10/07/2014 Daily Politics

David Cameron announces emergency legislation to allow

the security services to access our phone, email and internet records.

We'll hear why from a Home Office minister.

And a Labour MP who says it's a back-room stitch-up.

Around one million public sector workers go out

The Conservatives say they'll make it tougher to call a strike

We have even seen who you have a cigarette.

We've got the latest on Mr Juncker's campaign to lead the next European

Commission as the Luxembourger gets a grilling from UKIP.

And after another World Cup washout, we'll debate whether the UK's four

national football teams should play together as one combined team.

All that in the next hour, and with us for the duration director of

You may remember him from the stand-off last year at

the Grangemouth petrochemicals plant in Scotland when the company's

management closed the plant and locked out workers in a dispute

We'll talk about today's public sector strikes in a moment.

First, though, let's start with the breaking news this morning that

the Government is rushing through emergency legislation which will

ensure that the police and security services can access people's phone,

The law will replace previous data rules, which were struck down by the

European Court of Justice earlier this year because they were ruled to

This is how the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister explained

the reasons behind the new law in a press conference this morning.

We face real and credible threats to our security from serious organised

crime, from the activity of paedophiles, from the collapse

of Syria, the growth of Isis in Iraq and Al-Shabab in East Africa.

I am simply not prepared to be a Prime Minister who has to address

people after a terrorist incident and explain I

As a Liberal Democrat I believe successive governments have

neglected civil liberties as they claim to pursue greater security but

I will not stand idly by when there is a real risk we will suddenly be

deprived of the legitimate means by which we keep people safe.

Liberty and security must go hand-in-hand.

We can't enjoy our freedom if we are unable to keep ourselves safe.

Let's talk now to Nick Robinson, who's in Central Lobby just outside

David Davis, prominent Tory MP, has just asked, why is this having to be

rushed? Do we have an answer? The judgement from the European Court

came the Magna month ago. The answer appears to be ministers looked to

doing it in other ways, whether it was possible to change regulations,

attack on a new clause to an existing piece of legislation and it

took them a while to come to the view that it's needed primary

legislation, watching a Bill through the House of Commons that the Lords

in the space of a week. There have been other MPs who have criticised

the rush. The cover of the Prime Minister has easy has the Deputy

Prime Minister and the Labour Party. Is it technical or can you explain

to us how what they are doing now, this legislation they are rushing

through, will make it compliant with European law to do what they had

already been doing and it was ruled they should not have been doing? I

can. I knew you could. The surprising thing was that there was

no British law on this. The security services and the police, the

National Crime Agency, were able to find out who you spoke to on your

phone and who you email and when as a result of a European directive. It

was the European directive that has been struck down in the European

Court of Justice. Other countries are going to have to make their own

arrangements to deal with that. It may be that the EU comes up with a

new directive which is compliant. This is the first time there will be

a specific piece on British law to deal with this particular problem.

If what we were doing did not comply according to the court, is there not

a possibility that what we are about to do could end up in front of the

European court? You are stretching my legal knowledge but there has to

be a possibility and a possibility that this sort of thing goes before

the European Court of Human Rights because the groans on which that

court are judged against our the words sufficient protection. That is

what is interesting about the behind-the-scenes deal that has been

done between Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives on

this issue. Labour and the Liberal Democrats have been pushing for

greater safeguards. Some people say it is a dramatic step forward,

others that it is cosmetic, but there will be an annual review and a

major review including a controversial Bill known as the

regulatory investigatory Powers act which allows your local council to

spy on you if it wants to. There is going to be an oversight board to

check issues of civil liberties when these laws are introduced so in

theory what you are getting is no law that does all things and new

safeguards. -- new law. Critics say how can we be sure this is true when

there is only a week to look at this and this is not long enough? I hope

they do not have our emails. I've been joined by the

Liberal Democrat Home Office Welcome back. Why is this being

rushed? Because there has been a court judgement and there is some

legal uncertainty and we have to make sure that those who are part of

the process, including internet service providers, have that. Have

you taken a long while to be convinced? I have been involved in

the discussion for some time. If the delay because the Lib Dems took

convincing? We have to make sure that it is legally sound and we are

convinced. We have been negotiating successfully. You may be right or

wrong but you are one of the reasons for the delay and the rush. It is

proper that those who are involved in these matters make sure that the

law is sound and that is what we have done. That is correct. If you

like, along with everybody else who has been involved. I thought you

were against this. This is not the Communications Data Bill, this is

the reinstatement of existing powers which have been questioned as a

result of a European judgement. This is area and reduction of what is

already there plus new safeguards. You tell us that but Nick Clegg also

said, we will be the first government to increase transparency.

There has been no transparency. This has been done behind closed doors.

Discussions about the nuances have been behind closed doors. No public

debate. The Bill has been published. It is being rushed through next

week. You have not allowed time for public debate. It has been going on

for several years. Ever since the revelations in the guardian. We are

glad that we have the opportunity for a wider debate and that is why

we have insisted on a clause to make sure that we have a debate and no

government can run away from this. You have had all of your

conversations behind closed doors that we have not known they have

been going on. This is a big issue, something the government has been

doing has been ruled illegal and you are now going to push this through

in the dying days of Parliament as it goes into the summer. We are

reinstating the position that existed before the European Court of

it into uncertainty. It is European legislation. We are ensuring that

the security services have the necessary information to deal with

exploitation. We have set a date by which this has to be consigned to

the dustbin and that will force the next government to have these

matters properly considered and there will be a debate between now

and December 2016. What is the biggest safeguard that this will not

be abused? Annual transparency reports, a board, a reduction in the

number of bodies, councils, who can get access. The Washington Post

published a report that the NSA and America had managed to collect what

they almost cold was collateral information in the process of

listening to the bad guys, they pick up a tonne of information from

people who are not bad guys and they have all of these emails and voice

mail is and mobile phone records sitting on their computers, they

know about people 's affairs, private lives, why do we know that

is not that? It would be a waste of people's time to be looking at

people who are not threats. Where is the safeguard? The safeguard those

we have a proper debate starting. We have not, you are rushing it

through. We have, in 2016. Between now and 2016 we can have the debate

and those questions can be addressed, but we have to get the

balance right between looking after the country and making sure we have

civil liberty safeguards. Have you gone native? I am busy championing

the safeguards. I am keen to make sure that those guys who are trading

in child sexual images are dealt with. Everybody does. That is key to

making sure we have the information. What is your view? There is a

consensus that says if there is data out there that is being used to do

harm to society we have to be monitoring it and managing it and

there would be a backlash if the government failed to do that. Your

point about the collateral is the issue, we must avoid the collateral

of innocent people's data being used or abused and for me the big concern

is making sure we think about it properly. Rushed legislation gives

me concern because we have seen legislation rushed and we have to

spend a lot of time unravelling problems. That is why we have a

sunset clause and a board to deal with that very important point. Good

to see you. Let's talk

about today's other big news, the mass public sector strike that's

taking place across the country. Across the country, public sector

unions, including Unison, Unite and the NUT, are going on strike to

protest over pay, pensions and cuts. More than

a million public sector workers are expected to be taking part

including teachers, council staff, The biggest issue

in the dispute is pay. Public sector salaries were

frozen in 2010 and since 2012 pay Unison general secretary

Dave Prentis claims public sector workers are now ?4,000 a year worse

off than they were in 2010. The Conservatives have condemned

the strikes, claiming the majority Cabinet Office Minister Frances

Maude said the party is looking to change the law by introducing a

minimum turn-out for ballots, and a limit on the length of time between

the ballot and actually going on the strike, to make unions to get

a fresh mandate for any new action. With us now is the General Secretary

of the TUC, Frances O'Grady. We had hoped to be joined by a

Conservative MP but we are waiting for him. Maybe he cannot get in!

What is this strike going to achieve? It is for one day. It is a

political strike to draw attention, isn't it? This is local government

workers, school meals workers, half a million or in less than the

minimum wage saying that they have had four years of real pay cuts,

prices keep rising, they cannot afford to carry on in the government

has announced there will be four more years or real pay cuts. There

is upset and anger amongst ordinary public sector workers that

politicians do not seem to understand how tough it is. As you

describe it, you said you would not be surprised that there is anger but

if that is the case why did so few members vote?

if that is the case why did so few We had a high turnout from

firefighters stop what they are a small union. They always turn out.

If it is hurting so much, how come or did not vote to come out on

strike? One problem is that we have this 20th-century method of

balloting, postal ballots. If that had been imposed on the general

election, we would see turnout go down significantly. In fact, postal

ballots tends to raise those balloted. We need to improve

participation but first, we should talk about not just the symptoms but

the causes of the reason why people are out on strike. We cannot dismiss

dedicated firefighters worried about lining up ladders into burning

buildings, losing half of their pension. -- climbing up ladders. As

I understand, their biggest beef is pensions. There is a whole mixture

of different reasons why people are marching today, if they are marching

at all. Pay, pensions and real concerns about the future of our

public services. We talked on Sunday, on the Sunday politics. We

did. On general, public sector workers are still better paid on

average than private sector, I do not want to go over that again, you

had different reasons. We think there has been a pay freeze in the

public sector but actually when you look at earnings, there has not been

a pay freeze. Median earnings in the public sector rose by 2.6% this

year. Are you making the point about pay progression? The freeze does not

cover lots of things, does it. The key issue, workers across both the

public and private sector, their earnings are coming in below

inflation. The median earning, ?24,000, 2%, 2.6% up on the previous

year. It is not a princely sum, it's just about keeps pace with inflation

now, but it is not quite the Draconian pay freeze that you would

have us believe. You will have seen from the TUC report that workers on

average across the public services have lost over ?2000 a year. It is

more than ?40 a week. When you are on a modest income, I can tell

you... I was talking to workers today, cleaners getting up at 4am,

doing one job, coming to the depot to do a second job, going on to do a

third, and still not managing the living wage. It has got to change,

the government has got to listen. Hold that thought, before I go to

Dominic, Tom Crotty, you have had your run-in with the unions, what is

your attitude? It is worth saying, we had a run-in with a union on a

specific site. Generally we have very good relations on 4950 sites

around the world. -- 49 out of 50 sites. But the private sector has

made a lot more change to terms and conditions, particularly pensions,

than has been achieved in the public sector, that disparity is

significant. I think that the bigger issue is probably the one around the

very low turnout, as you have highlighted in some of the ballots.

Dominic, I am glad you made it, good of you to come off the picket line

and join us on the daily politics! If you freeze pay for a long time as

this government has, and we are talking about people who by and

large are not paid huge salaries at all. It's not surprising they will

take to the streets in a peaceful way. It is perfectly legitimate to

protest, and legitimate to have a debate about economic policy but the

fact of the matter, the restraint on public sector spending which we have

had to introduce is part of a much wider economic policy of this

elected government. What is quite wrong is for the unions, on

incredibly low turnout, some with as little as 8% of support from their

own membership, like Unison, to be able to inflict so much damage,

hundreds of millions of pounds, on the economy in one day, according to

the Treasury and the FSP, not to mention widespread disruption to

families with kids in schools and commuters. With such low support

from their own members. Why is it right for them to wield such a

powerful strike weapon without some safeguards for the hard-working

majority? What you think the safeguard should be when it comes to

ballot, what is the minimum turnout? I think it should be a very simple

rule which says that if a union is unable to persuade majority of his

own members to strike, it should not be able to inflict that on the wider

public. It should not be about turnout, that was proposed by Boris

Johnson. Clarifying, it is not the majority of those who vote, it

should be a majority of the total membership eligible to vote? A

majority of the balloted membership. I'm delighted to debate

this with Dominik, because Dominik wrote a pamphlet suggesting that

British workers were among the worst idlers in the world. The worst

idlers! Dominik would need to apply that testing himself, he got a good

turnout and a good vote at the general election but he did not meet

the 50% threshold that he has just advocated in the ten minute rule

Bill. 1-run all for union members, one role for members of Parliament.

The cry of double standards from unions is chaff, you are not

comparing like-for-like, looking at a general election or a by-election,

everyone affected by that wrote gets to vote. -- one raw for union

members, one rule for members of Parliament. Sometimes very small

menorah to support from membership. -- one rule. Actually, what she

would want is referendum for strikes, but nobody is suggesting

that and it we are talking about a safeguard to protect the majority

from the militant menorah T. -- sometimes a very small menorah team

support from membership. -- minority. -- minority. Dominik has

judged the question -- dodged the question... Perhaps he did not dodge

it, perhaps you are just unconvinced. We ballot all he is

saying that if it is a threshold, then we have got to do better than

politicians. His argument is... By going on strike on public services,

you affect everybody. A lot of people feel that the Conservative

Party, which was elected with... Is in power on the basis of 23% of

everybody who was entitled to vote in the general election, a lot of

people feel that the Conservative Party have inflicted a lot of

damage. Not everyone gets to vote -- not everyone who is affected gets to

vote when you decide to strike. Nile Ferguson said that Europeans are

among the worst idlers in the world, but I did make the point in Britain

that we have got an increasingly small proportion of people peddling

harder and harder to sustain the economy. -- peddling. But also

public services. That is socially unfair and unsustainable economic

rape. We have the highest employment rate since 1973, 73% of the eligible

labour force is employment. Not just the eligible labour force but look

at those staying in higher education, compared to life

expectancy we are retiring earlier and earlier and also look at average

working hours, which have declined substantially since the war. Not

among the people I know! Tom Crotty, you have said that you would like to

see somebody like Dominik -- you have said that you would like to see

something like what is being suggested by Dominic. It would be

perfectly reasonable to expect that more than 50% of the balloted union

members vote in favour of a strike. That is what he said... In your

case, the real issue here was not the strike of the workers, it was

the strike of the employer, it was the employer who locked the workers

out and threatened to close the plant down, where do ordinary people

get a vote there? Is that true? It is not true. We should be talking

about how we get the economy growing again, what we can do for

manufacturing. I agree with the second part of that dialogue but

that is not the question I was asked, I was asked about the issue

at Grangemouth, and at Grangemouth this issue would not have been an

issue, we had more than 50% of the elected members voted, but it is a

point of principle that you should have that, and the issue that

compares this to a general election does not work for me, in a general

election we are not being asked for a yes/no decision. This is a very

clear yes/no decision. We have a system where we assume that a

non-voted in favour of a strike, I think that you should assume that a

non-voted against the strike. Dominik, we will let you go. Before

you go, do you think you get a better deal on public sector pay out

of labour? I certainly think that Labour support for the living wage

would see that every public sector worker would get a better deal. The

important thing here is about talking, unions are all about

negotiation, strikes in this country are rare, what we do is negotiate

and I would hope that we would have a government in power that would

talk. You may not, Labour have said they support these measures. Labour,

I hope, would get around the negotiating table and try to resolve

problems when we face them, that is the difference, that is what we have

got to do. That is the future. Banks. -- thank you.

After several years of no or anaemic growth in the British economy,

this year our economic fortunes have been looking up with growth now

But despite this boost, the feel-good factor hasn't

Here's a green-fingered Giles to explain.

Do not adjust your set, this is still the daily politics, not

gardeners world, but just as garden plants depend on growth to survive

and flourish, so does the economy. Recent statistics show that these

long for green shoots of recovery are slowly emerging. Are they

flowering everywhere? You see, the point about the UK economy and the

plant, is that once they experience growth, across-the-board, it is not

uniform, everything in the economy is built up around London and the

south-east, that is growing nicely. Other areas, pockets of the

Midlands, parts of the urban centres in the North are doing OK, but

Wales, the south-west, and up into the North, it is not so great and

that is part of the problem. What appears to be happening, we do not

write now have the numbers to show this but we will eventually, this is

primarily a southeastern pick-up, at least initially, London and the

south-east are doing very well, places further north, the north-east

not doing quite so well. However, it is likely that over time we are

going to see a ripple out effect from the south-east region to region

further north, but it is going to take time before people up there get

the benefit of the feel-good factor. Government can do some things to

feed the recovery and they will tell you that their plan is to do just

that but there is many other drivers to this that the government finds

harder to control. Bank lending to small business, inward investment,

exports and foreign investment are other key drivers. Of course it is

only where you get growth that you find job creation. If you only have

recovery in one part of the economy, one part of the country, then you

have two problems: If everything is happening in the south, then that

will overheat. Number two, the people in the Midlands and the North

will be wondering, what is the big gap between the political rhetoric

and what is happening on the ground, they will not give the government

any credit. If the overall spread of growth outside of London and the

south-east in the urban centres of the North is slow, then the

political dilemma is not only do too many people miss out for the time

being on the benefits of growth and job creation but any electoral

benefit for government about their nurturing a recovery may end up in

the bin. If you are up in Newcastle and reading newspapers and seeing

stories telling you that house prices are rising, ten, 20%, you are

not seeing that up there. People are saying, "my wealth is not going up

that anything like the same pace, I do not feel the benefit" and frankly

I think they will not over the next 12 months. The time horizon is too

short. This at the moment is a recovery based on consumer spending

and the housing market. There is no prizes for guessing where that is

greatest. No wonder there is a drive for exports and foreign investment.

Whether what is being done is enough to bring the UK into bloom

everywhere is uncertain. What we do know is that nobody wants the

economy heading back to the compost heap.

He's good with the gardening metaphors! In geographic terms, is

this recovery unbalanced? Yes, but geography is simplistic, it is a

strong recovery in London and the south-east, driven by the strong

service sector, by housing valuations growing. We are seen

parts of the North, where there is still good growth, for the same

reasons. There are very large tracts of what I call the industrial

heartland of the UK, which depend historically on manufacturing, we

are not seeing growth there. That is my concern, we are not doing

are not seeing growth there. That is my concern, enough yet to really

fire up UK manufacturing industry. What should be done? A whole host of

things, it is a broken record for me but energy

-- it is a broken record for me but energy policy is a big thing.

solution to many of these issues. We are building large ships to bring in

the US gas our operations. That is what we are doing. It is because it

is the only way to be competitive with the rest of the world. We

should not need to be spending that money moving that gas when we are

potentially sitting on that and that value could be going to the UK

Exchequer. There are issues like that that would make a huge

difference. You're one of the biggest industrial complexes in

Scotland. If the recovery under way there? It will be because of what we

are doing. Because we are going to address that issue of energy

competitiveness. We have had to solve that problem ourselves by

bringing gas in from America. Does the prospect of Scottish

independence have a bearing on your business? No. We are pretty neutral.

We operate in big economies and small. We operate in Germany with 70

million people and in Norway with 4 million people. It is not an issue

about whether an independent Scotland is viable. We were dumb at

work with what we are given. You take now stands? Absolutely not. It

is up to the people of Scotland. He smokes, he drinks,

just what else Jean Claude Juncker Well, they met in Brussels last

night when Mr Juncker was quizzed by Mr Farage's Europe of Freedom

and Direct Democracy group. That's

the European parliamentary group of You are a smoker and I read you

drink endless cups of black coffee. I do not believe in the

United States of Europe. Given you're planning to introduce

the European Union education in our schools, will you be offering David

Cameron a course in EU negotiation It would depend

on the price he would offer me. Let's talk now to our Europe Editor,

Gavin Hewitt, Is Mr Juncker doing the rounds and

is it a formality because he is a shoe in to be the commission

president? He is a shoe in. He is doing the rounds and with UKIP's

group it was knock-about stuff. He tried to express some humour and

when he was talking to the conservative group the day before,

very much sending out this message, he wants a fair deal for Britain, he

would not block Britain trying to repatriate some powers. On the big

marker he put down was he was not in for undertaking the treaties and

changing those. He made it clear that would not happen. This is

Jean-Claude Juncker putting himself out there and trying to convince the

UK he is not a bogeyman. When will we get to his portfolio of his

fellow commissioners and where are on where the British are going to

fit into this? We may get the names or most of the names as early as

next week. I understand at least six countries have put forward their

names. He has already indicated one portfolio, the crucial economic and

monetary affairs, is going to go to a social Democrat. Trying to balance

the political groupings. The expectation is that that would go to

a candidate from France. Other countries are being encouraged to

put forward those names and Jean-Claude Juncker said he is

looking to see more women's names, he wants to increase the number of

female commissioners. The big fight for Britain is, will it get one of

the key economic portfolios? Trade, energy or the internal market.

Jean-Claude Juncker is saying whoever comes from Britain needs to

be serious, credible and a big hitter. That is the message they are

putting out. Any ideas on who would fulfil these criteria? You have

heard all the names. We have heard about Michael Howard, Andrew Lang 's

Lay, William Hague, I am not sure he would be keen on it, even Nick

Clegg. Lots of names out there. The expectation is that sometime next

week when the European heads of government come here to Brussels,

that he needs to have names, 28 names at least from all the

countries, he may not get them I then but he would like them by then.

He has also suggested that maybe some countries should put forward

more than one name. The timetable, he would like to present those

commissioners by October, but before then whoever is selected has to go

before Parliamentary committees for a hearing in September, so there is

a way to go. At the moment this is the key battle for Britain to secure

one of those top economic post. Now,

there's a big birthday coming up. It is the birthday of Magna Carta

and using the opportunity to ask if it's

time to ditch our unwritten using the opportunity to ask if it's

constitution in favour of an American-style

codified, written constitution. The closest we have got to written

constitution, the Magna Carta. Oops, there is no 'the',

it is just Magna Carta, It set out basic things

like the idea of a law of the land and was signed 790 years

ago in Runnymede by King John. Oops, it was not sign,

it was sealed. Other concepts are enshrined

in other bits of paper stowed away in Westminster like the Bill of

Rights and the habeas corpus act. For some it is not what is written

down that matters, it is what we do, conventions like the state opening

of Parliament which remind us how But as long

as this stuff is not codified into one document there will be a slight

debate about whether it should be. The question is,

will he be the first king who has I am joined by the chair of a

political reform select committee which has published a consultation

document and by a professor of government. What is the case for a

written constitution? We have set out the case for and against because

we want a debate. We are going to have six months of debate and

hopefully every school child and student and professor and MP and

journalists can participate. If you are asking my personal opinion why I

would support a written constitution, it is important we

know the rules. John Smith said you only know the British constitution

if you have a degree in judicial archaeology. Why can you not have

something you put in your back pocket and even quoted -- what it? I

wish I had jumped on the bandwagon but if you are going to produce a

document this thick, it is four years of hard work. How many trees

have died in the process? We have provided a model written

constitution and a couple of options to codify what we have now and to

put into law the Cabinet manual. It is a debate rather than, I think

this has to happen. It is great for people out there. Is it not true

that we have in recent years moved away down anyway, devolution for

Scotland, it provides a written constitution for a devolved

Scotland, we have a Supreme Court, which is more written to the law

than before, but whereas we used to say our Constitution was written,

big parts of it are written? It is not that it is on written, it is

uncle divide. -- uncodified. My problem with what is presented as

the lack of clarity. Simply drawing together the existing rules and

actually entrenching them, which is what the committee means by a

written constitution. It does not actually address what it claims to

address. Do you have a fundamental principle objection to a written

concert douching? Principled and practical because I do not see how

we get from here to there at the committees do not provide that. My

objection is who ultimately resolves issues? Should it be representatives

or the judges? You can make a principled argument for it being the

judgement but political issue should be resolved by representatives. That

does not include the second chamber. Part of the problem is that the

representatives and government are conflated in our system. We do not

have a separation of powers within our system or that Parliament can

hold government to account and what we are trying to do is get that

argument into the open to being. People are fed up with our politics

and have lost faith and something like this will allow them to enter

the debate and transcend that. It will not get the issues people are

concerned about because the argument is not that our system is not

broken, there are problems we need to address, but this does not do it.

All this does is codify the existing system. The metaphor I like to use

is a boxing ring. It is not about the boxers. What this does is set

the boundaries, the framework, what is the relationship between local

government and national government? What is the relationship between

devolved countries and the centre? Does it set the framework for

changing the constitution? Yes, there are proposals about how you

can do that. To allow yourself and everybody watching the show to write

in between now and January the 1st, it is on the website, and make

changes. Viewers will love this. Make changes, this is a model. Does

this get your juices going? In the context of things that need to be

addressed, this is not on the agenda. You could always say that.

It is never a good time. Would you like local government to know

exactly where maggots bands and have the ability to be independent? Do

you think England should have a devolved settlement? Is that in

there? Yes. You can amend that and make that relevant. This is the

point. More excited? Not yet. The issue for me, I am sure it is the

problem you have with people out there generally, the attitude says,

we have managed for 800 years, what is the urgent aid for change? Do you

think things are fine at the moment with the party coming from nowhere

to get 25% of the vote with an collection where a majority could be

formed on 28%? Our union partners saying we are thinking about leaving

the union. You have mentioned that. Let me ask you, if Scotland votes to

stay in the union, the three main Westminster parties, and the UKIP,

have promised further devolution. I would suggest that if there is a lot

more devolution to Edinburgh other will be demands for more to Cardiff

and the English will want the West Lothian question answered. Would

there be a possibility of a constitutional convention for the

whole of the UK for this to become relevant? There is an argument for

convention but not for the purposes indicated. We need to make sense of

where we are. The point you have made militates against this document

because it will not be static. There will be the sort of changes you have

mentioned. It is a framework that is amendable. Scots will not believe us

unless there is something written very carefully. Most of the Scots

would come back to the union and be part of the family if they knew...

They have said unless you sort yourself out we will leave. One of

the ways is to be clear. You are not clear. You need a precise act of

Parliament because that makes clear what the relationship is rather than

a broad document. I think we can agree we have started the argument.

We have started the journey. Thank you.

More now on the Government's announcement of emergency

legislation designed to ensure the police and security services

can continue to access people's phone and internet records.

Just over an hour ago the Home Secretary Theresa May told

the House of Commons why the new legislation is needed.

We face two significant and urgent problems relating to both

communications data and interception. First, the recent

judgement by the European Court of Justice, that called into question

the legal basis upon which we require communication service

providers in the UK to retain communications data. And second, the

increasingly pressing need to put beyond doubt the application of our

laws on interception so that communication service providers have

to comply with their legal obligations irrespective of where

they are based. So I can tell the house that today the government is

announcing the introduction of fast track legislation, through the data

retention and investigatory Powers Bill, to deal with these two

problems. We have been joined by the Labour

backbencher Tom Watson, who this morning has condemned

the plans as a "stitch up" which prevent MPs from considering

the legislation properly. You have a principled objection to

this. It is very difficult for me whether to say whether I do or do

not, I have only received the bill in the last 30 minutes, there is

virtually no way that I can come to an informed view on it and that is

the real problem. It is the stitch up that is making you suspicious.

This is hasty legislation, and we know that invariably goes wrong.

This is on an issue of great concern to many people out there in the

country. There have been secret talks between the three party

frontbenchers, to reach an accommodation on legislation that

most MPs are still not aware about, let alone have the ability to read

it. That has recipe for disaster written all over it! There will be

people out there in the country who are yet further in gate from the

political process, further eroded, because the some reason they were

not given time to discuss this. Is a crucial backbencher in this process,

how do you see it unfolding over the next... Parliament goes out for the

summer recess in a few weeks. Theresa May will get this three

major parties have been talked to. It is very frustrating because we

will go next week, we will try to improve the bill, look at the

clauses as best we can and maybe move amendments but it will be

whipped through. There will be no proper scrutiny, the select

committees will not have time to look at it. Will it go to a standing

committee? We do not yet know... ! As it stands it looks like it will

be railroaded through both houses in a day or two! It will be done on the

floor of the house. If all three parties are being whipped, that will

make amendments more difficult. I do not know what Nick Clegg did... Here

is the Deputy Prime Minister, who stood up to say "I do not believe in

the surveillance state", one of his key manifesto promises, like tuition

fees, and yet he is standing up a three party deal in just lay lay

next week. It is a real shame. What you say to the people who are

watching events unfolding in Iraq. -- is standing a three party deal in

legislation next week. Many British citizens involved in Iraq and Syria,

our concern is that they come back and they are serious terror threats

and people may think, give the security services what they need, we

need is to be protected. I am a patriot, I believe we need a secure

state, I have authorised covert surveillance by military

intelligence as a former defence secretary, I am not running away

from that concern. What we have got to do is draw the line between

liberty and security and the only way you can do that is by having a

public discourse where civic institutions can take part in this

democratic process. There is no way they can do that in three days. How

come Ed Miliband has gone along with this? I have absolutely no idea and

I'm afraid I'm very disappointed... I can understand him reaching a

conclusion that you support the content of the bill which I have not

yet seen but which he has, but to allow this to go through with such

unnecessary haste... That is not just anti-democratic, I think it is

a political mistake that the Labour Party. You have any idea how many

like-minded people like yourself on both sides. -- do you have any idea

how many like-minded people you have? When I left the chamber it

seemed to be just me and David Davies! But there is hundreds of MPs

who will not even know we had an emergency statement today because

they are in their constituencies! Over the weekend, this may build,

but at the moment, it is two! It can only grow! Thank you for joining us.

So, the stage is set for a thrilling World Cup final

on Sunday, I'm told it's Germany and Argentina battling it

out in Rio. Of course, England's world cup dreams died what seems

like months ago, and just in case you needed reminding, take a look.

How could England and for that matter the national teams of

Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland ever hope for success in a major

tournament? One MP thinks he has the answer, you're starting a campaign

to get the four national football associations to field a combined UK

team. Laurence Robertson joins us now.

Laurence Robertson joins me now, as does the SNP's Pete Wishart.

This smacks of desperation! The Scots, the Welsh and the Northern

Ireland to help us out. Perhaps I do not have the answer, I am not

prepared to accept... I'm not prepared to accept the inevitability

that we cannot compete at world level at football any more. We have

had the players over the years, we have divided ourselves into four, I

am not aware of any other country in the world that does that. America

does not put forward 50 teams! We are causing problems for ourselves

and we are denying opportunities to people in Scotland, Wales and

Northern Ireland to appear in World Cup finals. It is the only

opportunity a Scottish football player is ever going to get as

qualifying for a major tournament. Scotland have done pretty well just

now... Where were they in Brazil? When did we, if I am allowed to use

the week, when did we last qualify? 1990, for the World Cup. But we have

got some fantastic games and we have seen some fantastic games. This is

part of national life, this is ingrained into the culture, it is

something, when Scotland... We were internationally recognised, part and

parcel of what we are about. I am sick and tired of Westminster trying

to subvert the national football team. What is happening is we have

all of the International football authorities sitting in Geneva, they

are looking for any excuse to combine these teams together. We

must do all that we can to defend the national side, I do not detect

any sense that this is what is desired in England. Scottish fans

are Scottish fans, England fans are England fans. -- Scottish fans are

Scotland fans. I was in a bar in Edinburgh watching England against

Italy, a number of fellow Scotsmen were cheering for Italy and I

reminded them, and my friend Stephen Hepburn MP reminded me, when

Scotland play, we cheer for Scotland. They were very well

mannered. When Andy Murray won Wimbledon, fantastic achievement for

Scotland, but for the United Kingdom as well. Let me ask you this, would

it really make any difference? Is there any Scottish... Is there any

Scottish player who would actually get into a British... I think there

is and over the years, he may have even... Over the years, certainly,

but what about now? Looking at the long-term. In the 1970s, Pete

referred to, there would have been a majority of the Scottish players in

the UK team. Name me one, now that would make it. I do not know if

there is one England player who was good enough to be there, to be

honest! Why bother having a team! The British Lions, the whole of

Ireland plays with the British Lions. The British Lions to warrant

it, there is a great opportunity for people to participate, but there is

no desire, nobody wants a joint UK football team!

through... Belgium, Holland. Belgium, the Netherlands, Costa

Rica, Uruguay, they are not massive. We are one jurisdiction

with four teams, that is crazy. The point you have been making, it is

something of a historical anomaly, that we are allowed to put in four

teams. My understanding is that it is basically because this was the

home of football, better organised, separate football associations when

these competitions began. At some stage, like our seat in the UN, they

may rumble us! They are watching motions like this, the footballing

authorities, they do not like the idea that we have four national

side. What has happened here, he has encouraged them! I hope my level of

influence is that strong! It would threaten the integrity of the

national football side and... They come forward with these motions and

these ideas. The Tartan Army, every Scottish football fan would be

appalled. Team GB in the Olympics two years

ago. That is different! Goodness... I want to see success for the

football team. Should you not have checked out if there were any

Scottish Welsh or Northern Irish players good enough to play in a

British team before you came up with this idea. I think there are. You

cannot give me a name. Gareth Bale, of course. Where is he from? He is

Welsh. Ryan Giggs would have been good enough to get in the present

squad. So we have got to Welshman. Wales are probably doing better than

Scotland. Gareth Bale is the only one that would come to my mind at

the moment. If that is how the people of Scotland vote, that yes on

your lapel, then it is a nonstarter! That is the only way to preserve the

integrity of the national side. Don't turn it into a referendum!

LAUGHTER If we vote no, then what we are

hearing from Conservative Westminster MPs is that if we vote

no, the National football side is in danger! I'm told it is every couple

of years, in between the World Cup, it is the European tournament of

nations, will Scotland qualify for that? Very good question, yes we

will! But the first site we are up against, Germany! Wales have got a

better chance of qualifying! -- but the first side we are up against is

Germany. Thanks to Tom Crotty

and all my guests. I'm back on BBC One tonight at 11.35

with a special edition of This Week and I shall be in Edinburgh with

guests including Michael Portillo, Diane Abbott, Charles Kennedy

and Susan Boyle, all in front