29/06/2014 Sunday Politics North East and Cumbria


With Richard Moss. Andrew Neil is joined by Europe Minister David Lidington, Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan and Lib Dem Charles Kennedy to discuss David Cameron's EU defeat.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 29/06/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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.


With Richard Moss. Andrew Neil is joined by Europe Minister David Lidington, Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan and Lib Dem Charles Kennedy to discuss David Cameron's EU defeat. Also should there be a complete ban on smoking?

Download Subtitles