07/07/2014 Daily Politics

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.