarching enquiries, independence, strength,
:05:50. > :05:52.and the prime minister talking about no stone unturned but Nick Clegg
:05:53. > :05:56.this morning, asked about a public enquiry, he said it would just be
:05:57. > :05:59.another enquiry. Quite dismissive, and his onus was on the police
:06:00. > :06:01.investigations, of which there are numerous.
:06:02. > :06:06.With me now is the Shadow Home Office Minister, Diana Johnson.
:06:07. > :06:11.Welcome to the programme. You are calling for this overarching enquiry
:06:12. > :06:15.to look at institutions like the government, the BBC, the NHS and
:06:16. > :06:19.that will just take years. People want answers now, if there are
:06:20. > :06:22.answers to be had. Yvette Cooper has been calling for this type of
:06:23. > :06:25.investigation for the last 18 months and it is to draw together the
:06:26. > :06:30.recommendations from all of the different enquiries taking place at
:06:31. > :06:35.the moment. We have already had the NHS one Jimmy Savile and there is
:06:36. > :06:39.the BBC One June and it is to draw together the recommendations to have
:06:40. > :06:44.child protection experts leading this so we can find a way forward.
:06:45. > :06:49.So you are not looking specifically at allegations made in the 1980s in
:06:50. > :06:54.this so-called dossier or bundle of papers handed to the Home Secretary
:06:55. > :06:57.then. You don't want to look back, you are looking forward? Because of
:06:58. > :07:02.the revelations about what happened in the Home Office, we think that
:07:03. > :07:07.has to be investigated. What revelations? We're talking about
:07:08. > :07:11.over 100 files being missing, and what happened to the dossier
:07:12. > :07:15.presented to the Home Secretary. We want to have an investigation into
:07:16. > :07:19.that, but we now think it is wider than that. We want to find out what
:07:20. > :07:21.was happening in Whitehall, and what the police and prosecuting
:07:22. > :07:24.authorities did with the allegations, because we know, don't
:07:25. > :07:27.we, that to come forward and make allegations that you have been
:07:28. > :07:31.abused is very difficult and if those victims have come forward,
:07:32. > :07:34.they deserve to have their allegations dealt with properly and
:07:35. > :07:37.investigated, so it is to bring together what has happened over the
:07:38. > :07:41.weekend with the revelations in the Home Office, but also the wider view
:07:42. > :07:46.about what is happening in institutions like the BBC and the
:07:47. > :07:49.NHS. Do you know what is happening? When you talk about the allegations
:07:50. > :07:52.and evidence put forward by witnesses, what substantive
:07:53. > :07:57.allegations are you talking about? The Home Office carried out a review
:07:58. > :08:03.as to what was done in the 1980s was handled properly and it said,
:08:04. > :08:07.broadly that it was that any criminal leads were handed on to the
:08:08. > :08:12.police. So have you got new evidence? Are there substantive
:08:13. > :08:16.allegations you want to look at? What we know is that the review was
:08:17. > :08:20.held last year, and it was not reported what was found. It's only
:08:21. > :08:24.that now we hear hundreds of files have gone missing. That is the
:08:25. > :08:27.problem. We don't know. That is why we need the wider review of what
:08:28. > :08:31.happened in Whitehall and what happened with the police and the
:08:32. > :08:37.prosecuting authorities in the 80s and 90s. Do you have evidence to say
:08:38. > :08:39.there was something going on? You are obviously dismissing the review
:08:40. > :08:43.and you don't feel it will achieve what it's supposed to, because you
:08:44. > :08:48.know there is other evidence that has not been unearthed? Clearly an
:08:49. > :08:51.MP in the 1980s presented a dossier to the Home Secretary at that time
:08:52. > :08:59.with allegations. There are further allegations that my colleagues have
:09:00. > :09:01.made, accusations of allegations that have improperly investigated so
:09:02. > :09:06.we think it's important they are investigated at this time. You think
:09:07. > :09:09.there has been a cover-up? I think that's the problem. The public are
:09:10. > :09:15.listening to this happening and hearing about files going missing
:09:16. > :09:20.and listening to what MPs are saying about allegations that haven't been
:09:21. > :09:23.investigated properly. Will you get to the bottom of it with an
:09:24. > :09:27.enquiry? You people aren't swearing an oath and can't hear the evidence
:09:28. > :09:31.in public, how do we get to the truth? We need to wait and see what
:09:32. > :09:34.Theresa May will say about the enquiry, but we would like to see
:09:35. > :09:37.evidence given in public and we would like to see led by child
:09:38. > :09:41.protection experts. We think the public deserves to know what
:09:42. > :09:44.happened in the 1980s and 1990s, and with some of these institutions, the
:09:45. > :09:49.recommendations coming out of the various are being implemented. I
:09:50. > :09:52.would say to you, under this Home Secretary, child protection laws
:09:53. > :09:55.have been weakened. There are 10,000 people convicted of sexual assaults
:09:56. > :09:59.on children who are not barred from working with children and the public
:10:00. > :10:19.will want to know about that and will want an explanation about it.
:10:20. > :10:21.Now, not long to go now until the summer recess begins.
:10:22. > :10:23.Here's what's happening this week though.
:10:24. > :10:25.Today the Chancellor and Foreign Secretary are
:10:26. > :10:27.They'll have meetings with Narendra Modi,
:10:28. > :10:31.On Tuesday it's thought the the Intelligence and Security Committee
:10:32. > :10:34.will publish their report into the Woolwich murder of Lee Rigby.
:10:35. > :10:36.And it's the Local Government Association conference in
:10:37. > :10:38.Bournemouth, where Iain Duncan Smith and Eric Pickles will be speaking.
:10:39. > :10:40.On Wednesday the Lords Communications committee
:10:41. > :10:42.hears evidence from Facebook and Twitter on internet trolling
:10:43. > :10:44.as part of their ongoing inquiry into social media.
:10:45. > :10:47.And on Thursday there's industrial action by members of several unions.
:10:48. > :10:49.It's thought that over a million council staff, health
:10:50. > :10:51.workers, teachers, civil servants and firefighters go out on strike.
:10:52. > :10:54.Also on Thursday, MPs will debate plans to transfer more
:10:55. > :11:03.David Cameron could face a backbench rebellion as some of
:11:04. > :11:06.his MPs want to continue to opt out of the European arrest warrant.
:11:07. > :11:09.To discuss the week ahead in more detail I can speak now to the
:11:10. > :11:12.Financial Times Deputy Political Editor, Beth Rigby and Christopher
:11:13. > :11:23.Welcome to both of you. Beth Rigby, first of all, how difficult is the
:11:24. > :11:26.strike this week for Labour? It is difficult, because obviously the
:11:27. > :11:29.Tories will use this as a way of saying that Labour are in the hands
:11:30. > :11:33.of the unions and we are the ones trying to change strike clause for
:11:34. > :11:39.the benefit of the people, not the unions. But the Lib Dems and Labour
:11:40. > :11:43.are aligned on this. They don't want to change strike clause. Francis
:11:44. > :11:51.Maude and the Conservatives are saying they would want a 50%
:11:52. > :11:53.majority to have a strike and there is nothing going to happen in terms
:11:54. > :11:59.of strike clause before the election. This is about a Tory
:12:00. > :12:01.manifesto promise, and this is about differentiating against the Labour
:12:02. > :12:05.Party and putting them in a difficult position with all the
:12:06. > :12:11.parents and commuters facing a very hassled Thursday. As always, we
:12:12. > :12:15.hope, and we will do so again, we will ask Labour to condemn the
:12:16. > :12:18.strike and they will find a form of words to say neither one thing nor
:12:19. > :12:22.the other. Or do you think of something different this time? It's
:12:23. > :12:26.hard for the Labour Party because they will be seen to criticise
:12:27. > :12:32.striking union people although they rely on lots of their funds from
:12:33. > :12:37.there. The whole policy area sits in the Department of Vince cable, not
:12:38. > :12:42.really for, although he is in charge of negotiating with public sector
:12:43. > :12:46.workers over pay and pension. We were talking about the issue of
:12:47. > :12:50.strike clause, so we were talking about a manifesto issue for the next
:12:51. > :12:54.election. Nothing will happen until there is a Conservative government
:12:55. > :12:58.with a majority. No doubt manifestoes will see that included,
:12:59. > :13:02.and in the Tory manifesto certainly, but public sector workers have had
:13:03. > :13:06.pay restraint and pay freezes since 2010 and we are going to talk about
:13:07. > :13:10.the prospect of pay restraint, so will it have any impact on changing
:13:11. > :13:17.government policy by continuing with strikes like this? I don't think
:13:18. > :13:21.striking will change government policy. And I think also, the other
:13:22. > :13:27.point to make about this, although there is a lot of play in the Tory
:13:28. > :13:31.camp about strike clause, the Vince cable argument would be that we have
:13:32. > :13:36.the best industrial relations in 30 years, with the fewest strike days
:13:37. > :13:40.in 30 years, and why, therefore, agitate the unions further? As you
:13:41. > :13:43.have said, they have taken a lot of pain in terms of pay restraint and
:13:44. > :13:49.they should be allowed to strike. That would be the Liberal Democrat
:13:50. > :13:54.view. Moving the so-called snoopers charter, new emergency laws in
:13:55. > :13:59.response to the murder of Lee Rigby. Will they get cross-party support?
:14:00. > :14:03.There was a slight confusion here. The snoopers charter, which is
:14:04. > :14:06.different altogether, and the response to the European Court of
:14:07. > :14:11.Justice ruling which said that the current wave in which the security
:14:12. > :14:15.services harvest data breaks various human rights laws, there is,
:14:16. > :14:18.agreement between the Conservatives, Labour and the Lib
:14:19. > :14:24.Dems about the kind of data that they can harvest to comply with the
:14:25. > :14:30.April ruling in the European Court of Justice. Separate that is the row
:14:31. > :14:33.about the snoopers charter. Essentially it is about what the
:14:34. > :14:35.security services can look at. There's a difference between the
:14:36. > :14:40.letter and the address on the envelope. Currently you can look at
:14:41. > :14:43.the address and see who was talking that they cannot see what is inside
:14:44. > :14:46.the letter. The Conservatives are trying to push further on that and
:14:47. > :14:52.the Lib Dems are also saying no further with Labour. That part of it
:14:53. > :14:55.will go into the election, but the immediate part is the emergency
:14:56. > :15:02.legislation required to comply with the ECJ ruling in April. In order to
:15:03. > :15:05.comply, what will the new laws do different to what exists now? What
:15:06. > :15:13.will they enable security services to do? Data Bill. The point of this
:15:14. > :15:16.is that they are not trying to extend the laws. What they are
:15:17. > :15:21.trying to do is keep what we've already got which is basically that
:15:22. > :15:27.you can monitor e-mails, et cetera, phone calls, and so on. What the
:15:28. > :15:34.debate now is about is how does the Government and the Security Services
:15:35. > :15:37.retain what they already do while also complying with what the
:15:38. > :15:43.European court said. That's the debate. Any idea that this is going
:15:44. > :15:46.to be extended to cover the commune cases bill and snoopers charter is
:15:47. > :15:52.not going to happen. All they are trying to do is work out a way to
:15:53. > :15:57.carry on what they are doing, great cross party agreement and comply
:15:58. > :16:02.with Europe. I think today's story is a Liberal Democrat and Labour
:16:03. > :16:05.bringing a shot across the bows saying we'll go this far but not
:16:06. > :16:08.further. There'll be some emergency powers coming shortly. They'll have
:16:09. > :16:12.to do something to comply with April. So far we have not complied
:16:13. > :16:17.but we'll have to do something to do so. Thank you both very much. It
:16:18. > :16:22.started with six. Now there are 28. With more members in the pipeline.
:16:23. > :16:25.The European Union has expanded a pace in recent years, but with some
:16:26. > :16:29.of the original founding members struggling, what makes other
:16:30. > :16:35.countries want to join the club? Adam Fleming has visited Croatia,
:16:36. > :16:39.the EU's newest member, and he found the honeymoon's not laked long. A
:16:40. > :16:43.year ago the amphitheatre was full of Croatians celebrating EU
:16:44. > :16:48.membership. After 30 years on the waiting list. -- not lasted long. I
:16:49. > :16:56.visited last week and the mood was different. Do you know what today
:16:57. > :16:59.is? What today is. What? First anniversary of joining the EU. Yes,
:17:00. > :17:06.the first year that we've joined the European Union. It was a big,
:17:07. > :17:09.interesting thing for us and we have referendum for that. Do you think
:17:10. > :17:13.anyone will be celebrating... I don't think so. Why not? I don't
:17:14. > :17:17.think one year is a big deal. This is a town that's 3,000 years old so
:17:18. > :17:22.one year is not a lot for us. A year in Europe hasn't done a lot to help
:17:23. > :17:27.Croatia's tank in the economy. It's entered its sixth year in recession.
:17:28. > :17:31.Unemployment is the third highest in the EU and half of young people
:17:32. > :17:35.can't find work. So let's head to the university. You didn't
:17:36. > :17:39.celebrate? No. You didn't crack open a beer? We crack open a beer every
:17:40. > :17:44.day, but not because of the accession to the EU. Fair enough.
:17:45. > :17:48.Why is it not that big a deal? I thought it was quite an historic
:17:49. > :17:52.moment? It was an historic moment but not much has chained and people
:17:53. > :17:55.do not have a reason to celebrate. The economy is still on the decline
:17:56. > :18:00.and nothing's changed for the regular people, maybe for the
:18:01. > :18:05.politicians, but that's about it. And their Professor is like a
:18:06. > :18:23.growing number of Croatians, a Euro-sceptic. There was a lot of
:18:24. > :18:29.Capitol, you know, investments and so forth. The EU is not taking care
:18:30. > :18:34.of things properly. So does anyone care about this
:18:35. > :18:38.anniversary? Finally, I found some people who're celebrating. It's the
:18:39. > :18:42.family that own this vineyard, because they received some of the
:18:43. > :18:48.money Brussels gave Croatia for EU membership.
:18:49. > :18:52.It paid for this new bottling plant which will help them produce better
:18:53. > :18:57.quality wine and boost their profits. Over the next few years,
:18:58. > :19:13.there's another 11 billion euros on the way to help Croatia compete. We
:19:14. > :19:19.now have the possibility to compete. It means we just have a view of what
:19:20. > :19:23.is our future. And joining the EU has forced the
:19:24. > :19:26.country to bring all sorts of sectors up to European standards,
:19:27. > :19:30.from the sewage system to the judiciary. It's just that lots of
:19:31. > :19:35.people here don't seem to appreciate all that when their economy is
:19:36. > :19:40.withering on the vine. We are joined by Labour's former
:19:41. > :19:42.Europe Minister, Chris Bryant, and the Conservative backbencher,
:19:43. > :19:46.Stewart Jackson. Welcome both of you.
:19:47. > :19:49.Chris Bryant first of all, you were Europe Minister in a Government
:19:50. > :19:54.which championed EU enlargement. Would you say it's been a resounding
:19:55. > :20:00.success? You put the word resounding in front as if it's unqualified. A
:20:01. > :20:03.success? Largely, yes, because for a start it means you can tackles in
:20:04. > :20:07.some countries the very unfair state aid that used to make it impossible
:20:08. > :20:09.for British businesses to do business elsewhere in Europe and
:20:10. > :20:15.that wouldn't have happened without accession to the EU. Secondly,
:20:16. > :20:20.you've seen British people be able to exercise their rights to travel
:20:21. > :20:25.and work in those other countries and thirdly, we are beginning to be
:20:26. > :20:30.able to tackment some historic levels of...ion there have been in
:20:31. > :20:36.countries like Croatia. But let's not just limit it to Croatia where
:20:37. > :20:41.people haven't seen the benefits yet to joining the EU. But there was a
:20:42. > :20:44.major economic crisis across the whole of in particular southern
:20:45. > :20:48.Europe. But let's look at the southern Europe, the difference
:20:49. > :20:53.between southern European countries, the head trainian countries and
:20:54. > :20:57.Ireland -- Mediterranean countries. Has it been a success to join
:20:58. > :21:00.together economies that were vastly tink and couldn't meet properly
:21:01. > :21:09.which is what is in part led to the Euro-sceptic argument taking place?
:21:10. > :21:14.Yes, I think it has. -- vastly different. Spain and Greece were
:21:15. > :21:19.both southern countries, but both dictatorships. Portugal was as well,
:21:20. > :21:23.in my lifetime. Bringing peace, guaranteeing peace in the Balkans
:21:24. > :21:27.for instance is a very parenth important part of what the UU has
:21:28. > :21:33.been able to do. Still six candidate countries in the EU, Albania joined
:21:34. > :21:38.last week. Iceland's probably, if they have put it on ice, as it were,
:21:39. > :21:42.their prospect of joining the European Union, but it's been good,
:21:43. > :21:48.yes. Why hasn't it been successful in your eyes? Chris can't do what he
:21:49. > :21:52.should do and which the party he he represents needs to do, to apologise
:21:53. > :21:56.for a deliberate policy of mass migration. Done that five times on
:21:57. > :22:03.this prasmt. I can do it all again if you want. 13-15,000 people from
:22:04. > :22:10.Eastern European countries out by a factor of 75. During that time, in a
:22:11. > :22:22.growing economy, they failed to reform welfare. But you accept there
:22:23. > :22:26.wasn't a deluge of immigrants from Romania, as talked about by
:22:27. > :22:31.colleagues of yours and UKIP? What we have to look at is this urban
:22:32. > :22:36.myth that people who come to work from the European Union are
:22:37. > :22:39.necessarily all contributing in terms of their taxes and are a
:22:40. > :22:44.benefit to the UK economy. There's no evidence for that, no academic
:22:45. > :22:48.evidence whatsoever. Quite the opposite. The migration advisory
:22:49. > :22:53.committee in 2011 found that unless you are a single person on B average
:22:54. > :23:02.income you were a net drain on the UK Exchequer.
:23:03. > :23:06.What about the fact that in getting the countries to join the EU, you
:23:07. > :23:14.expand the area to try to keep the peace, if you like, right across the
:23:15. > :23:17.area? My constituents never had the chancevote for nation-building. I
:23:18. > :23:22.think it's wonderful that tyrannical despots are not in charge of
:23:23. > :23:28.Portugal and Greece, but that'slet not what they voted on in 197540
:23:29. > :23:32.years ago almost. They voted on the Common market. That's not true.
:23:33. > :23:38.Actually the introductory speech to the Bill that brought the accession
:23:39. > :23:43.into the European Union in 1972 by Geoffrey Howe made clear it was
:23:44. > :23:50.about political union as well. ALL SPEAK AT ONCE
:23:51. > :23:55.Can I just answer the charge that I've never apologised. It's
:23:56. > :23:59.undoubtedly true that Labour, we in Government did get things wrong when
:24:00. > :24:08.every political party in the UK was in favour of the countries joining
:24:09. > :24:12.the EU U, there wasn't even a vote on them joining. The one thing I
:24:13. > :24:18.think we did wrong was, we should have done the same as France,
:24:19. > :24:22.Germany, Italy and Spain, been more pro-European and said that there
:24:23. > :24:27.would be transitional controls for five or serven years. Inevitably,
:24:28. > :24:30.when we were one of only three countries that didn't have
:24:31. > :24:34.transzisal controls, it meant the people that came to the UK was
:24:35. > :24:38.dramatically higher than anticipated. Economically you could
:24:39. > :24:44.argue it's been a disaster too? I don't think it has. You don't think
:24:45. > :24:51.it has? They have had one of the deepest recessions ever? I don't
:24:52. > :24:57.think that's been because of the EU or the Euro and indeed Spain would
:24:58. > :25:00.argue much of the prosperity... It used to be when I was young and
:25:01. > :25:05.brought up and lived in Spain as a child, it was one of the poorest
:25:06. > :25:09.countries. That's dramatically changed. There are significant
:25:10. > :25:13.problems that need to be dealt with. A new country will be joining in
:25:14. > :25:16.January next year. All those who predicted the collapse of the euro
:25:17. > :25:22.and the European Union are just shouting. At what cost though,
:25:23. > :25:29.Chris? The idea of ever closer union, you've smashed the economies
:25:30. > :25:39.of Greece, Portugal, of Spain and Italy. To, nonsense. A success
:25:40. > :25:44.story? Poland and Ukraine. When Poland joined the European Union,
:25:45. > :25:54.they had the same GDP. Poland's is three times larger than the Ukraine.
:25:55. > :26:00.It's an success story? Some parts have had successes. We shoulder the
:26:01. > :26:06.burden of immigration when pockets of the country are under stress. The
:26:07. > :26:13.largest number of nationals, it's the UK. You may have very eloquent
:26:14. > :26:16.arguments to make, put those to the people in the referendum. Do you
:26:17. > :26:21.want Britain to leave the European Union? Well, it's irrelevant what I
:26:22. > :26:25.think. But do you? Do you want Britain to leave? It's important
:26:26. > :26:31.what... Do you want Britain to leave? It's irrelevant what 45
:26:32. > :26:34.million people think. I'm on public record as a backbencher of
:26:35. > :26:39.campaigning for us to leave the European Union. Fine. It's a
:26:40. > :26:44.legitimate position. It's cutting off Britain's economic nose to spite
:26:45. > :26:47.our face I think. The party, as a party, should have a position where
:26:48. > :26:51.it trusts the people and has a referendum and it may be moving in
:26:52. > :26:54.that trekkion. Thank you both very much. Teachers, council workers,
:26:55. > :27:00.civil servants and health workers are going out on strike on Thursday.
:27:01. > :27:04.Pay is at the top of the agenda with below inflation pay increases having
:27:05. > :27:07.been imposed for the last four years. On yesterday's Sunday
:27:08. > :27:12.Politics, the Business Minister, Matthew Hancock, debated and rights
:27:13. > :27:16.and wrongs of the strike with the EU C secretary Frances O'Grady. What
:27:17. > :27:20.really sticks in the throat is the idea that money can be found to give
:27:21. > :27:24.tax cuts to billionaires, to millionaires and to big
:27:25. > :27:31.corporations, but it can't be found to help, for example, half a million
:27:32. > :27:35.workers in local government, dinner ladies, school workers, lollipop men
:27:36. > :27:40.and women earning less than the living wage. Would a public sector
:27:41. > :27:44.worker ever get a real increase in their pay under a Conservative
:27:45. > :27:49.Government? We certainly hope to have the books balanced in the intro
:27:50. > :27:57.by 2018. So not before then? Well, that is when we hope to be able to
:27:58. > :28:04.be in surplus. So no real pay increase for public sector workers
:28:05. > :28:08.before 2018? Interestingly, this isn't just about the Conservatives
:28:09. > :28:11.and the Liberal Democrats, you know. The Labour Party leadership's said
:28:12. > :28:15.it's a test to their credibility that they support the squeeze on
:28:16. > :28:18.public sector pay. Matt Hancock there. We are joined
:28:19. > :28:21.for the rest of the programme by the Conservative MP, Charlotte Lesley,
:28:22. > :28:25.the Shadow Wales secretary Owen Smith and by the Liberal Democrat,
:28:26. > :28:29.Jeremy Browne, welcome to all of you. Picking up on what Matt Hancock
:28:30. > :28:34.said there, no real pay rises for public sector workers until 2018, no
:28:35. > :28:38.real terms pay rises, that's after four years of public sector pay
:28:39. > :28:43.being frozen or at below inflation rates. Is he right? Do you agree?
:28:44. > :28:47.Yes. But that's not to say it's not really tough for people working in
:28:48. > :28:53.the public sector. My concern about the strikes is, obvious it parents
:28:54. > :28:56.and children will lose out, but for professions like teaching who're
:28:57. > :29:00.trying to raise the image of teaching, with a small minority of
:29:01. > :29:03.teachers voting for the strikes, I'm concerned it further erodes the
:29:04. > :29:08.professional status of teaching and professes like that. I think the
:29:09. > :29:12.form of striking laws needs looking at again, not only for the people
:29:13. > :29:14.affected by the strikes but for the professes striking themselves to
:29:15. > :29:19.make sure it's representative of what the majority of the people
:29:20. > :29:23.want. But you agree it shouldn't be until 2018 or even later do you
:29:24. > :29:26.think, before there is a real terms rise for public sector workers?
:29:27. > :29:30.Don't forget the massive challenge we are facing. Our debt is still
:29:31. > :29:35.going up, the deficit is going down, but the debt is still going up. If
:29:36. > :29:40.we can afford it, brilliant. It's about priorities isn't it. But you
:29:41. > :29:44.don't think they deserve a pay rise or it's not affordable until that
:29:45. > :29:48.point? It's not affordable until that point, but future pay rises
:29:49. > :29:53.need to be dealt with after we stabilise our economy. Do you agree
:29:54. > :29:59.with that. Public sector pay has been frozen until now. Would you
:30:00. > :30:03.like to see public sector... We don't know because we need to see
:30:04. > :30:08.what the books are like if and when we win the next election. We'll
:30:09. > :30:13.stick to the spending plans during the first year. I would like to see
:30:14. > :30:17.pay increases, absolutely. Pay has been frozen for far too long. They
:30:18. > :30:23.are right to be worrying about pensions, pay and the way in which
:30:24. > :30:26.earnings are outstripped by inflation, so I understand the
:30:27. > :30:37.decision they are taking to strike. Do you support it? We are getting a
:30:38. > :30:41.division between the Tories and Labour other public sector workers
:30:42. > :30:45.public sector units. For the Tories to be suggesting that we need to
:30:46. > :30:48.make it even harder for people to exercise their right to strike
:30:49. > :30:53.another example of division and something we should wholly oppose.
:30:54. > :31:00.But you support the strike, not just the right to strike, on the basis it
:31:01. > :31:03.has been so tough on pay? I do. I think it's legitimate for them to
:31:04. > :31:06.voice their concern about the nature of their jobs and how long people
:31:07. > :31:11.will have to work and how much they are earning. They are entirely
:31:12. > :31:14.legitimate. It is problematic that the current rhetoric in this
:31:15. > :31:18.country, in the media and in the Tory party in particular is about
:31:19. > :31:22.delegitimising what we should be protecting as a fundamental right,
:31:23. > :31:27.to withdraw one's labour. I think it's understandable. Are the Liberal
:31:28. > :31:29.Democrats behind the idea of extending public sector pay
:31:30. > :31:33.restraint beyond the next election question I think whoever wins the
:31:34. > :31:37.next election, there will have to be public 's sector restraint. It's not
:31:38. > :31:41.deserving the money, it's whether we can afford the salaries. In the
:31:42. > :31:45.Labour government we got to the position where we were borrowing
:31:46. > :31:49.?430 million every single day, and it's not affordable. The reason we
:31:50. > :31:53.don't have high unemployment like they do in places like France is
:31:54. > :31:56.because we have had public sector pay restraint. If we don't have
:31:57. > :31:59.that, we would have to pay the salaries by sacking people, but we
:32:00. > :32:05.cannot magic money that doesn't exist because we had a massive
:32:06. > :32:09.deficit. So you want to continue until 2018 with that pay restraint?
:32:10. > :32:16.If you or anyone else can tell us how we can fund this salary
:32:17. > :32:19.increases and get the deficit and dashed down at the same time, I'm
:32:20. > :32:24.all ears. It's just a fact of life, what you can afford. It is a fact of
:32:25. > :32:27.life we are still borrowing about ?260 million per day, so we have the
:32:28. > :32:33.deficit down and were making good progress, but we are still living
:32:34. > :32:38.way beyond our means as a country. Any politician's say they can double
:32:39. > :32:46.everybody's pay, and Labour tried that. Labour almost bankrupted the
:32:47. > :32:53.country. That is rewriting history. As ever. We all know it's a
:32:54. > :32:57.nonsense. We know we had 36 quotas -- quarters of growth under the last
:32:58. > :33:00.Labour government and then there was an international financial crisis
:33:01. > :33:03.that led to crisis in the banks and the last Labour government decided
:33:04. > :33:08.to shore up the banks in order to stop savers and pensions and
:33:09. > :33:14.everybody from losing money. You were borrowing more money. You are
:33:15. > :33:19.borrowing more money now yourself. It's going to be ?75 billion. You
:33:20. > :33:24.fail. Both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats by calling the pay
:33:25. > :33:27.restraint until 2018 will feed into the crisis, because we know that
:33:28. > :33:33.wages have stayed lower than inflation for years and will
:33:34. > :33:36.continue to do so. Going back before the last election, with Labour in
:33:37. > :33:40.government, lots of private sector employees in my constituency would
:33:41. > :33:46.say they had lost 20% of their income. 18% of their money. We have
:33:47. > :33:50.to work out how to do it. We are the make staff redundant or some people
:33:51. > :33:53.go part-time or we freeze pay, but you cannot carrying on pretending
:33:54. > :34:01.you have got money when you don't have it. Should it be Liberal
:34:02. > :34:04.Democrat policy to do that? Going onto the strike clause, you said you
:34:05. > :34:08.would like to see it change, but if we look at MPs and how they are
:34:09. > :34:13.elected in terms of turnout, you were elected on 38% of 68% turnout,
:34:14. > :34:18.so on the whole, it was 26% of the electorate. That is about the same
:34:19. > :34:21.as the number of people who voted for strike action, so how can you
:34:22. > :34:26.call for a higher bar for the unions and keep the same for MPs? If not
:34:27. > :34:30.more than 50% of people vote you can't have no MP, but you need to
:34:31. > :34:34.get the turnout. I think it's testament to politics being out of
:34:35. > :34:38.touch with reality that people don't turn out. But I'm concerned about
:34:39. > :34:43.the legitimacy of strike action. If you look at many doctors, members of
:34:44. > :34:47.the BMA, they would not vote to take action, and it's the same with
:34:48. > :34:51.teachers. If a majority of teachers want to strike, I support their
:34:52. > :34:54.right to be able to do that, but what I'm concerned about is that a
:34:55. > :34:58.minority are creating an impression of the teaching profession which is
:34:59. > :35:07.perhaps not shared by the majority. It's not double standards as an MP,
:35:08. > :35:10.for you to say I can be elected on 26% of the electorate, but other
:35:11. > :35:14.groups cannot vote for strike action unless they have a higher bar?
:35:15. > :35:19.There's a difference between electing an individual choice and
:35:20. > :35:26.electing her positive action against the negative action. Not in
:35:27. > :35:29.principle. Think that's right. -- I don't think that's right. People are
:35:30. > :35:32.members of the union because they need protection they are not always
:35:33. > :35:36.happy with the action the union takes, so you should empower the
:35:37. > :35:40.majority. Why should a small number of union hold the rest of the union
:35:41. > :35:46.or their to ransom? Because it is democracy. It's precisely what you
:35:47. > :35:49.just described. The Tories and the Liberals are running the country
:35:50. > :35:56.with fewer than 35% of the Democratic electorate of the
:35:57. > :36:01.country. You are describing a threshold of 50% but its OK to run
:36:02. > :36:04.the country with less than 35 question but it's a total compared
:36:05. > :36:10.with the others from majority not voting for any action. The principle
:36:11. > :36:13.is that you are seeking to impose on the union is democratic and it's
:36:14. > :36:18.about trying to preclude strikes in public services. Where do you stand
:36:19. > :36:22.on this, Jeremy? Should the bar be raised? Should there be a higher
:36:23. > :36:25.turnout required for union members? I have difficulties with that
:36:26. > :36:29.because of the reasons just said. We could look at some reforms. I'm
:36:30. > :36:32.open-minded to the period between a ballot taking place and the strike
:36:33. > :36:38.happening changing. People might feel that a long period is no longer
:36:39. > :36:41.reflective of the views when they cast a vote. I think putting the
:36:42. > :36:45.threshold in places difficult. I wouldn't go on strike if I was a
:36:46. > :36:49.teacher on Thursday. But you wouldn't change the law either? The
:36:50. > :36:55.unions have to use their power responsibly and we live way beyond
:36:56. > :36:58.our means as a country, and they have an obligation to teach children
:36:59. > :37:02.and an obligation to the parents whose children go to the school, and
:37:03. > :37:04.I think a lot of professional teachers will feel uncomfortable
:37:05. > :37:07.about that strike. Let's leave it there.
:37:08. > :37:10.Now, a little later than usual, it's time for our quiz,
:37:11. > :37:12.and as you're probably aware the Chancellor and Foreign Secretary are
:37:13. > :37:16.And as a former Foreign Office Minister Jeremy,
:37:17. > :37:22.will know just how important it is to ingratiate yourself with
:37:23. > :37:27.the locals. Here is Jeremy on such a trip to China in 2011.
:37:28. > :37:34.So our question for today is - what animal should William Hague be
:37:35. > :37:48.At the end of the show, Jeremy and the rest of the panel will hopefully
:37:49. > :37:58.How many times have we use that picture of you with the panda? Every
:37:59. > :38:01.time I have been the programme. It is the best photo of me though.
:38:02. > :38:03.The perennial row over communications surveillance has
:38:04. > :38:07.The government looks set to introduce new legislation to require
:38:08. > :38:09.the retention of certain data, such where and when you have been
:38:10. > :38:12.using your smartphone or accessing emails, but not the content
:38:13. > :38:18.The new laws are required after the European Court of Justice
:38:19. > :38:47.Charlotte Leslie, what exactly is the government proposing to do? It
:38:48. > :38:50.is looking again at the existing rules to make sure they can govern
:38:51. > :38:53.as they need and comply with the judgement of the European Court of
:38:54. > :38:58.Justice Cross because they don't at the moment? No, they don't. We live
:38:59. > :39:02.in an ever-changing world and the security threats change all the
:39:03. > :39:06.time. It's about a balance between protecting civil liberties from
:39:07. > :39:11.government and from terrorists who have bad intentions against us. They
:39:12. > :39:15.are looking to reshape it. There are no firm proposals on the table but
:39:16. > :39:20.they want to rejig it so we can gather the data we need, which is
:39:21. > :39:27.surveillance over e-mails and phone calls. Is there anything for people
:39:28. > :39:29.to be worried about? Your party gets worried about the sort of things on
:39:30. > :39:36.civil liberties, but nothing will dramatically change, will it, as
:39:37. > :39:41.long as they comply, that will be protected? I sound like I'm
:39:42. > :39:46.answering indirectly, and maybe I am, but I'm trying to be honest. All
:39:47. > :39:50.politicians, virtually everyone watching the programme realises
:39:51. > :39:54.there is some balance to be struck between security and Civil Liberties
:39:55. > :39:59.and very few people are at one end or the other. They sit somewhere in
:40:00. > :40:37.between. It is nine years since the bombs in London and people are
:40:38. > :40:49.mindful about national security and they are right to be. But the
:40:50. > :40:52.Liberal Democrats have an instinct as a party that the government, the
:40:53. > :40:53.state, works for us as people and not the other way around and we have
:40:54. > :40:54.a strong emotional attachment to Civil Liberties. When we are faced
:40:55. > :40:55.with these questions we are concerned about security and Civil
:40:56. > :40:55.Liberties but we tend to be particularly aware of any Civil
:40:56. > :40:55.Liberties implications or any legislation. We are keen to protect
:40:56. > :40:56.Liberties implications or any people 's freedom to communicate
:40:57. > :40:56.without unfair interference. But people 's liberal -- Civil Liberties
:40:57. > :41:00.are not really being challenged? Or are they? We are not closed minded,
:41:01. > :41:07.but we have to get the balance right. We tried to introduce ID
:41:08. > :41:11.cards, so there's nothing Labour won support when it comes to
:41:12. > :41:17.surveillance? I don't think that is true -- and won't support. There is
:41:18. > :41:36.a balance to be struck. We know that, but what is the balance?
:41:37. > :41:42.Should you be able to look at the content of phone calls, messages,
:41:43. > :41:46.Internet, whoever they are? Not those just on a suspect list. It
:41:47. > :41:55.sometimes feels like we are dancing on the head of the pin. When you
:41:56. > :42:02.look at the Edward Snowden files and what is arguably being looked at,
:42:03. > :42:12.and when you look at what private companies currently know about our
:42:13. > :42:29.lives because of what we allow them to do in terms of tracking data. We
:42:30. > :42:39.need to look at what the right level of intrusion is. I don't we should
:42:40. > :42:44.go any further than what is proposed now. I think Labour is asking for a
:42:45. > :42:48.simple debate because these are not straight for answers questions. --
:42:49. > :42:54.record. Do we not need increased surveillance powers to track people
:42:55. > :42:59.going to fight in Iraq? There is an issue about the power the state has
:43:00. > :43:10.two monitor 6 million people in the UK, regardless of what you've done
:43:11. > :43:23.or whether you have a track record. The Security service has always had
:43:24. > :43:26.an ability to track individuals and we should be careful. Would you
:43:27. > :43:29.support blanket powers in this time of national security worries? You do
:43:30. > :43:31.have to look at the detail about this, and this is about lives we are
:43:32. > :43:35.protecting. It's easy to sit in a studio and get excited about Civil
:43:36. > :43:37.Liberties, but we have the Berwick against the protection of lives. --
:43:38. > :43:39.Berwick against. While we were on David Cameron has been asked about
:43:40. > :43:42.the situation with the allegations of child abuse at Whitehall. I am
:43:43. > :43:46.determined we will leave no stone unturned to find out the truth about
:43:47. > :43:50.what happened. That is vital, and it is also vital that we learn the
:43:51. > :43:53.lessons right across the board from these things that have gone wrong,
:43:54. > :43:58.and it's also important that the police feel that they can go
:43:59. > :44:05.wherever the evidence leads and make all the appropriate arrangements.
:44:06. > :44:09.Three things need to happen, robust enquiries they get to the truth.
:44:10. > :44:12.Police investigations that pursue the guilty and find out what has
:44:13. > :44:16.happened. And proper lessons learned so we make sure that these things
:44:17. > :44:20.cannot happen again. That is what will happen under my government. We
:44:21. > :44:22.have a statement from the Home Secretary, Theresa May, in a few
:44:23. > :44:32.hours time. So say the leaders of medical
:44:33. > :44:34.Royal Colleges, two non-executive directors of
:44:35. > :44:37.NHS England and patient groups. They are calling
:44:38. > :44:39.for a radical rethink of what the NHS offers, or more money to
:44:40. > :44:41.sustain the current service. One
:44:42. > :44:43.of the signatories to that letter is Chris Hopson who represents NHS
:44:44. > :44:53.foundation trusts and joins me now. What are you calling for exactly? A
:44:54. > :44:57.national debate. A taxpayer funded NHS is a great system in that it is
:44:58. > :45:02.equitable and provides fantastic outcomes, but you get what you pay
:45:03. > :45:06.for, and the NHS is basically going through 45 years of financial
:45:07. > :45:11.squeeze, the biggest and longest squeezing its financial history --
:45:12. > :45:15.four or five. We are doing 1 million more on the same money that we did
:45:16. > :45:21.before, but if you look forward over the next five years, and I thought
:45:22. > :45:23.the debate about the strikes brought this out, we still have quite a long
:45:24. > :45:27.way to go to eliminate the budget deficit, so there is a real question
:45:28. > :45:33.about how we should fund the NHS and what level of service can we get.
:45:34. > :45:40.That's a debate we feel strongly needs to be had. With the British
:45:41. > :45:46.public and politicians as well. Is the NHS creaking at the seams? There
:45:47. > :45:50.is no doubt about that. If you look at the increases in demand. At a
:45:51. > :45:56.hospital hast week, we were talking about a 7. 5 increase in terms of
:45:57. > :45:59.the number of patients admitting to A compared to last year. Like it
:46:00. > :46:02.or not ex-we have an iller population and a population which
:46:03. > :46:07.effectively therefore needs more care and that, you know, we
:46:08. > :46:12.therefore kind of need to pay for it. If you get what you pay for, a
:46:13. > :46:17.4% increase, it's very difficult for the NHS to carry on meeting that
:46:18. > :46:21.demand on effectively flat cash. What would you like to see? You say
:46:22. > :46:27.flat cash, would you like to see a real terms increase in NHS spending,
:46:28. > :46:30.a much bigger real terms increase than has been claimed by the
:46:31. > :46:34.Government, would you like to see the taxpayer help fund it in terms
:46:35. > :46:38.of payments to GPs or social insurance schemes, or should the NHS
:46:39. > :46:43.cut down on what it offers? Well, so for me to be frank, I don't think
:46:44. > :46:47.it's for us to really say... But you must have a view? The thing we have
:46:48. > :46:53.a view on is the fact that we need a national debate about this because
:46:54. > :46:57.effectively that's the point about a tax-funded paying system. Clearly
:46:58. > :47:00.all of us in the Health Service would like to be a significant
:47:01. > :47:03.increase in the resources we have available but we elect our
:47:04. > :47:07.politicians to set those limits in terms of spending but crucially, we
:47:08. > :47:11.think it's really important that the patients, the taxpayers, should also
:47:12. > :47:14.have a part in that debate. If I'm honest, what we are concerned about
:47:15. > :47:18.is, we are going into a general election where there's a bit of a
:47:19. > :47:22.track record of all of our political parties wanting to demonstrate their
:47:23. > :47:26.fiscal recollect dued but on the other hand not being able to spell
:47:27. > :47:29.out the consequences and I think there's a really interesting
:47:30. > :47:32.question about whether, if you want to eliminate the budget deficit over
:47:33. > :47:37.the next Parliament, you can continue to maintain the NHS
:47:38. > :47:43.ringfence. OK. So sorry, to maintain the ringfence? So what we are saying
:47:44. > :47:47.is, if you look at all the expert predictions going forward, there is
:47:48. > :47:50.a ?30 billion gap for the NHS by 2020 but that assumes that the NHS
:47:51. > :47:54.ringfence remains in place and what we are saying is that I think if you
:47:55. > :47:58.want to eliminate the budget deficit over the next Parliament which I
:47:59. > :48:01.suspect all of the political parties want to do, it's, to be frank, very
:48:02. > :48:06.difficult to even keep the ringfence in place so we need a debate which
:48:07. > :48:10.is what level of service do we want for what level of funding. Thank you
:48:11. > :48:13.very much. How much more money would you put
:48:14. > :48:21.into the NHS to keep it at the level it is And should it have more cash?
:48:22. > :48:25.It's not going to be sustain sod say the experts? We need to look at the
:48:26. > :48:28.cash we can possibly afford to spend on it. This is a question that all
:48:29. > :48:36.polices have known we are going to have the face, we have huge increase
:48:37. > :48:41.in demand and we can't pay for it under the political football. We
:48:42. > :48:45.need a cross party debate because whoever wins the election, they are
:48:46. > :48:50.going to be holding the hot potato of the timebomb that won't be able
:48:51. > :48:53.to cope with demand. We all need for our own political interests and for
:48:54. > :49:01.the public most of all to work out how we are going to fund the thing.
:49:02. > :49:05.Was that top down policy a winner from Andrew Lansley? It's a
:49:06. > :49:10.short-term cost for long-term savings, so how much of a success it
:49:11. > :49:16.is we'll be able to say in five, seven, ten years. You wanted a frank
:49:17. > :49:20.debate, but what is your view about how to sustain the NHS? Increase the
:49:21. > :49:24.spending or cut what is on offer? There are so many things involved. I
:49:25. > :49:29.think look at what we are offering to see what we are doing, so yes we
:49:30. > :49:32.might look at what we offer. GPs have spoken to me about charging for
:49:33. > :49:36.missed a I pointments for example. How do you feel about that? I think
:49:37. > :49:42.perhaps it would be interesting to pilot it. We also need to encourage
:49:43. > :49:47.all of us, our generations are very stoic, they say sorry for taking up
:49:48. > :49:51.your time when we are half dying, we tend to go when we have a sore
:49:52. > :49:57.throat and say, I need pills. We also need to look at hour own
:49:58. > :50:02.responsibility towards it. What would you do about the funding
:50:03. > :50:08.of the NHS? There's a bit of a conspiracy by politicians of all
:50:09. > :50:11.parties. The NHS in its existing form is sustainable indefinitely - I
:50:12. > :50:19.don't think it is. They are kidding the population? Without putting more
:50:20. > :50:23.money in, I was going to say? Labour more than doubled spending on the
:50:24. > :50:28.NHS in real terms, aploughing for inflation even. All the polls said
:50:29. > :50:34.people were satisfied -- allowing for inflation even. We are still
:50:35. > :50:39.talking now about money for health, stillish eyes of new illnesses --
:50:40. > :50:42.issues of new illnesses. I don't think anyone believes if Labour win
:50:43. > :50:45.the next election all the problems will be solved in health. The
:50:46. > :50:49.problem we have as a country, we have protected the health budget, so
:50:50. > :50:53.other areas like the police have been cut. How much of an increase in
:50:54. > :50:58.the health budget? Very small. Negligible? But every other
:50:59. > :51:04.department's had a real terms decrease, so health's stood still.
:51:05. > :51:08.But what would you do? Would you make it a priority and put more
:51:09. > :51:13.money into the Health Service or cut the service it offers? It's not
:51:14. > :51:17.plausible to cut the service. People's expect aces of health care
:51:18. > :51:21.are rising rightly. We need thefind sources of revenue. Social insurance
:51:22. > :51:25.scheme? My personal view is that it is not going to be affordable. If we
:51:26. > :51:30.are going to keep it going for years, Labour could keep it going
:51:31. > :51:34.for a few years. I'm talking about when I'm retired... We'll keep it
:51:35. > :51:39.going forever, Jeremy. The NHS will be safe under Labour. Labour have
:51:40. > :51:43.left behind a country virtually bankrupt, they do it every time. We
:51:44. > :51:47.have to be able to think about how we are going to afford commitment.
:51:48. > :51:55.What we can't do is keep spenting money until it runs out every single
:51:56. > :51:59.time like Labour do in Government. We need to look after the ageing
:52:00. > :52:03.population. So how do you keep it going in the way we expect the NHS
:52:04. > :52:14.to continue? The first thing you wouldn't do is start from where we
:52:15. > :52:19.are which is spending. That is more of the dividing rule nonsense. Doing
:52:20. > :52:28.a disservice to any realistic debate. Let's come on to that in a
:52:29. > :52:33.moment. You should be more worried about the fact that your records are
:52:34. > :52:46.worse on cancer services. ALL SPEAK AT ONCE
:52:47. > :52:50.We'll come on to that. How will Labour fund the NHS? We'll continue
:52:51. > :52:56.to fund the NHS through taxpayer funding, just as we always supported
:52:57. > :53:00.it. There's a ?30 million back hole. When Labour came to power in 1997,
:53:01. > :53:04.we were spending far less than the European average. These questions
:53:05. > :53:10.were being asked then, Labour invested in the NHS, boosting
:53:11. > :53:14.spending from around ?40 billion to around ?112 billion when we left
:53:15. > :53:17.office. That was sensible investment in the future of this country and
:53:18. > :53:22.we'll need, no doubt, to invest in the NHS in years to come because
:53:23. > :53:26.it's implausible. So you will increase spending? I think it
:53:27. > :53:32.implausible, health inflation we all know runs very, very high. A higher
:53:33. > :53:36.indeed. It's implausible for anyone to suggest that we won't need to
:53:37. > :53:48.spend more on health in the future. We are all talking about something
:53:49. > :53:53.else. Hang on. Be angry for your own constituents because 62-day waiting
:53:54. > :53:59.time for cancer sufferers in your constituency is at 80%, the Welsh
:54:00. > :54:06.average is 93%. How do you take the Party Politics
:54:07. > :54:08.out? We have to be honest about it. If things are wrong in my
:54:09. > :54:13.constituency, you know what, that's bad too. But do we hear about it?
:54:14. > :54:18.The Government always turns to Wales because it sees it as a weakness in
:54:19. > :54:22.its eyes? I've been critical of my Government in not getting rid of
:54:23. > :54:26.David nilologison but we've got to be honest about what's going on, yes
:54:27. > :54:29.bad stuff happens. Be honest about your Trust? There is bad stuff
:54:30. > :54:34.happening in my Trust and I've been very open about that. We have got to
:54:35. > :54:39.be honest where things are wrong, listen to the doctors because with
:54:40. > :54:46.if edon't, there'll be no NHS -- if we don't, there'll be no NHS.
:54:47. > :54:49.You might have noticed the Tour de France became the tour de-Yorkshire
:54:50. > :54:55.over the weekend, fantastic it looked too. They cycled over ill
:54:56. > :55:01.chill moor though not by at the and it's not God's county's first
:55:02. > :55:05.sporting success. There was more medals won in 2012 Olympics than
:55:06. > :55:12.Spain, Brazil and South Africa. If Yorkshire was a country, it would
:55:13. > :55:16.have come 12th. So should Yorkshire push for independence? Yorkshire
:55:17. > :55:27.humour may be, but to big up the county, let's speak to Smith from
:55:28. > :55:34.Mike's -- speak to Mike Smith from Mike's Carpets? We should work off
:55:35. > :55:37.the back of the Tour de France and let people know what Yorkshire is
:55:38. > :55:39.like. There are millions of people who've never seen Yorkshire before
:55:40. > :55:40.and the tour US industry now is going to be booming. I think we
:55:41. > :55:43.should be slightly autonomous, not totally separated from the rest of
:55:44. > :55:49.the country, but a little better. We shouldn't have a King or Queen of
:55:50. > :55:53.Yorkshire, although, if I'm asked I would consider of course, but we
:55:54. > :55:57.should be autonomous and more independent in finances and Local
:55:58. > :56:02.Governments and all that, certainly we are the most beautiful county and
:56:03. > :56:08.we should be more autonomous. The Tourist Board should get you on
:56:09. > :56:11.their panel. What do you mean by slightly autonomous because Regional
:56:12. > :56:18.Assemblies was an idea floated by the last Government but everyone
:56:19. > :56:22.rejected it? In terms of finance, being a Yorkshireman of course, we
:56:23. > :56:29.should be more in charge of our own money. Not total financial
:56:30. > :56:34.separation, but now we have got the Tour de France from Yorkshire, and
:56:35. > :56:38.we should run off the back of that and be more in charge of our own
:56:39. > :56:43.finance in terms of tax concessions for the business people in the Dales
:56:44. > :56:46.and North Yorkshire, they have had a bad time the last 20 years with
:56:47. > :56:50.foot-and-mouth and the recession and everything and they are doing OK
:56:51. > :56:54.again and they want to do better. Thank you very much. Owen Smith,
:56:55. > :56:57.everybody talks about holding more power. Oppositions talk about it and
:56:58. > :57:00.the Government have been talking about it. In the end, people don't
:57:01. > :57:05.want to have regional Governments and assemblies and new structures
:57:06. > :57:10.put in place, to they? I don't think you are right. I think Scotland and
:57:11. > :57:14.Wales. They voted for it? Irrespective of Regional Assemblies,
:57:15. > :57:17.they didn't, because they were insufficiently powerful and people
:57:18. > :57:22.saw that they were just talking shops. If you had real powers, and
:57:23. > :57:26.we are proposing real powers, we think Mike's on to something, that's
:57:27. > :57:29.a good idea for Yorkshire. Briefly, Michael Heseltine suggested ?70
:57:30. > :57:33.billion for his regeneration of cities, you are talking about ?10
:57:34. > :57:37.billion, it's a drop in the ocean in terms of his vision? Show me the
:57:38. > :57:40.money, it doesn't grow on trees. It's about making money from it
:57:41. > :57:44.isn't it? Having responsibility for themselves tends to work well. In
:57:45. > :57:47.Bristol we have an elected mayor, it's going well. Let us leave it
:57:48. > :57:52.there. Just time before we go to find out the answer to our quiz.
:57:53. > :58:03.Earlier, we showed you this picture, again of Jeremy Browne on a visit to
:58:04. > :58:09.China. We wanted to know, what animal should he be pictured
:58:10. > :58:15.cuddling up to? An elephant, Bengal tiger, lemur or Indian crested
:58:16. > :58:20.porcupine? Which animal should William Hague be cuddling up to
:58:21. > :58:26.Definitely the tiger. Ben gal tiger anybody? What do you think?
:58:27. > :58:32.Elephant. Indian elephant. Actually, it's the Ben gal tiger because it's
:58:33. > :58:38.the national symbol of India. I bet you are glad it was the panda for
:58:39. > :58:43.you, less ferocious. Yes, less frightening than a Bengal tiger.
:58:44. > :58:46.Elephants are very wise. William Hague was Home Secretary and I was
:58:47. > :58:50.Foreign Minister so it would reflect him. Very loyal you are, very loyal!
:58:51. > :58:55.Thank you to all of you, particularly to our MP guests, the
:58:56. > :58:57.panel. The One o'clock news is starting on BBC One and I'm back at
:58:58. > :58:57.noon tomorrow. starting on BBC One and I'm back at
:58:58. > :59:00.noon Bye.