29/06/2014 Sunday Politics North East and Cumbria

No surprise that Mr Cameron didn't get his way at the European summit.

But does it mean Britain has just moved closer to the EU exit?

Doctors want to ban smoking outright.

A sensible health measure or the health lobby's secret plan all

Could Teesside get its own Boris Johnson?

And old trains, run`down stations and poor journey

times ` can the Government get rail services back on track?

And with me, as always, the best and the brightest political

panel in the business Nick Watt Helen Lewis and Janan Ganesh.

They've had their usual cognac, or Juncker as it's known in

Luxembourg, for breakfast and will be tweeting under the influence

He's a boozing, chain-smoking, millionaire bon viveur who's made

it big in the world of European politic.

I speak of Jean-Claude Juncker, the former Prime Minister of Luxembourg

He'll soon be President of the European Commission,

He wasn't David Cameron's choice of course.

But those the PM thought were his allies deserted him and he ended up

on the wrong end of a 26-2 vote in favour of Arch-Fedrealist Juncker.

-- on the wrong end of a 26-2 vote in favour of Arch-Federalist

So where does this leave Mr Cameron's hopes

of major reform and repatriation of EU powers back to the UK?

Let's speak to his Europe Minister David Lidington

Welcome to the programme. The Prime Minister says that now with Mr

Juncker at the helm, the battle to keep Britain in the EU has got

harder. In what way has it got harder? For two reasons. The

majority of the leaders have accepted the process that shifts

power, it will not careful, from the elected heads of government right

cross Europe to the party bosses, the faction leaders in the European

Parliament and and the disaffection was made clear in many European

countries. Mr Juncker had a distinguished period as head of

Luxembourg, and was not a known reformer, but we have to judge on

how he leads the commission and there were some elements in the

mandate that the heads of government gave this week to the new incoming

European Commission that I think are cautiously encouraging for us. The

Prime Minister talked about those that not everybody wants to

integrate and to the same extent and speed. Let me just interrupt you.

What is new about saying that Europe can go closer to closer union at

different speeds? That has always been the case. It's nothing new

Indeed there are precedents, and they are good examples of the

approach as part of the course and one of the elements that the Prime

Minister is taking forward in the strategy is to get general

acceptance that while we agree that most of the partners have agreed to

the single currency will want to press forward with closer

integration of their economic and tax policies, but not every country

in the EU is going to want to do that. We have to see the pattern

that has grown up enough to recognise there is a diverse EU with

28 member states and more in the future. We won't all integrate the

extent. It is a matter of a pattern that is differentiation and

integration. I understand that. John Major used to call it variable

geometry, and other phrases nobody used to understand, but the point is

that you're back benches don't want any union at any speed, even in the

slow lane. They want to go in the other direction. It depends which

backbencher you talk to. There's a diverse range of views. I think that

there is acceptance that the core of the Prime Minister's approaches to

seek reform of the European Union, for renegotiation after the

election, then put it to the British people to decide. It won't be the

British government or ministers that take the final decision, it's the

British people, provided they are a Conservative government, who will

take the decision on the basis of the reforms that David Cameron

secures whether they want to stay in or not. Is there more of a chance,

not a certainty or probability, but at least more of a chance that with

Mr Juncker in that position of Britain leaving the EU? I don't

think we can say that at the moment. I think we can say that the task of

reform looks harder than it did a couple of weeks ago. But we have do

put Mr Juncker to the test. I do think he would want his commission

to be marked and I think that there is, and I find this in numbers

around Europe, and there is a growing recognition that things

cannot go on as they have been. Europe, economically, is in danger

of losing a lot of ground will stop millions of youngsters are out of

work already that reform. There is real anxiety and a number of

countries now about the extent to which opinion polls and election

results are showing a shift of support to both left and right wing

parties, sometimes outright neofascist movements, expressing

real content and resentment at Howard in touch -- how out of touch

decisions have become. You say you are sensing anxiety about the

condition of Europe, so why did they choose Mr Juncker then? You would

have to put that question to some of the heads of European government.

Clearly there were a number for whom domestic politics played a big role

in the eventual decision that they took. There were some who had signed

up to the lead candidate process and felt they could not back away from

that, whatever their private feelings might have been, but I

think the PM was right to say that this was a matter of principle and

it shouldn't just be left as a stitch up by the European Parliament

to tell us what they do. He said, I can't agree to pretend to acquiesce.

They have to make the opposition clear that go on with reform. Are

the current terms of membership for us unacceptable? The current terms

of the membership are very far from perfect. Are they unacceptable? The

current terms are certainly not ones that I feel comfortable with. The

Prime Minister described them as unacceptable. Do you think they are?

We look at the views of the British people at the moment. If you look at

the polling at the moment, the evidence is that people are split on

whether they think membership is a good thing. I'm asking what you

think. David Cameron wants to in -- endorse changes in our interest but

also because the biggest market is going to suffer if they don't

challenge -- grasp the challenge of political and economic reform.

Newsnight, Friday night, Malcolm Rifkind the former Secretary of

State said to me that even if the choice was to stay in on the

existing terms, he would vote to stay in on the existing terms. He

doesn't necessarily like them, but he would vote to stay in. That is

the authentic voice of the Foreign Office, isn't it? That is the

position of your department. Is it your position? Malcolm Rifkind is a

distinguished and independent minded backbencher. He's not in government

now. But that is your position. No, the position of the government and

the Conservative Party in the government is that we believe that

important changes, both economic and political reforms, are necessary and

that they are attainable in our interest and those of Europe as a

whole. Would you vote to stay in on the existing terms? That's not going

to be a question that the referendum. Really? I know that in

2017 Europe is going to look rather different to how it looks today For

one thing our colleagues in the Eurozone will want and need to press

ahead with closer integration. That, in our view, needs to be done

in a way that fully respects the rights of those of us who remain

outside. Variable geometry, tackling things like the abuse of freedom of

migration. Those are all in the conclusions from the leader this

week and we should welcome that Very briefly, finally, when will

you, as a government, give us the negotiating position of the

government? Will you give us what you hope to achieve before the

election or not? David Cameron set out very clearly in his Bloomberg

speech that he wanted a Europe that was more democratically accountable,

more flexible, more at it -- economically competitive. That is

all very general. When will you lay out the negotiating position? It's

not general. It is very far from general. We have seen evidence in

the successful cut of the European budget, the reform of fisheries

those reforms have started to take effect. We have won some victories

and I'm sure the Prime Minister as we get towards the general election,

will want to make clear what the Conservative Party position is, and

perhaps other political leaders will do the same for their party. Thank

you for joining us this morning The harsh reality of this is that there

is a yawning gap between what the Prime Minister can hope to bring

back and what will satisfy his Conservative backbenchers. Yes, I

think the Parliamentary Conservative Party is divided into three parts,

those who would vote to leave the EU regardless, those who would stay

regardless, and a huge middle ground of people who want to stay in on

renegotiated terms. These are not three equal parts. Those who would

vote to stay in regardless are smaller and smaller. Compared to 20

years ago, tiny. But the people in the middle, generally, would only

stay in if you secure a renegotiation that will not be

re-secured. In other words, they are de facto, out by 2017 and the

referendum. This whole saga of the recent weeks has been the single

biggest economy in foreign policy under this government. That's not

what the voters think. -- single biggest ignominy. I mean the failure

to secure the target. The opinion polls show that standing up against

Mr Juncker has proved rather popular. I suggest that is not Mr

Cameron's problem. His problem is that, if in the end he gets only

because Medic changes, and if he says he still thinks that with these

changes -- cosmetic changes. And he says that they should stay in, that

would split the Tory party wide open. Eurosceptics say would be the

biggest split since the corn laws. He wants to protect the position of

coming out, and you might get that. He wants to crack down on abuse of

benefits, and he might get that He wants to restrict freedom of

movement for future member states, and that's difficult, because it is

a treaty change. And he wants to deal with closer union, but that is

also treaty change. In the Council conclusions, David Cameron was

encouraged because it said, let s look at closer union, but it did not

say it would reform. All it said was ever closer union can be interpreted

in different ways. In other words, we're not going to change it. The

fundamental problem the David Cameron was that two years ago, when

he vetoed the fiscal compact, that showed Angela Merkel was unwilling

to help them and what happened in the last two weeks was that Angela

Merkel was unable to help him. There is not a single leader of the

European Union that once Juncker as president, and he doesn't want it,

he wants the note take a job at the European Council. But there was this

basic stitch up by the European Parliament that meant he was

presented, and when Angela Merkel put the question over his head there

was a huge backlash in Germany and she was unable to deliver. I

understand that, but I'm looking forward to Mr Cameron's predicament.

I don't know how he squares the circle. It seems inconceivable that

he can bring back enough from Brussels to satisfy his

backbenchers. No, you can't. Most of them fundamentally want out. They

don't want to be persuaded by renegotiations. Where it's hard to

draw conclusions from the polling is that if you ask people question that

sounds like, do you like the fact that our Prime Minister has gone to

Brussels and stuck it to the man, they say yes, but how many people

will go to the voting booths and put their cross in the box based on

Europe? We know mostly voters care about Europe as a proxy for

immigration fears. In ten people in this country could not tell you who

John Claude Juncker is Angela Weir is replacing. -- and who he is

replacing. And I'm joined in the studio now by

arch-Eurosceptic Conservative MEP, Daniel Hannan and from Strasbourg by

staunch European and former Liberal war? His declared objectives would

leave Britain still in the common agricultural policy, the common

foreign policy, the European arrest warrant, so the negotiating aims

which we just heard Nick setting out wouldn't fundamentally change

anything. It would be easy for the Government to declare war on any of

these things. The danger from your point of view as someone who wants

to stay in is that if David Cameron only gets cosmetic changes, the

chance of getting the vote to leave the European Union increases,

doesn't it? Hypothetically it probably does but we have two big

things to get through first in domestic politics before we even

reach a negotiation. One is are we going to have the United Kingdom

this time next year following the referendum in Scotland? Secondly,

are the Conservatives after the general election next year going to

be in a position to pursue a negotiation? In other words are they

going to be a majority government or even a minority government? For the

sake of this morning let's assume the answer to both is yes, the UK

stays intact and against the polls they were saying this morning, David

Cameron forms an overall majority after the election. There is a

danger, if he doesn't bring much back, that people will vote yes

correct? There is that danger and I see a lot of the British press

comment this morning saying this could be a rerun of the Harold

Wilson like negotiation of the 1970s, a bit cosmetic but enough to

say we have got new terms and you should go with it. I think what is

different however, and this is really an appeal if you like, it

cannot just be left to the Liberal Democrats and coalition government

to make this case on our Rome. A lot of interest groups across the land

will have to start being prepared to put their head above the parapet on

the fundamental - do you want Britain to remain in the European

Union? Yes or no? Are you willing to put your public reputations on the

line? We are not getting enough of that at the moment and it is getting

dangerously close to closing time. Daniel Hannan, David Cameron will

not get away with this, will he It will be an acceptable to his party.

If it is an acceptable to Tory backbenchers it is because it is

working and they are reflecting what their constituents say. A majority

of people in the country are unhappy with the present terms. They can see

there is a huge wide world beyond the oceans and we have confined

ourselves to this small trade bloc. There is a huge debate to be had

about whether we could be doing better outside. It is not danger, it

is democracy, trusting people. If the only person offering a

referendum at the moment is the Prime Minister, it has serious

consequences for his party, your party, that's what I'm talking

about. I am very proud of being part of the party that is trusting people

to offer this. If he only gets cosmetic changes he cannot carry his

party. But ultimately it will not be his party, it is the electorate as a

whole that has to decide whether the changes are substantive. Everything

we have been hearing just now is about staying out of future

integration, protecting the role of the non-euro countries. People are

upset about what is going on today with the EU. They can see laws being

passed by people they cannot vote for, friendships overseas are

prejudiced, and they conceive that the European Union has just put in

charge in the top slot somebody who wants a United States of Europe into

which we will eventually be dragged into as some kind of Providence

Jean-Claude Juncker is a Federalist, you are Federalist, why did the Lib

Dems oppose him? We shared the view that whilst you take account of what

the members of the European Parliament say, ultimately the

choice of the presidency in the commission should be the political

leaders, the governmental leaders at a national level, and that's why we

went down the route we did. It was more to do with the system than the

individual. Although I would say that you need to bear in mind, I

mean Daniel, I respect him personally and the integrity of his

views, as I think he does mine, but to dismiss the European Union as a

small trading block globally, when you have got the United States of

America, China and other countries acknowledging its importance, it is

really Walter Mitty land. Are we closer than... Daniel Hannan, are we

closer to an exit after what happened last week? Yes, because the

idea that we could get substantive reforms, gets a mythic and powers

back and be within a looser, more flexible European Union has plainly

been closed off. We have to face up to the actual European Union that

has taken shape on our doorstep Are we going to be part of that or are

we going to have a much more semidetached, looser relationship

with it which we can either achieve via a unilateral system of power or

another way. This debate is never-ending, it is going on and on

and has bedevilled British prime ministers for as long as I can

remember. Shouldn't the Lib Dems change their stance on the

referendum yet again let's just have this in-out referendum and have it

sided one way or another? Our position remains clear. If there is

a constitutional issue put before us in terms of treaty changes then we

will have a referendum. Why not now? I am probably the wrong person to

ask because I argued and voted for a referendum on Maastricht because I

thought that was a constitutional treaty. Anything that makes the

Queen a citizen of the European Union surely has constitutional

implications. Anyway, 20 years on we are where we are and we need to

established common vocabulary. You talk about federalism. What do we

mean? Most of the people operating in the European Parliament and the

institution across the road, the Council of Europe, they mean by

federalism decentralisation of powers, not a Brussels superstate

but actually the kind of decentralisation that maintains

national characteristics and pools resources and sovereignty where it

makes sense. Mr Juncker, who is now going to be in charge of the

Brussels commission, he believes in a single EU reform policy, an EU

wide minimum wage and EU wide taxes. You said this week that you

liked the sound of Juncker federalism. Does that sound good to

you? No, and I think the new president of the commission will be

disappointed if he puts forward these views because although we only

had Hungary voting with us, I think if you go to other countries,

France, Poland, Scandinavia, they are not going to buy that kind of

menu. What they mean by federalism is the continental concept, also the

North American concept, that we can sit very happily... They have an

army, a federal police force, federal taxation. Yes, but in terms

of the political institutions which is what we are discussing here, you

can have the supranational, the European level, whilst still having

the very vibrant national, and indeed as we are practising in the

United Kingdom the subnational. A very brief final word from you,

Daniel. That is ultimately going to be the choice. The European Union is

an evolving dynamic, we can see the direction it is going in. Do we want

to be part of that? I suspect Charles Kennedy would have loved a

referendum. I cannot help but notice his party is going downhill since he

was running it. It is illegal to light up in the workplace, pubs and

restaurants. Now the British Medical Association has voted to outlaw

everywhere but not everybody at once. It would apply to anyone born

after the year 2000. In a moment we will debate the merits of those

plans but first he is Adam. There was a time when to be British

was to be a smoker. 1948 was the year off peak fag with 82% of men

smoking mainly cigarettes but it was a pipe that Harold Wilson used as a

political prop to help with the hard-hitting interviews they did in

those days. The advertisements make out pipe smokers to be more virile,

more fascinating men than anybody else. Do you thought -- have that

thought anywhere in your mind? No. It changed in 2006 when smoking in

enclosed places was banned. I would rather be inside but unfortunately

we have got to do what this Government tells us to do. I think

it is good, it is calm and you can breathe. Research suggests it has

improved the health of bar workers no end and reduced childhood asthma.

Now just one in five adults is a smoker. Coming next, crackdowns on

those newfangled e-cigarettes, smoking in cars and possibly the

introduction of plain packaging There is still those who take pride

in smoking and see it as a war on freedom.

We're joined now by Dr Vivienne Nathanson

from the British Medical Association who voted for a graduated ban

on smoking at their conference last week, and Simon Clark

They're here to go head-to-head There are plenty of things which are

bad for our health, why single out cigarettes? We need some sugar in

our diets but the fact is that we need to stop people smoking as

children because if we can do that, the likelihood that they will start

smoking is very small. In no circumstances is smoking good for

you. There are lots of smokers who live long, healthy lives but we

totally accept smoking is a risk to your health and adults have to make

that decision, just as you make the decision about drinking alcohol

eating fatty foods and drinking sugary drinks. This proposal is

totally impractical. It will create a huge black market in cigarettes

which will get bigger every year. They say this is about stopping

children smoking but there is already a law in place that stops

shopkeepers from selling cigarettes to children. This target adults so

you could have the bizarre situation in the year 3035 for example where a

36-year-old can go into shops to buy cigarettes but if you are 35 you

will be denied that, which is ludicrous. The point is that the

younger you start smoking the more likely you will become heavily

addicted. I take the point, but the point he is saying is that if this

becomes law, down the road, if you go into shops to buy cigarettes you

would have to take your birth certificate, wouldn't you? We have

no idea how the legislation would be written but the key point is that if

we can stop young people from starting to smoke, we will in 2

years have a whole group of people who have never smoked so you won't

have that problem of people who are smokers and they are now in their

20s and 30s. Or you will have a lot of younger people who get cigarettes

the way they currently get illegal drugs now. They are already getting

cigarettes illegally and we have to deal with that. We have got to get

better. The Government has not been able to stop it. We know this is

going to kill 50%... When you are 15 you think you will live for ever.

Indeed but they also do it as rebellion and because they see

adults and it is remarkably easy to buy cigarettes. Whatever the case is

for individual choice, won't most people agree that if you could stop

young people smoking, so that through the rest of their lives they

never smoked, that would be worth doing? You get 16 or 17-year-olds

who already do that. Is it worth trying? When the government

increased the age at which shopkeepers could sell from 16 to

18, we supported it. We don't support a ban on proxy purchasing,

we support reasonable measures, but this is unreasonable. This proposal

says a lot about the BMA, because this week the BMA also passed a

motion to ban the use of E cigarettes in public places. There

is no evidence that they are dangerous to health, so why are they

doing that? They are becoming a temperance society. This is not

about public health, it's an old-fashioned temperance society and

they have to get their act together because they are bringing the

medical profession into disrepute. We were having argument is about

things that people buy large accept, smoking in bars or public places,

but the real aim of the BMA was the total banning of cigarettes

altogether. This would suggest that that was true to claim that. It s

not about a ban, it's about a move to a country where nobody wants to

smoke and no one is a smoker. But it would be illegal to smoke. It would

be illegal to buy, not smoke, and there's a difference between two. So

even if I am born in the year 2 00, it would still be illegal to smoke,

just illegal to buy the cigarettes? Indeed. The point being that the

habit of smoking is very strongly linked to your ability to buy, so

that is why things like Price and availability and marketing are so

important. People will flood across the Channel with the cigarettes One

thing you will find is that throughout the world people is

looking at -- people are looking at the same kind of measures, and

different countries like Australia, they were the first with a

standardised packaging. Other countries will follow, because all

of us are facing the fact that we can't afford to pay for the

tragedy. There will be people waiting to flood the market with

cigarettes. This is nonsense. Thanks for both coming and going

head-to-head. "Unless we have more equal

representation, our politics won't be half as good as it should be "

So said David Cameron back in 2 09. So how's it going?

Well, you can judge the quality of the politics for yourself,

but we've been crunching the numbers to find out what

parliament might look like after the next year's general election.

Here's Giles. Politicians are elected to

Parliament to represent their constituents, but the make-up of

Parliament does not reflect society well at all the parties it. In 010

more women and ethnic minority candidates entered Westminster but

not significantly more inner chamber still dominated by white males.

Looking at the current make-up of the Commons, Labour has 83 female

MPs, the Conservative have 47 women MPs, which is just over 47% -- and

the Lib Dems have 12% of the parties. All of the parties have

selected parliaments in those seats where existing MPs are retiring and

to fight seats at the next election, and they've all been

trying to up the number of women and ethnic minorities because discounts

and can be capitalised on. A picture tells a thousand words. Look at the

all-male front bench before us. And he says he wants to represent the

whole country. Despite the jibe the Labour Party know they have a long

way to go on the issue of being representative. So we

way to go on the issue of being look at this particular area of lack

of women and ethnic minorities. Women first.

In the most marginal, 40 have women candidates, that would mean if they

got just enough to win power, they would have 133 women, which is 1%

The Conservatives currently have 305 MPs and their strategy

at the next election is to concentrate on their 40 most

marginal seats, and the 40 seats most mathematically likely to turn

In those 40, 29 candidates have been selected

If they kept hold of their existing seats and won those 29 new ones

they would have 56 women MPs, around 17%, and up 2% from last time.

The Liberal Democrats are fighting to hold on to the 57 seats they won

at the last election, if they manage that, they would have

However all the indications are it could be

a bad night for the Lib Dems, if they lost 20 seats, on a uniform

swing it would leave them with just four women, 11% of the party.

One Conservative peer who thinks the party needs to look at all

options if it's female numbers go down in 2015, says Parliament is

The bottom line is, if 50% of our population is not being looked at

evenly, are we really using the best of our talent? And yes, women's life

experiences are different. They are not superior, they are not inferior.

They are different. But surely those life experiences need to be

represented here at Westminster So that's the Parliamentary

projection for gender, According to the last census

in 2011, 13% of people in the UK Labour currently has 16 MPs from

black, Asian or minority ethnic backgrounds or just over 6%, if they

get their extra 68 seats that figure would go up to 26, 8% of their party

were from BAME backgrounds. The Tories currently have 11 BAME

candidates, or 4% of the party. If they get an extra 29 seats,

that would mean 14 BAME MPs, The Liberal Democrats

don't have any BAME MPs. If they manage to cling

on to their current number of seats they would have two,

giving them a proportion of 4%. If they lost

their 20 most vulnerable seats, But even if you changed the mix

of gender and ethnicity in Parliament would that solve

the problem? Probably not. Only 10% of us have gone to

a private fee paid school. A Quarter of all Mps went to Oxford

or Cambridge. Only a fifth

of us went to any university. There is a huge disillusionment with

the political elite due to the fact that these people don't look like

us. They don't speak like us, they don't have our experiences and they

cannot communicate in a way we relate to. If you look at the

turnout, at the moment, if you are an unskilled worker, you are 20

points less likely to turn and vote than a middle-class professional and

that is getting worse with single election.

And that's the key, evidence does suggest that if a

Party reflects the society it exists within, it is more likely to get

It's just gone 11.35pm, you're watching the Sunday Politics.

We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland who leave us now

Coming up here in 20 minutes, we'll have more from the panel.

First though, the Sunday Politics where you are.

Hello and a warm welcome to your local part of the show.

We're talking trains this wdek ` and taking a journey in West Culbria.

Passenger groups say lines like this are being neglected with old

Does the Government have a plan to do something about it

Who better to ask than the Transport Minister ` Scarborough and Whitby

Conservative MP Robert Goodwill ` he's with me in the studio.

With him, a member of Labour's Treasury team, Newcastle North's

But let's start with a new transport project ` High Speed Rail.

The Chancellor George Osborne this week floated the idea of HS3,

But just like HS2 from London to Birmingham, it wouldn't go

That's not good enough according to Cumbrian MP Tim Farron who wants

a more ambitious plan ` including a high speed line

Robert Goodwill, another high`speed rail link which is not coming

anywhere near us. That is not true. Because HS2 will go up to Bhrmingham

then form a Y `` a Y and cole to us. The trains will keep going tp

through leaves of the East Coast. Another high`speed link to cross

over into the Northeast? Thd Leeds and Manchester conurbations are two

powerhouses. We have committed to electrifying the line which will

have some benefits. But it hs a good idea to look at how we can love on

from HS2. People in Scotland have ideas and people in Wales as well.

That is decades away. We nedd to plan this. It is a major investment.

We need to look at where we can move on from HS2 for better investment.

The Chancellor has kicked the ball into play and we should kick it

around and see what the bendfits could be. Catherine McKinnell, plans

for HS3 have been welcomed by the Northeast Chamber of Commerce ``

change of commerce, which you welcome them? With a caveat. They

need to have benefits for the country north of Leeds. It `lmost

seemed like George Osborne had completely forgotten that this

reason exists. I think he h`s been trying to backpedal since the

announcement on Monday. We know that HS2 has taken a long time to

actually get on track. It is still not really on track. There has been

delayed. There have been huge increases in the cost of th`t

project. And so this talk of HS ultimately is jam tomorrow. But what

Labour going to do? They had no plans and they have no plans to go

beyond Leeds and Manchester? HS was a plan that was conceived under the

Labour government and we have seen huge delay in getting it gohng under

this government. We are going to set out our plans in the manifesto but

the ball is very much in thd government's court to get a grip on

HS2 rather than floating around pie in the sky idea about the ftture. We

would like to see HS2 on tr`ck and see the benefits actually rdach this

region which we did not hear the Chancellor even mention on Londay.

He mentioned Teeside, but not in connection with the railways.

Well, let's turn now to the state of our local railways

which is causing serious concern among passenger groups and LPs.

They point to trains that are nearly 30 years old,

inaccessible stations and ldngthy journey times on the Northern Rail

The Government says it'll invest ?1 billion over the next five xears

in making things better ` and has started a consultathon

This is the 9:38 from Carlisle to Lancaster via Barrow.

There is a fast train but this is the stopping tr`in.

It takes more than three and a half hours,

hugging the Cumbrian coastlhne as it chugs its way West, calling at

Many of the stations are by request only.

There is no ticket office hdre, or even a ticket machine.

You will not find any station staff and there are no public loos,

Many of the trains have been in service for decades, although some

Outside peak hours, they are rarely busy but regular

I think there could be an extra couple of trains late in thd day,

There is too big a gap between trains sometimes.

Yes, basically, somewhere to have a drink and amiable.

You can ask for whatever yot want, it wouldn't happen.

The latest National Rail Passenger Survey suggested continuing

dissatisfaction with Northern Rail, which runs the services.

Just 61% of those asked were satisfidd with

And only 64% said they were content with the cleanliness.

Both scores are lower than the national average.

Northern Rail said the figures are better than last year

and it is listening to customers and continuing to improve.

But among rail users, are were high hopes that whdn new

franchises start in 2016, they will deliver a much`needed make over

There is a crying need for new rolling stock.

You go down to the south and see the difference in condition.

It is vital for the economy of the area.

Lots of people use trains to get to hospitals in Hexham and Newcastle

For all sorts of reasons, we need a better service th`n now.

The ageing rolling stock and slow services are key targets for change.

Both on lines within Cumbri` and to the North East.

There are three specific areas where I think there c`n

One of them is the Carlisle to Newcastle route

We want the trains to stop `t very small stations along the rotte, but

we also want to see an exprdss line as well so there is a fast train.

There needs to be substanti`l investment because

the rolling stock is quite poor quality ` and of course connectivity

between Cumbria, between thd east and west and the north and south.

The government's consultation on rail services in the North runs

But with unions and campaigners already picking holes in thd

proposals, there is growing doubt that improvements that passdngers

Let's get the view of the unions. Is there room for hope there whll be a

big improvement? I don't sed any room for hope at all. One of the

things you need to ask Robert Goodwill today is whether the

trans`Pennine express services will continue to run from Scarborough in

his franchise proposals. Perhaps his colleagues Tim Farron would also

like to ask the DFT what is happening over the Windermere oxen

home service. That is under consultation as well, that could go

as well. Driver operated tr`ins `` driver only operated trains will be

the future and we think that is less customer focused. And also there's a

report over the horizon takhng away staff and ticket offices. And

another proposal is that he was to hand over stations to local

authorities which already cash`strapped. It is not workable.

So ?1 billion makes no diffdrence but your solution is to put this

into public hands. Out of that raise a single extra penny to improve

services? I think the railw`ys cost three or four times what thdy cost

under British rail when it was nationalised. The reality is that

the conservatives who privatise the railways and keep restructuring

them, because it is busy not working, one of the things H would

say is that we can stop thel taking money out in terms of these foreign

companies that run our railways The `` natural that the Dutch n`tional

railways and the German railways... But how can we raise the kind of

money to transform the servhces You have to have more public money. It

is not a matter of who owns it, it means more investment. You can't

make that argument unless you see how the railways funded at the

moment. And we are thinking about three or four times normallx than

British rail used. The forehgn`owned companies of Germany, Holland, the

examples we have in this arda, they take money out of the area that

could be used for rail investment. We already paying for the privatise

railways through the taxpaydr. We are saying it could be structured

better, publicly owned and publicly accountable. What we have got for

the Northern and Trans Pennhne franchises bad news all round.

Robert Goodwill, it is not just the RMT that are sceptical. The services

need improvement. Can you pdrsuade us that you have a plan for that?

Lets not forget that before the last election, there were people who were

saying we were embarking on a teaching style round of cuts and all

the stations would be shut down We have not done that. We have shown a

commitment to keeping local services. More than that, wd have

committed to a massive programme of electrification around the country

which means new electric tr`ins We are committed to electrifying 6 0

miles of our rail network compared to eight miles from the previous

Labour government. We have ` ?3 billion package of improvemdnts to

our rail network. For specific services, what can you tell people

that will improve? Brisley, we have some very old rolling stock. Some of

it has been improved alreadx. We have a new station in Middldsbrough.

My constituents can get off at the hospital rather than travel

information is rough. And I would love to have a trains starthng in

Whidbey in the mornings so that people could come to work in

Middlesbrough. `` in which we. `` in Whitby. There are services that will

disappear, according to critics There is a service from Manchester

through to York. It is whether we have a train that runs on dhesel or

electric or whether we could increase the frequency of the

service from Scarborough into York. Not everybody who travels there goes

to Manchester. A lot of people get off and some of the complaints I get

from commuters going into York is that there is only one train and

hour at certain times of dax. Let's move it on. Catherine McKinnell

this has built up over decades. At least the coalition have a plan

What we need to see in this franchise plan is a commitmdnt, a

steady timetable and a promhse that this rolling stock will not

potentially be improved, but will actually be improved. These trains

are 30 years old. There is no heating in the winter. They are

totally inaccessible for people with mobility problems. We need to see a

proper guarantee that this rolling stock is going to be improvdd as

part of the franchising deal. It is all they get the moment in the

government's plans. What about the planned about `` what about the idea

of taking it into public ownership. Should Labour look at this? Craig

raise a very important point that a number of our railways incltding the

ones in Newcastle are run bx German state`owned railways. We have Dutch

owned railways, French owned railways. If we were in govdrnment,

we would not be rushing to put out to tender the East Coast Mahn Line

which by 2015 will have rettrned ?1 billion to the taxpayer. Wh`t about

other services. Would not bd rushing about `` we would be rushing for

ideological reasons to put the matter to tender. Would you put them

in public ownership? A statd`owned railway company could bid along with

other railway companies and bade against the foreign`owned state

companies to win the contract. At the moment, they are not actually

allowed to do that. We would change that. A final question. Would you

expect `` would you accept that there has been a huge imbal`nce in

spending between the north `nd south. The figures suggest ?200 per

head in London, ?5 per head in the North. Less is not forget that some

of the Crossrail `` let us not forget that some of the projects Lye

Cross well `` like Crossrail were planned by Labour. We bring it. We

are bringing investment back to the North. We are manufacturing train

plans in Sedgefield. Now London has too much powdr

and cities in the north need to work together

to compete with the capital. But this week it was coming

from George Osborne. He wants to create a

"northern powerhouse" with cities joining forces under elected mayors

in the style of Boris Johnson. And he's also promised more

investment in the north's science`based btsinesses

` if they come up with good ideas. So how have

the Chancellor's ideas gone down? Once known as I'm up a list,

Middlesbrough was a powerhotse. But it has some of the highest rates of

unemployment in the UK. The slow pace of regeneration here in

Middlesbrough is the way thd fact that it is not in northern

powerhouse. The Chancellor's solution is the choice of a Boris

Johnson style elected mayor not just for that as well, but for the whole

of the Teeside Valley. This man like the idea. He hopes to be

Middlesbrough's mayor next xear He says a beefed up Teeside version

could do much more. To have elected leaders trying to make decisions is

not the best way to do it. Things will work much better if thdre is a

Teeside wide body with one person at the top who is accountable `nd

responsible for taking big decisions, driving investment at a

level that affects everybodx, not just a tiny slice of the

conurbation. Would the region's voters be enthusiastic? Although

voters decided to keep their elected mayor, the three this year, voters

in Hartlepool got rid of thdirs In Darlington and in Newcastle, the

public have decided they did not want mayor is in charge of their

communities. Some think that the Chancellor's speech is more about

saving his team`mates and moving the north Bay division. He is in dire

need of political traction hn the north. He knows that the Tory brand

in the north and the North Dast in particular is toxic. He is doing

something for those regions where he has marginal MPs. I am afrahd that

the Chancellor is far too l`te and his MPs and those constituencies are

on a hiding to nothing. But the Chancellor also talked about

investment in cutting`edge science in places like this. Teesidd Centre

for process innovation is hdlping develop the technology to ttrn

rubbish into valuable fuel. It could create hundreds of jobs and he says

that this man says support for innovation capacity that produce a

positive reaction. We could get first`class academic capability and

full`scale industrial capabhlity and infrastructure in the sites that we

have. We are waiting for thdse opportunities and these jobs. With a

little help, Teeside's business leaders think they could be part of

a powerhouse. But they think that should include infrastructure

investment here and not just between Manchester and Leeds. We want to see

the opportunity for Middlesbrough to link with London, we won't

Darlington to have more frepuent stops on these Coast mainline. We

want is the electrification of the line through to Middlesbrough and to

Teesport. So there are several things on rail that we would want

but we would also lobby for whatever high`speed links are going to make

sure the North East is incltded 150 years ago, Middlesbrough was at the

centre of Britain's economic success. The Chancellor wants that

to be true today. Has he re`lly offered anything to fuel a

renaissance. Is this all data vu, Catherine McKinnell. What wd have

seen from this government is four years of sustained funding, things

shifted from areas in this region to areas in the south. We have seen

jobs in this region decreashng as a proportion of the number of jobs in

the whole economy. We have seen the North East lose out time and time

again. I share Tom Blenkinsop's cynicism about the timing of this

announcement. Ultimately, what we need to see is the local authority

groupings which were suggested as the replacements, it has taken a

long time to get them on thdir feet. And to bring investment to bring in

jobs to the area. They are only now just Artem to make progress. Labour

seems to be keen on these mdas. As an MP for Newcastle, could xou see

the advantage of a mayor covering that area? . Would you say, don t

think about mayor 's? It is unthinkable to the people. Hf a new

offer is put forward, it is up to people to think if that is what they

want. We need a strong regional voice to shout for investment. The

Chancellor's speech was short on detail. What powers would this may

have? I would like it to be somebody will like Boris Johnson with his

power. People always say whoever we vote for, the council gets Laginn.

But people feel they have pdople foisted on them. We would not foist

people on people. It comes down to the mayor is. You can have ` good

champion for a particular conurbation. We should look more

closely at this proposal. Pdople rejected John Prescott's big idea

and we need to keep it local. Somebody you can identify whth and

the buck. . I'm talking abott Boris! Labour going to make an announcement

which is raised similar, I suspect. If Labour makes out an annotncement

it will not leave out the entire Northeast. This is a very cxnically

timed announcement from the Chancellor and ultimately it is all

jam tomorrow. There is nothhng concrete in his proposals. There is

nothing that we can say, th`t will be grateful this region. We will

have to leave it there. The number of hospital admissions

as a result of eating disorders is 30% higher in the North East than

the national average. So plans to close

a specialist unit at the Roxal Victoria Infirmary in Newcastle were

likely to be controversial. It was taken up by a Tyneside MP

in the Commons this week. Here's Mark Denten with mord on that

and the rest of the week's news The problems caused

by shop closures in South Shields have been highlighted in thd Commons

by Emma Law Buck after Marks Spencer closed on King

Street after 80 years of tr`ding. An independent commission chaired

by the Bishop of Carlisle h`s called for benefit changes to reduce

the impact on vulnerable people The decision to close

down a specialist unit in Ndwcastle for eating disorders has bedn

criticised by Newcastle MP. She blamed it for sending pdople

to local units far from homd. That is how we have come to the

ridiculous and tragic situation of our National Health Service sending

vulnerable Tyneside patients to Glasgow, to Norwich, to London, when

there are empty beds in the centre And finally,

a new plan to transform the The ?74 million project aims to

create jobs And one extra bit of news from

West Cumbria. Where the

Workington MP Sir Tony Cunnhngham has announced he's to stand down

at the next General Election. He's been the MP

in the Labour seat since 2001. And that's about it from me

for this week. You can read more

about the northern powerhouse plans on my blog, and don't forget to

follow me on Twitter. Now though it's back to Andrew

for the rest of this week's show. been problems elsewhere in Europe,

but I take your point. Thanks to both of you today. Back to you,

Andrew. Now, there have been some

less-than-helpful remarks about the way the Labour party makes

policy, and they've come from the man who is heading Labour's

Policy Review, Jon Cruddas. In a speech to party activists he

was recorded saying that, "instrumentalised, cynical nuggets

of policy to chime with our focus groups and our press strategies and

our desire for a topline in terms of the 24 hour media cycle,

dominate and crowd out any He added that Labour's election

strategy was being hampered by a The shadow chancellor, Ed Balls

was asked about what Mr Cruddas had I talked to him a couple of days

ago, and he's not frustrated, he is excited about his policy agenda He

is frustrated that one report of 250 pages gets reduced down. So it's our

fault? That is the way we live in the world in which we live, but we

have big ideas about devolution long term infrastructure spending

and new manufacturing policy, new investment in skills, big changes

which, let's be honest, I'm really on George Osborne's agenda. How

serious is this? It is Wimbledon, so let's call it an unforced error You

go to the party speeches, and you don't know who is in the audience.

There is no need for something as serious as this to happen. It's

hugely serious because it speaks about something people have felt for

a long time, that they have doled out little nuggets of policy but no

overarching story. There was a quite saying the Ed Miliband has given as

a shopping list, not a narrative. When people in the party say things

that are true, it's very difficult for people to explain it away. Not

sure Mr Miliband can win here. He was recently criticised for not

having policies. Now he's being criticised for having too many. I

think this line of attack is particularly wounding because he

prides himself on being a politician of ideas. That is his unique selling

point, and the weight that David Cameron's prime ministerial nature

is his selling point. So it is wounding. If I was the Labour Party,

before announcing any policy, I would ask can help fix us on the

economy? It might be radicalised immolating on its own terms, but

it's politically useless. -- radical and innovative on its own terms I

don't think any member of the public does not think they are not radical

enough or creative enough. If anything, it's the opposite. They

are a bit nervous about what a Labour government could do and

nervous about the economic reputation. Reassurance, caution,

maybe a bit of timidity might be the notions that inform their policies

or should inform their policies in night -- my view, not the opposite.

I am worried for Jon Cruddas, because anyone who questions the

Labour Party are part of the nexus of the banking industry who are

terrified of a Labour victory. It's interesting that this goes to the

heart of the debate in the Labour Party, at the highest levels, do

they put a big offer to the British people, or a little off, John

Cruddas offer, or Douglas Alexander offer? Ed Miliband says that his

ideas about freezing energy prices and rent controls are a big offer,

but his policy chief clearly has real concerns that they don't go far

enough. How important a figure is John Cruddas in the project? He is

hell of the -- head of the policy review and has a huge amount of

power, and so him slagging off the policy review is a bad moment. He is

trusted in that inner circle and the problem for Ed Miliband from the odd

is that he has people with strong opinions, Maurice clasping is

another, big thinkers, but they maybe don't have a precaution that a

professional politician might have in terms of giving bland answers.

So, David Cameron had to apologise after his former director

of communications was convicted of phone hacking.

David Cameron's other former friend, Rebekah Brooks, had a better day.

At the same trial, she was cleared of all the charges against her.

I take full responsibility for employing Andy Coulson. I did some

on the basis of undertakings I was given by him about phone hacking and

those turned out not to be the case. I always said that if they turned

out to be wrong, I would make a full and frank apology, and I do that

today. I am extremely sorry that I employed him. It was the wrong

decision. I'm clear about that. When I was arrested it was in the middle

of a maelstrom of controversy, politics and of comment. Some of

that was there, but much of it was not, so I'm grateful to the jury for

coming to that decision. Not been a great week for David Cameron. Andy

Coulson found guilty, and another person who had worked in Downing

Street is also charged on an unrelated issue. And he was 26- on

the wrong end in Brussels, and there is a poll this morning which no one

seems to be talking about which puts Labour nine points ahead. Before all

that there was Dominic Cummings criticising the Downing Street

operation is being shambolic. Is Mr Cameron's judgement becoming an

issue? Yes, what often happens when one leader is under pressure for

long enough, as Ed Miliband has been the six months, we get bored. We

then switch the Gatling gun to the other guy. So David Cameron going

into the Conference season might be the man under pressure. The whole

Andy Coulson saga has raised questions about his judgement and

those around him, but any political damage she was going to sustain over

Andy Coulson and phone hacking was sustained years ago -- he was

going. It was Brother beyond the date the News of the World was

closed down three summers ago - it was probably on the date. As the

hacking trial cut through to the general public? Or is it just as

media and political obsessives? I am sure it has cut through in some way

but it didn't necessarily happen in recent days, more likely in recent

years. It was some time ago that Andy Coulson resigned in high

profile circumstances. It has had a slow burning effect over a few

years, and the Prime Minister fears the Big Bang. But there is one theme

and words that unites this week with Juncker and Andy Coulson, and that

is that the Prime Minister can be lackadaisical. He was lackadaisical

in not asking big question is when there was a lot in the public domain

about what had happened that the News of the World. And he was

lackadaisical with Juncker. He made a calculation that Angela Merkel

would support him and it turned out she couldn't. Maybe he needs to

change. He was late in understanding what was happening in Germany when

both the Christian Democrats, her party, wanted Juncker, and when the

actual Murdoch press of Germany said that they wanted him as well. He

never saw that. He only looks at one person in Germany, Angela Merkel,

and it is a grand coalition, and the SDP felt strongly about it. He is,

in a sense, an essay crisis Prime Minister. He is, in a sense, an

essay crisis Prime Minister. He s very good in an essay, and the SA

gets a double first the essay. Is Ed Miliband right to be angry? He has

John Cruddas attacking him, and that is the news leading in the Sunday

Times, and has not been a good week the Prime Minister and in which Mr

Miliband has a bigger lead in the polls than he has had some time so

he must be wondering why they are having a go at him. He made a

tactical error in Prime Minister's Questions by asking all the

questions about Andy Coulson. The one at the end about what Gus

O'Donnell said was rather hopeful in the extreme. Politicians can be out

of touch on all sides of the house. The problem is, and there is a great

quote by William Hague, is that the Tory party has two modes, panic and

complacency. At the moment they are complacent. They think Ed Miliband

will lose Labour election but I don't know if they have a positive

plan about how to win it. -- lose Labour the election.

Now, we knew Prince Charles had trouble keeping his views

about the environment and the countryside to himself,

but that's not the only thing he's passionate about according to

a radio four documentary to be broadcast this lunchtime.

Here's former Education Secretary, David Blunkett on how the Prince

had once attempted to influence his policy on schools.

I would explain that our policy was not to expand grammar schools, and

he didn't like that. He was very keen that we should go back to a

different era where youngsters had what he would've seen as the

opportunity to escape from their background, where as I wanted to

change their background. And you can hear that documentary -

it's called The Royal Activist Does it matter that Prince Charles

is getting involved in this kind of policy, released behind closed doors

question mark on the issue of grammar schools is not clear anybody

listened to him. I think it is a principal problem. I've spoken to

form a government members, and judging by what they say, if

anything we underestimate how much contacting makes with ministers And

how many representations he makes on the issue that interest him. There

has been an attempt to keep it hidden. It's almost a theological

question about whether the future monarch should be involved in the

public realm. If he wants to influence policy, shouldn't we know

what policy he's trying to influence and what position he is taking?

Sewer speech is better than private one-on-one lobbying. Possibly - so

a speech. Prince Charles's views are interesting. He's not a straight

down the light reactionary. He makes a left-wing case for rammer schools.

There is an interview with him in the Financial Times in which his

argument in favour for architectural development takes into account

affordable housing in the wake which no one would have suspected. He has

interesting views, but I'm not convinced on the point of principle

whether someone is dashing his position should be speaking. Your

former employer 's famously described him as the SDP king. You

slightly feel sorry for him. He s 66 and still an apprentice. He's in a

difficult position. We know what the powers of the monarch are. They are

to advise in courage and warned the Prime Minister of the day. These in

the difficult position where the problem for him is that there is a

line that isn't really defined, but you slightly feel he just gets a bit

too close to it and possibly crosses that line with the lobbying that

goes on. I think the worrying thing is that at some point he will become

King and will he know that he has got to work within that framework?

He is somebody that cannot win either. If he doesn't take an

interest in public policy, he will be thought to be a bit of a waster,

going round opening town halls, and when he does have an interest we

think, hey, you are in the monarchy, stay out. There's an interesting

parallel with first ladies who are encouraged to find a controversial

charitable project. Michelle Obama has bought childhood obesity, and

that is the standard thing. Everybody knows that that is a bad

thing, but you are not offering solutions that are party political.

I feel there must be a middle way with what he should be able to do

about finding big causes he can complain about without getting stuck

into lobbying ministers. Which can become a party political issue. He

has had some influence on architecture, because the buildings

we are putting up to date are better than the ones we used to put up

The Daily Politics is on BBC 2 at 11:00am

We'll be back here at the same time next week.

Remember if it's Sunday, it's the Sunday Politics.