07/07/2014 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 07/07/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Good afternoon and welcome to the Daily Politics.


The Home Secretary is to announce a wide ranging inquiry


into allegations of a cover-up of child abuse at the Home Office


Teachers, council workers and NHS staff will walk out on Thursday.


Does the law need changing to make striking more difficult?


It's the EU's newest member but it's already falling out


We ask Croatians whether joining the club was really worth it?


It did the Tour de France arguably better than the French.


Is it time for "God's own County" to become "God's own country?"


All that coming up in the next hour, but let's start this morning with


the story that's dominating the agenda here


That's claims of a cover-up of allegations of child abuse


levelled against political figures more than 20 years ago.


In the 1980s, Tory MP Geoffrey Dickens passed


on information about alleged child abusers operating in Westminster to


the then Home Secretary, Leon Britten, who says he handed over


No criminal charges or prosecutions were ever brought but last year


a Home Office review of information about organised child sex abuse


found that whilst "credible" elements of the dossier with a


"realistic potential" for investigation were sent to police


and prosecutors, other elements were not kept - 114 files were missing,


destroyed or simply "not found" but the review did lead to four historic


called for a "Hillsborough-style" public inquiry into the handling


of the abuse claims and Shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has called


for an "over-arching" and "comprehensive" investigation.


afternoon Teresa May is expected to announce that a senior legal figure


will re-examine last year's report and that there will be a new review


of public bodies' duty of care towards children.


look like the end of this story - yesterday former Cabinet member Lord


Tebbitt raised the possibility of a political cover-up in the 1980s.


At that time, I think most people would have thought that the


establishment, the system, was to be protected. And if a few things had


gone wrong here and there, that it was more important to protect the


system than to delve too far into them. Now that view, I think, was


wrong then and it is spectacularly shown to have been wrong because the


abuses have grown. Do you think there was a political cover-up 30


years ago? I think there may well have been. But it was almost


unconscious. It was the thing that people did at time. You didn't talk


about these things? You didn't talk about those sort of things.


Let's talk to our Political Correspondent, Robin Brant.


Picking up on the comments from Lord Tebbit, how damning are they? The


suggestion of a cover-up, unconsciously or not? From a man who


was there at the time and at the heart of government, they were


incendiary, and that no doubt increased the pressure on the Home


Secretary, and that is how we get to today wearing three hours time she


will come to Parliament and give quite a detailed explanation. Not


just of this review of the review, which is essentially a rerun of the


internal investigation they had last year which are detailed just now. He


will name the QC who will be leading that. That is about ensuring the


process of last year when they looked at the paperwork and what was


done with regard to the initial investigation some 30 years before,


that that remains valid and sound. We will get more detail and the


detail will be crucial today on this wider, overarching independent


enquiry which will look at how institutions dealt with abuses and


allegations of abuse across the whole of the public sector. The BBC,


the NHS, and also now, government departments. Are you suggesting


Theresa May and the government have been bounced into this because there


was so little publicity surrounding the initial Home Office review of


the historic allegations? I will say this. This is very close to what the


Labour Party and Yvette Cooper have been calling for for some time. The


MP who has led much of the investigation into what Cyril Smith


did or did not do, he once a Hillsborough style public enquiry.


This will not be a public enquiry, but we hear evidence that it could


call evidence and call for it in public and that is very close to


what the Labour Party has wanted. Interestingly, it looks like Nick


Clegg did not get the memo -- the memo. Senior figures in government


have talked about overarching enquiries, independence, strength,


and the prime minister talking about no stone unturned but Nick Clegg


this morning, asked about a public enquiry, he said it would just be


another enquiry. Quite dismissive, and his onus was on the police


investigations, of which there are numerous.


With me now is the Shadow Home Office Minister, Diana Johnson.


Welcome to the programme. You are calling for this overarching enquiry


to look at institutions like the government, the BBC, the NHS and


that will just take years. People want answers now, if there are


answers to be had. Yvette Cooper has been calling for this type of


investigation for the last 18 months and it is to draw together the


recommendations from all of the different enquiries taking place at


the moment. We have already had the NHS one Jimmy Savile and there is


the BBC One June and it is to draw together the recommendations to have


child protection experts leading this so we can find a way forward.


So you are not looking specifically at allegations made in the 1980s in


this so-called dossier or bundle of papers handed to the Home Secretary


then. You don't want to look back, you are looking forward? Because of


the revelations about what happened in the Home Office, we think that


has to be investigated. What revelations? We're talking about


over 100 files being missing, and what happened to the dossier


presented to the Home Secretary. We want to have an investigation into


that, but we now think it is wider than that. We want to find out what


was happening in Whitehall, and what the police and prosecuting


authorities did with the allegations, because we know, don't


we, that to come forward and make allegations that you have been


abused is very difficult and if those victims have come forward,


they deserve to have their allegations dealt with properly and


investigated, so it is to bring together what has happened over the


weekend with the revelations in the Home Office, but also the wider view


about what is happening in institutions like the BBC and the


NHS. Do you know what is happening? When you talk about the allegations


and evidence put forward by witnesses, what substantive


allegations are you talking about? The Home Office carried out a review


as to what was done in the 1980s was handled properly and it said,


broadly that it was that any criminal leads were handed on to the


police. So have you got new evidence? Are there substantive


allegations you want to look at? What we know is that the review was


held last year, and it was not reported what was found. It's only


that now we hear hundreds of files have gone missing. That is the


problem. We don't know. That is why we need the wider review of what


happened in Whitehall and what happened with the police and the


prosecuting authorities in the 80s and 90s. Do you have evidence to say


there was something going on? You are obviously dismissing the review


and you don't feel it will achieve what it's supposed to, because you


know there is other evidence that has not been unearthed? Clearly an


MP in the 1980s presented a dossier to the Home Secretary at that time


with allegations. There are further allegations that my colleagues have


made, accusations of allegations that have improperly investigated so


we think it's important they are investigated at this time. You think


there has been a cover-up? I think that's the problem. The public are


listening to this happening and hearing about files going missing


and listening to what MPs are saying about allegations that haven't been


investigated properly. Will you get to the bottom of it with an


enquiry? You people aren't swearing an oath and can't hear the evidence


in public, how do we get to the truth? We need to wait and see what


Theresa May will say about the enquiry, but we would like to see


evidence given in public and we would like to see led by child


protection experts. We think the public deserves to know what


happened in the 1980s and 1990s, and with some of these institutions, the


recommendations coming out of the various are being implemented. I


would say to you, under this Home Secretary, child protection laws


have been weakened. There are 10,000 people convicted of sexual assaults


on children who are not barred from working with children and the public


will want to know about that and will want an explanation about it.


Now, not long to go now until the summer recess begins.


Here's what's happening this week though.


Today the Chancellor and Foreign Secretary are


They'll have meetings with Narendra Modi,


On Tuesday it's thought the the Intelligence and Security Committee


will publish their report into the Woolwich murder of Lee Rigby.


And it's the Local Government Association conference in


Bournemouth, where Iain Duncan Smith and Eric Pickles will be speaking.


On Wednesday the Lords Communications committee


hears evidence from Facebook and Twitter on internet trolling


as part of their ongoing inquiry into social media.


And on Thursday there's industrial action by members of several unions.


It's thought that over a million council staff, health


workers, teachers, civil servants and firefighters go out on strike.


Also on Thursday, MPs will debate plans to transfer more


David Cameron could face a backbench rebellion as some of


his MPs want to continue to opt out of the European arrest warrant.


To discuss the week ahead in more detail I can speak now to the


Financial Times Deputy Political Editor, Beth Rigby and Christopher


Welcome to both of you. Beth Rigby, first of all, how difficult is the


strike this week for Labour? It is difficult, because obviously the


Tories will use this as a way of saying that Labour are in the hands


of the unions and we are the ones trying to change strike clause for


the benefit of the people, not the unions. But the Lib Dems and Labour


are aligned on this. They don't want to change strike clause. Francis


Maude and the Conservatives are saying they would want a 50%


majority to have a strike and there is nothing going to happen in terms


of strike clause before the election. This is about a Tory


manifesto promise, and this is about differentiating against the Labour


Party and putting them in a difficult position with all the


parents and commuters facing a very hassled Thursday. As always, we


hope, and we will do so again, we will ask Labour to condemn the


strike and they will find a form of words to say neither one thing nor


the other. Or do you think of something different this time? It's


hard for the Labour Party because they will be seen to criticise


striking union people although they rely on lots of their funds from


there. The whole policy area sits in the Department of Vince cable, not


really for, although he is in charge of negotiating with public sector


workers over pay and pension. We were talking about the issue of


strike clause, so we were talking about a manifesto issue for the next


election. Nothing will happen until there is a Conservative government


with a majority. No doubt manifestoes will see that included,


and in the Tory manifesto certainly, but public sector workers have had


pay restraint and pay freezes since 2010 and we are going to talk about


the prospect of pay restraint, so will it have any impact on changing


government policy by continuing with strikes like this? I don't think


striking will change government policy. And I think also, the other


point to make about this, although there is a lot of play in the Tory


camp about strike clause, the Vince cable argument would be that we have


the best industrial relations in 30 years, with the fewest strike days


in 30 years, and why, therefore, agitate the unions further? As you


have said, they have taken a lot of pain in terms of pay restraint and


they should be allowed to strike. That would be the Liberal Democrat


view. Moving the so-called snoopers charter, new emergency laws in


response to the murder of Lee Rigby. Will they get cross-party support?


There was a slight confusion here. The snoopers charter, which is


different altogether, and the response to the European Court of


Justice ruling which said that the current wave in which the security


services harvest data breaks various human rights laws, there is,


agreement between the Conservatives, Labour and the Lib


Dems about the kind of data that they can harvest to comply with the


April ruling in the European Court of Justice. Separate that is the row


about the snoopers charter. Essentially it is about what the


security services can look at. There's a difference between the


letter and the address on the envelope. Currently you can look at


the address and see who was talking that they cannot see what is inside


the letter. The Conservatives are trying to push further on that and


the Lib Dems are also saying no further with Labour. That part of it


will go into the election, but the immediate part is the emergency


legislation required to comply with the ECJ ruling in April. In order to


comply, what will the new laws do different to what exists now? What


will they enable security services to do? Data Bill. The point of this


is that they are not trying to extend the laws. What they are


trying to do is keep what we've already got which is basically that


you can monitor e-mails, et cetera, phone calls, and so on. What the


debate now is about is how does the Government and the Security Services


retain what they already do while also complying with what the


European court said. That's the debate. Any idea that this is going


to be extended to cover the commune cases bill and snoopers charter is


not going to happen. All they are trying to do is work out a way to


carry on what they are doing, great cross party agreement and comply


with Europe. I think today's story is a Liberal Democrat and Labour


bringing a shot across the bows saying we'll go this far but not


further. There'll be some emergency powers coming shortly. They'll have


to do something to comply with April. So far we have not complied


but we'll have to do something to do so. Thank you both very much. It


started with six. Now there are 28. With more members in the pipeline.


The European Union has expanded a pace in recent years, but with some


of the original founding members struggling, what makes other


countries want to join the club? Adam Fleming has visited Croatia,


the EU's newest member, and he found the honeymoon's not laked long. A


year ago the amphitheatre was full of Croatians celebrating EU


membership. After 30 years on the waiting list. -- not lasted long. I


visited last week and the mood was different. Do you know what today


is? What today is. What? First anniversary of joining the EU. Yes,


the first year that we've joined the European Union. It was a big,


interesting thing for us and we have referendum for that. Do you think


anyone will be celebrating... I don't think so. Why not? I don't


think one year is a big deal. This is a town that's 3,000 years old so


one year is not a lot for us. A year in Europe hasn't done a lot to help


Croatia's tank in the economy. It's entered its sixth year in recession.


Unemployment is the third highest in the EU and half of young people


can't find work. So let's head to the university. You didn't


celebrate? No. You didn't crack open a beer? We crack open a beer every


day, but not because of the accession to the EU. Fair enough.


Why is it not that big a deal? I thought it was quite an historic


moment? It was an historic moment but not much has chained and people


do not have a reason to celebrate. The economy is still on the decline


and nothing's changed for the regular people, maybe for the


politicians, but that's about it. And their Professor is like a


growing number of Croatians, a Euro-sceptic. There was a lot of


Capitol, you know, investments and so forth. The EU is not taking care


of things properly. So does anyone care about this


anniversary? Finally, I found some people who're celebrating. It's the


family that own this vineyard, because they received some of the


money Brussels gave Croatia for EU membership.


It paid for this new bottling plant which will help them produce better


quality wine and boost their profits. Over the next few years,


there's another 11 billion euros on the way to help Croatia compete. We


now have the possibility to compete. It means we just have a view of what


is our future. And joining the EU has forced the


country to bring all sorts of sectors up to European standards,


from the sewage system to the judiciary. It's just that lots of


people here don't seem to appreciate all that when their economy is


withering on the vine. We are joined by Labour's former


Europe Minister, Chris Bryant, and the Conservative backbencher,


Stewart Jackson. Welcome both of you.


Chris Bryant first of all, you were Europe Minister in a Government


which championed EU enlargement. Would you say it's been a resounding


success? You put the word resounding in front as if it's unqualified. A


success? Largely, yes, because for a start it means you can tackles in


some countries the very unfair state aid that used to make it impossible


for British businesses to do business elsewhere in Europe and


that wouldn't have happened without accession to the EU. Secondly,


you've seen British people be able to exercise their rights to travel


and work in those other countries and thirdly, we are beginning to be


able to tackment some historic levels of...ion there have been in


countries like Croatia. But let's not just limit it to Croatia where


people haven't seen the benefits yet to joining the EU. But there was a


major economic crisis across the whole of in particular southern


Europe. But let's look at the southern Europe, the difference


between southern European countries, the head trainian countries and


Ireland -- Mediterranean countries. Has it been a success to join


together economies that were vastly tink and couldn't meet properly


which is what is in part led to the Euro-sceptic argument taking place?


Yes, I think it has. -- vastly different. Spain and Greece were


both southern countries, but both dictatorships. Portugal was as well,


in my lifetime. Bringing peace, guaranteeing peace in the Balkans


for instance is a very parenth important part of what the UU has


been able to do. Still six candidate countries in the EU, Albania joined


last week. Iceland's probably, if they have put it on ice, as it were,


their prospect of joining the European Union, but it's been good,


yes. Why hasn't it been successful in your eyes? Chris can't do what he


should do and which the party he he represents needs to do, to apologise


for a deliberate policy of mass migration. Done that five times on


this prasmt. I can do it all again if you want. 13-15,000 people from


Eastern European countries out by a factor of 75. During that time, in a


growing economy, they failed to reform welfare. But you accept there


wasn't a deluge of immigrants from Romania, as talked about by


colleagues of yours and UKIP? What we have to look at is this urban


myth that people who come to work from the European Union are


necessarily all contributing in terms of their taxes and are a


benefit to the UK economy. There's no evidence for that, no academic


evidence whatsoever. Quite the opposite. The migration advisory


committee in 2011 found that unless you are a single person on B average


income you were a net drain on the UK Exchequer.


What about the fact that in getting the countries to join the EU, you


expand the area to try to keep the peace, if you like, right across the


area? My constituents never had the chancevote for nation-building. I


think it's wonderful that tyrannical despots are not in charge of


Portugal and Greece, but that'slet not what they voted on in 197540


years ago almost. They voted on the Common market. That's not true.


Actually the introductory speech to the Bill that brought the accession


into the European Union in 1972 by Geoffrey Howe made clear it was


about political union as well. ALL SPEAK AT ONCE


Can I just answer the charge that I've never apologised. It's


undoubtedly true that Labour, we in Government did get things wrong when


every political party in the UK was in favour of the countries joining


the EU U, there wasn't even a vote on them joining. The one thing I


think we did wrong was, we should have done the same as France,


Germany, Italy and Spain, been more pro-European and said that there


would be transitional controls for five or serven years. Inevitably,


when we were one of only three countries that didn't have


transzisal controls, it meant the people that came to the UK was


dramatically higher than anticipated. Economically you could


argue it's been a disaster too? I don't think it has. You don't think


it has? They have had one of the deepest recessions ever? I don't


think that's been because of the EU or the Euro and indeed Spain would


argue much of the prosperity... It used to be when I was young and


brought up and lived in Spain as a child, it was one of the poorest


countries. That's dramatically changed. There are significant


problems that need to be dealt with. A new country will be joining in


January next year. All those who predicted the collapse of the euro


and the European Union are just shouting. At what cost though,


Chris? The idea of ever closer union, you've smashed the economies


of Greece, Portugal, of Spain and Italy. To, nonsense. A success


story? Poland and Ukraine. When Poland joined the European Union,


they had the same GDP. Poland's is three times larger than the Ukraine.


It's an success story? Some parts have had successes. We shoulder the


burden of immigration when pockets of the country are under stress. The


largest number of nationals, it's the UK. You may have very eloquent


arguments to make, put those to the people in the referendum. Do you


want Britain to leave the European Union? Well, it's irrelevant what I


think. But do you? Do you want Britain to leave? It's important


what... Do you want Britain to leave? It's irrelevant what 45


million people think. I'm on public record as a backbencher of


campaigning for us to leave the European Union. Fine. It's a


legitimate position. It's cutting off Britain's economic nose to spite


our face I think. The party, as a party, should have a position where


it trusts the people and has a referendum and it may be moving in


that trekkion. Thank you both very much. Teachers, council workers,


civil servants and health workers are going out on strike on Thursday.


Pay is at the top of the agenda with below inflation pay increases having


been imposed for the last four years. On yesterday's Sunday


Politics, the Business Minister, Matthew Hancock, debated and rights


and wrongs of the strike with the EU C secretary Frances O'Grady. What


really sticks in the throat is the idea that money can be found to give


tax cuts to billionaires, to millionaires and to big


corporations, but it can't be found to help, for example, half a million


workers in local government, dinner ladies, school workers, lollipop men


and women earning less than the living wage. Would a public sector


worker ever get a real increase in their pay under a Conservative


Government? We certainly hope to have the books balanced in the intro


by 2018. So not before then? Well, that is when we hope to be able to


be in surplus. So no real pay increase for public sector workers


before 2018? Interestingly, this isn't just about the Conservatives


and the Liberal Democrats, you know. The Labour Party leadership's said


it's a test to their credibility that they support the squeeze on


public sector pay. Matt Hancock there. We are joined


for the rest of the programme by the Conservative MP, Charlotte Lesley,


the Shadow Wales secretary Owen Smith and by the Liberal Democrat,


Jeremy Browne, welcome to all of you. Picking up on what Matt Hancock


said there, no real pay rises for public sector workers until 2018, no


real terms pay rises, that's after four years of public sector pay


being frozen or at below inflation rates. Is he right? Do you agree?


Yes. But that's not to say it's not really tough for people working in


the public sector. My concern about the strikes is, obvious it parents


and children will lose out, but for professions like teaching who're


trying to raise the image of teaching, with a small minority of


teachers voting for the strikes, I'm concerned it further erodes the


professional status of teaching and professes like that. I think the


form of striking laws needs looking at again, not only for the people


affected by the strikes but for the professes striking themselves to


make sure it's representative of what the majority of the people


want. But you agree it shouldn't be until 2018 or even later do you


think, before there is a real terms rise for public sector workers?


Don't forget the massive challenge we are facing. Our debt is still


going up, the deficit is going down, but the debt is still going up. If


we can afford it, brilliant. It's about priorities isn't it. But you


don't think they deserve a pay rise or it's not affordable until that


point? It's not affordable until that point, but future pay rises


need to be dealt with after we stabilise our economy. Do you agree


with that. Public sector pay has been frozen until now. Would you


like to see public sector... We don't know because we need to see


what the books are like if and when we win the next election. We'll


stick to the spending plans during the first year. I would like to see


pay increases, absolutely. Pay has been frozen for far too long. They


are right to be worrying about pensions, pay and the way in which


earnings are outstripped by inflation, so I understand the


decision they are taking to strike. Do you support it? We are getting a


division between the Tories and Labour other public sector workers


public sector units. For the Tories to be suggesting that we need to


make it even harder for people to exercise their right to strike


another example of division and something we should wholly oppose.


But you support the strike, not just the right to strike, on the basis it


has been so tough on pay? I do. I think it's legitimate for them to


voice their concern about the nature of their jobs and how long people


will have to work and how much they are earning. They are entirely


legitimate. It is problematic that the current rhetoric in this


country, in the media and in the Tory party in particular is about


delegitimising what we should be protecting as a fundamental right,


to withdraw one's labour. I think it's understandable. Are the Liberal


Democrats behind the idea of extending public sector pay


restraint beyond the next election question I think whoever wins the


next election, there will have to be public 's sector restraint. It's not


deserving the money, it's whether we can afford the salaries. In the


Labour government we got to the position where we were borrowing


?430 million every single day, and it's not affordable. The reason we


don't have high unemployment like they do in places like France is


because we have had public sector pay restraint. If we don't have


that, we would have to pay the salaries by sacking people, but we


cannot magic money that doesn't exist because we had a massive


deficit. So you want to continue until 2018 with that pay restraint?


If you or anyone else can tell us how we can fund this salary


increases and get the deficit and dashed down at the same time, I'm


all ears. It's just a fact of life, what you can afford. It is a fact of


life we are still borrowing about ?260 million per day, so we have the


deficit down and were making good progress, but we are still living


way beyond our means as a country. Any politician's say they can double


everybody's pay, and Labour tried that. Labour almost bankrupted the


country. That is rewriting history. As ever. We all know it's a


nonsense. We know we had 36 quotas -- quarters of growth under the last


Labour government and then there was an international financial crisis


that led to crisis in the banks and the last Labour government decided


to shore up the banks in order to stop savers and pensions and


everybody from losing money. You were borrowing more money. You are


borrowing more money now yourself. It's going to be ?75 billion. You


fail. Both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats by calling the pay


restraint until 2018 will feed into the crisis, because we know that


wages have stayed lower than inflation for years and will


continue to do so. Going back before the last election, with Labour in


government, lots of private sector employees in my constituency would


say they had lost 20% of their income. 18% of their money. We have


to work out how to do it. We are the make staff redundant or some people


go part-time or we freeze pay, but you cannot carrying on pretending


you have got money when you don't have it. Should it be Liberal


Democrat policy to do that? Going onto the strike clause, you said you


would like to see it change, but if we look at MPs and how they are


elected in terms of turnout, you were elected on 38% of 68% turnout,


so on the whole, it was 26% of the electorate. That is about the same


as the number of people who voted for strike action, so how can you


call for a higher bar for the unions and keep the same for MPs? If not


more than 50% of people vote you can't have no MP, but you need to


get the turnout. I think it's testament to politics being out of


touch with reality that people don't turn out. But I'm concerned about


the legitimacy of strike action. If you look at many doctors, members of


the BMA, they would not vote to take action, and it's the same with


teachers. If a majority of teachers want to strike, I support their


right to be able to do that, but what I'm concerned about is that a


minority are creating an impression of the teaching profession which is


perhaps not shared by the majority. It's not double standards as an MP,


for you to say I can be elected on 26% of the electorate, but other


groups cannot vote for strike action unless they have a higher bar?


There's a difference between electing an individual choice and


electing her positive action against the negative action. Not in


principle. Think that's right. -- I don't think that's right. People are


members of the union because they need protection they are not always


happy with the action the union takes, so you should empower the


majority. Why should a small number of union hold the rest of the union


or their to ransom? Because it is democracy. It's precisely what you


just described. The Tories and the Liberals are running the country


with fewer than 35% of the Democratic electorate of the


country. You are describing a threshold of 50% but its OK to run


the country with less than 35 question but it's a total compared


with the others from majority not voting for any action. The principle


is that you are seeking to impose on the union is democratic and it's


about trying to preclude strikes in public services. Where do you stand


on this, Jeremy? Should the bar be raised? Should there be a higher


turnout required for union members? I have difficulties with that


because of the reasons just said. We could look at some reforms. I'm


open-minded to the period between a ballot taking place and the strike


happening changing. People might feel that a long period is no longer


reflective of the views when they cast a vote. I think putting the


threshold in places difficult. I wouldn't go on strike if I was a


teacher on Thursday. But you wouldn't change the law either? The


unions have to use their power responsibly and we live way beyond


our means as a country, and they have an obligation to teach children


and an obligation to the parents whose children go to the school, and


I think a lot of professional teachers will feel uncomfortable


about that strike. Let's leave it there.


Now, a little later than usual, it's time for our quiz,


and as you're probably aware the Chancellor and Foreign Secretary are


And as a former Foreign Office Minister Jeremy,


will know just how important it is to ingratiate yourself with


the locals. Here is Jeremy on such a trip to China in 2011.


So our question for today is - what animal should William Hague be


At the end of the show, Jeremy and the rest of the panel will hopefully


How many times have we use that picture of you with the panda? Every


time I have been the programme. It is the best photo of me though.


The perennial row over communications surveillance has


The government looks set to introduce new legislation to require


the retention of certain data, such where and when you have been


using your smartphone or accessing emails, but not the content


The new laws are required after the European Court of Justice


Charlotte Leslie, what exactly is the government proposing to do? It


is looking again at the existing rules to make sure they can govern


as they need and comply with the judgement of the European Court of


Justice Cross because they don't at the moment? No, they don't. We live


in an ever-changing world and the security threats change all the


time. It's about a balance between protecting civil liberties from


government and from terrorists who have bad intentions against us. They


are looking to reshape it. There are no firm proposals on the table but


they want to rejig it so we can gather the data we need, which is


surveillance over e-mails and phone calls. Is there anything for people


to be worried about? Your party gets worried about the sort of things on


civil liberties, but nothing will dramatically change, will it, as


long as they comply, that will be protected? I sound like I'm


answering indirectly, and maybe I am, but I'm trying to be honest. All


politicians, virtually everyone watching the programme realises


there is some balance to be struck between security and Civil Liberties


and very few people are at one end or the other. They sit somewhere in


between. It is nine years since the bombs in London and people are


mindful about national security and they are right to be. But the


Liberal Democrats have an instinct as a party that the government, the


state, works for us as people and not the other way around and we have


a strong emotional attachment to Civil Liberties. When we are faced


with these questions we are concerned about security and Civil


Liberties but we tend to be particularly aware of any Civil


Liberties implications or any legislation. We are keen to protect


Liberties implications or any people 's freedom to communicate


without unfair interference. But people 's liberal -- Civil Liberties


are not really being challenged? Or are they? We are not closed minded,


but we have to get the balance right. We tried to introduce ID


cards, so there's nothing Labour won support when it comes to


surveillance? I don't think that is true -- and won't support. There is


a balance to be struck. We know that, but what is the balance?


Should you be able to look at the content of phone calls, messages,


Internet, whoever they are? Not those just on a suspect list. It


sometimes feels like we are dancing on the head of the pin. When you


look at the Edward Snowden files and what is arguably being looked at,


and when you look at what private companies currently know about our


lives because of what we allow them to do in terms of tracking data. We


need to look at what the right level of intrusion is. I don't we should


go any further than what is proposed now. I think Labour is asking for a


simple debate because these are not straight for answers questions. --


record. Do we not need increased surveillance powers to track people


going to fight in Iraq? There is an issue about the power the state has


two monitor 6 million people in the UK, regardless of what you've done


or whether you have a track record. The Security service has always had


an ability to track individuals and we should be careful. Would you


support blanket powers in this time of national security worries? You do


have to look at the detail about this, and this is about lives we are


protecting. It's easy to sit in a studio and get excited about Civil


Liberties, but we have the Berwick against the protection of lives. --


Berwick against. While we were on David Cameron has been asked about


the situation with the allegations of child abuse at Whitehall. I am


determined we will leave no stone unturned to find out the truth about


what happened. That is vital, and it is also vital that we learn the


lessons right across the board from these things that have gone wrong,


and it's also important that the police feel that they can go


wherever the evidence leads and make all the appropriate arrangements.


Three things need to happen, robust enquiries they get to the truth.


Police investigations that pursue the guilty and find out what has


happened. And proper lessons learned so we make sure that these things


cannot happen again. That is what will happen under my government. We


have a statement from the Home Secretary, Theresa May, in a few


hours time. So say the leaders of medical


Royal Colleges, two non-executive directors of


NHS England and patient groups. They are calling


for a radical rethink of what the NHS offers, or more money to


sustain the current service. One


of the signatories to that letter is Chris Hopson who represents NHS


foundation trusts and joins me now. What are you calling for exactly? A


national debate. A taxpayer funded NHS is a great system in that it is


equitable and provides fantastic outcomes, but you get what you pay


for, and the NHS is basically going through 45 years of financial


squeeze, the biggest and longest squeezing its financial history --


four or five. We are doing 1 million more on the same money that we did


before, but if you look forward over the next five years, and I thought


the debate about the strikes brought this out, we still have quite a long


way to go to eliminate the budget deficit, so there is a real question


about how we should fund the NHS and what level of service can we get.


That's a debate we feel strongly needs to be had. With the British


public and politicians as well. Is the NHS creaking at the seams? There


is no doubt about that. If you look at the increases in demand. At a


hospital hast week, we were talking about a 7. 5 increase in terms of


the number of patients admitting to A compared to last year. Like it


or not ex-we have an iller population and a population which


effectively therefore needs more care and that, you know, we


therefore kind of need to pay for it. If you get what you pay for, a


4% increase, it's very difficult for the NHS to carry on meeting that


demand on effectively flat cash. What would you like to see? You say


flat cash, would you like to see a real terms increase in NHS spending,


a much bigger real terms increase than has been claimed by the


Government, would you like to see the taxpayer help fund it in terms


of payments to GPs or social insurance schemes, or should the NHS


cut down on what it offers? Well, so for me to be frank, I don't think


it's for us to really say... But you must have a view? The thing we have


a view on is the fact that we need a national debate about this because


effectively that's the point about a tax-funded paying system. Clearly


all of us in the Health Service would like to be a significant


increase in the resources we have available but we elect our


politicians to set those limits in terms of spending but crucially, we


think it's really important that the patients, the taxpayers, should also


have a part in that debate. If I'm honest, what we are concerned about


is, we are going into a general election where there's a bit of a


track record of all of our political parties wanting to demonstrate their


fiscal recollect dued but on the other hand not being able to spell


out the consequences and I think there's a really interesting


question about whether, if you want to eliminate the budget deficit over


the next Parliament, you can continue to maintain the NHS


ringfence. OK. So sorry, to maintain the ringfence? So what we are saying


is, if you look at all the expert predictions going forward, there is


a ?30 billion gap for the NHS by 2020 but that assumes that the NHS


ringfence remains in place and what we are saying is that I think if you


want to eliminate the budget deficit over the next Parliament which I


suspect all of the political parties want to do, it's, to be frank, very


difficult to even keep the ringfence in place so we need a debate which


is what level of service do we want for what level of funding. Thank you


very much. How much more money would you put


into the NHS to keep it at the level it is And should it have more cash?


It's not going to be sustain sod say the experts? We need to look at the


cash we can possibly afford to spend on it. This is a question that all


polices have known we are going to have the face, we have huge increase


in demand and we can't pay for it under the political football. We


need a cross party debate because whoever wins the election, they are


going to be holding the hot potato of the timebomb that won't be able


to cope with demand. We all need for our own political interests and for


the public most of all to work out how we are going to fund the thing.


Was that top down policy a winner from Andrew Lansley? It's a


short-term cost for long-term savings, so how much of a success it


is we'll be able to say in five, seven, ten years. You wanted a frank


debate, but what is your view about how to sustain the NHS? Increase the


spending or cut what is on offer? There are so many things involved. I


think look at what we are offering to see what we are doing, so yes we


might look at what we offer. GPs have spoken to me about charging for


missed a I pointments for example. How do you feel about that? I think


perhaps it would be interesting to pilot it. We also need to encourage


all of us, our generations are very stoic, they say sorry for taking up


your time when we are half dying, we tend to go when we have a sore


throat and say, I need pills. We also need to look at hour own


responsibility towards it. What would you do about the funding


of the NHS? There's a bit of a conspiracy by politicians of all


parties. The NHS in its existing form is sustainable indefinitely - I


don't think it is. They are kidding the population? Without putting more


money in, I was going to say? Labour more than doubled spending on the


NHS in real terms, aploughing for inflation even. All the polls said


people were satisfied -- allowing for inflation even. We are still


talking now about money for health, stillish eyes of new illnesses --


issues of new illnesses. I don't think anyone believes if Labour win


the next election all the problems will be solved in health. The


problem we have as a country, we have protected the health budget, so


other areas like the police have been cut. How much of an increase in


the health budget? Very small. Negligible? But every other


department's had a real terms decrease, so health's stood still.


But what would you do? Would you make it a priority and put more


money into the Health Service or cut the service it offers? It's not


plausible to cut the service. People's expect aces of health care


are rising rightly. We need thefind sources of revenue. Social insurance


scheme? My personal view is that it is not going to be affordable. If we


are going to keep it going for years, Labour could keep it going


for a few years. I'm talking about when I'm retired... We'll keep it


going forever, Jeremy. The NHS will be safe under Labour. Labour have


left behind a country virtually bankrupt, they do it every time. We


have to be able to think about how we are going to afford commitment.


What we can't do is keep spenting money until it runs out every single


time like Labour do in Government. We need to look after the ageing


population. So how do you keep it going in the way we expect the NHS


to continue? The first thing you wouldn't do is start from where we


are which is spending. That is more of the dividing rule nonsense. Doing


a disservice to any realistic debate. Let's come on to that in a


moment. You should be more worried about the fact that your records are


worse on cancer services. ALL SPEAK AT ONCE


We'll come on to that. How will Labour fund the NHS? We'll continue


to fund the NHS through taxpayer funding, just as we always supported


it. There's a ?30 million back hole. When Labour came to power in 1997,


we were spending far less than the European average. These questions


were being asked then, Labour invested in the NHS, boosting


spending from around ?40 billion to around ?112 billion when we left


office. That was sensible investment in the future of this country and


we'll need, no doubt, to invest in the NHS in years to come because


it's implausible. So you will increase spending? I think it


implausible, health inflation we all know runs very, very high. A higher


indeed. It's implausible for anyone to suggest that we won't need to


spend more on health in the future. We are all talking about something


else. Hang on. Be angry for your own constituents because 62-day waiting


time for cancer sufferers in your constituency is at 80%, the Welsh


average is 93%. How do you take the Party Politics


out? We have to be honest about it. If things are wrong in my


constituency, you know what, that's bad too. But do we hear about it?


The Government always turns to Wales because it sees it as a weakness in


its eyes? I've been critical of my Government in not getting rid of


David nilologison but we've got to be honest about what's going on, yes


bad stuff happens. Be honest about your Trust? There is bad stuff


happening in my Trust and I've been very open about that. We have got to


be honest where things are wrong, listen to the doctors because with


if edon't, there'll be no NHS -- if we don't, there'll be no NHS.


You might have noticed the Tour de France became the tour de-Yorkshire


over the weekend, fantastic it looked too. They cycled over ill


chill moor though not by at the and it's not God's county's first


sporting success. There was more medals won in 2012 Olympics than


Spain, Brazil and South Africa. If Yorkshire was a country, it would


have come 12th. So should Yorkshire push for independence? Yorkshire


humour may be, but to big up the county, let's speak to Smith from


Mike's -- speak to Mike Smith from Mike's Carpets? We should work off


the back of the Tour de France and let people know what Yorkshire is


like. There are millions of people who've never seen Yorkshire before


and the tour US industry now is going to be booming. I think we


should be slightly autonomous, not totally separated from the rest of


the country, but a little better. We shouldn't have a King or Queen of


Yorkshire, although, if I'm asked I would consider of course, but we


should be autonomous and more independent in finances and Local


Governments and all that, certainly we are the most beautiful county and


we should be more autonomous. The Tourist Board should get you on


their panel. What do you mean by slightly autonomous because Regional


Assemblies was an idea floated by the last Government but everyone


rejected it? In terms of finance, being a Yorkshireman of course, we


should be more in charge of our own money. Not total financial


separation, but now we have got the Tour de France from Yorkshire, and


we should run off the back of that and be more in charge of our own


finance in terms of tax concessions for the business people in the Dales


and North Yorkshire, they have had a bad time the last 20 years with


foot-and-mouth and the recession and everything and they are doing OK


again and they want to do better. Thank you very much. Owen Smith,


everybody talks about holding more power. Oppositions talk about it and


the Government have been talking about it. In the end, people don't


want to have regional Governments and assemblies and new structures


put in place, to they? I don't think you are right. I think Scotland and


Wales. They voted for it? Irrespective of Regional Assemblies,


they didn't, because they were insufficiently powerful and people


saw that they were just talking shops. If you had real powers, and


we are proposing real powers, we think Mike's on to something, that's


a good idea for Yorkshire. Briefly, Michael Heseltine suggested ?70


billion for his regeneration of cities, you are talking about ?10


billion, it's a drop in the ocean in terms of his vision? Show me the


money, it doesn't grow on trees. It's about making money from it


isn't it? Having responsibility for themselves tends to work well. In


Bristol we have an elected mayor, it's going well. Let us leave it


there. Just time before we go to find out the answer to our quiz.


Earlier, we showed you this picture, again of Jeremy Browne on a visit to


China. We wanted to know, what animal should he be pictured


cuddling up to? An elephant, Bengal tiger, lemur or Indian crested


porcupine? Which animal should William Hague be cuddling up to


Definitely the tiger. Ben gal tiger anybody? What do you think?


Elephant. Indian elephant. Actually, it's the Ben gal tiger because it's


the national symbol of India. I bet you are glad it was the panda for


you, less ferocious. Yes, less frightening than a Bengal tiger.


Elephants are very wise. William Hague was Home Secretary and I was


Foreign Minister so it would reflect him. Very loyal you are, very loyal!


Thank you to all of you, particularly to our MP guests, the


panel. The One o'clock news is starting on BBC One and I'm back at


noon tomorrow. starting on BBC One and I'm back at


noon Bye.


Download Subtitles