13/07/2014 Sunday Politics North West

Just two months to go until Scotland decides if it should stay

As the campaign heads for the final furlong,

what are the issues and arguments that will determine the result?

The SNP's deputy leader Nicola Sturgeon joins me live.

David Cameron's scheduled a major cabinet reshuffle on Tuesday.

Many of those tipped for promotion are women.

So have efforts to promote diversity in public life barely started or

And don't know whether to support Germany or

Fear not, we'll bring you our political guide to the World Cup.

Reaction in this region to the public sector strikes.

And university challenge ` the Muslim families facing a dilemma

It's World Cup final day and as usual the BBC's snagged the

Yes, eat your heart out, ITV, because for top football analysis

we've got Gary Lineker, Alan Hansen, and Alan Shearer.

And for top political analysis you may

as well tune in to them too because all we could come up with is Nick

David Cameron will reshuffle his cabinet on Tuesday.

The Sunday papers are full of stories telling us who'll be

in and who'll be out, though they don't really know.

The Mail on Sunday has one of the more eye-catching lines,

reporting that former defence secretary and right-winger Liam Fox

is in line for a return to the political front line.

But there's general agreement that women will do well and some

of the old men in suits guard will do badly.

Here's senior Tory backbencher David Davis speaking to this programme.

It's good to make parliament more representative.

But you've got to do it in a way that doesn't create

injustices, and you can't put people in a job who can't do the job.

I am not going to give an example. Is this not a bit cynical? He is

going to promote these women into cabinet positions, but they will not

be able to do anything. I am sceptical of Cabinet reshuffle. It

is an un-written pact in that the media and the government have a

great interest in talking it up. media and the government have a

great interest in talking it up The government says, haven't we

refreshed ourselves? Generally it doesn't

refreshed ourselves? Generally it about. I do not think he has allowed

it to be all-male since that embarrassing image. I can understand

the criticism made of this approach if it was the case that all the

women being promoted by talentless but you have to be very harsh to

look at them and say that they would have much less to offer than the

likes of Andrew Lansley. You can be pro-feminist. The tests for David

Cameron is that having raised expectations he has to give them

substantial jobs. They have to be given departments to run or big

portfolios to carry. If they are given media campaign positions in

the run-up to the election it looks perfunctorily. He is under some

trouble to perhaps suggest a female commissioner to the European Union

Commission. Jean-Claude Juncker has made clear that if he proposes a

woman candidate they will get a better job. Saying they would like

ten out of the 28 to be women. We are going to get the name of the

British candidate at the same time as the reshuffle. The first

face-to-face meeting, he will be able to put a name. There are other

names in the frame. People like Archie Norman. That come from? His

name is in the frame. There would be great scepticism of giving it to

Andrew Lansley. People would think he was the man who mucked up the

reform of the NHS. Who is it going to be? Either a woman or a man. I

would not be surprised if they go for someone believe dynamic. Someone

who would square the party. Would that not mean a by-election? It

might. She is a high profile Eurosceptic. She is a very competent

former banker. It would be the smart choice. I have no idea but my

favourite rumour is Michael Howard. That had some legs for a while.

The Mystic Megs of Fleet Street predict with confidence that the PM

is going to promote more women in his cabinet reshuffle.

The move can be seen as part of a move across British public life

to do more to make our institutions less male and less white.

But as the list of schemes to encourage diversity

grows ever-longer, have we abandoned the idea of appointment by merit?

Tunnelling. Hard hats, and all for new trains. It does not get more

macho than the Crossrail project. When Crossrail looked at the

construction industry they realise that less than 20% was made up

construction industry they realise women and they asked, can we fix it?

They are trying with a recruitment drive that has brought in female

engineers like this woman. She even has a tunnel named after her. Having

more female engineers and construction brings a bigger range

of opinions, a bigger range of ideas, more diversity, into the

industry, and makes it better as a whole. It is the issue being

grappled in another male dominated workplace, the Cabinet. There is

about to be a reach shuffle and the rumour is David Cameron is going to

promote a lot of female ministers. It was a lack of promotion that

annoyed Harriet Harman this week. She claimed Gordon Brown did not

make her Deputy Prime Minister because she was a woman. It was

strange that in a hard-fought highly contested election to be deputy

leader of the Labour Party, and having won against men in the

Cabinet, to succeed to be deputy leader of the Labour Party I

discovered that I was not to be appointed as Deputy Prime Minister.

For women in this country, no matter how able they are, the matter how

hard they might work, they are still not equal. There are initiatives to

make the world feel more equal. In the City the EU wants a quarter for

women in the boardroom but that goal of making 40% of the top floor

female. At the BBC the boss of the TV division says no panel show

should ever be all-male. In the ever glamorous movie business the British

film Institute announced their new thematic system to get lottery

funding projects improving diversity on screen and off and helping social

mobility. Employers like Crossrail are not allowed to positively

discriminate but under the quality act of 2010 if two candidate for a

job are just as good you are allowed to base your decision on

characteristics like race, sexuality and gender. Some worry it has

chipped away at the idea of hiring on merit. A woman and three men

going for a job, two of the men are really good and the woman is not

quite as good but she gets the job anyway. That will create injustice,

a feeling that she did not deserve the job, resentment. It does not

advance equality in society at all. On this project they want to leave a

concrete legacy of a more diverse construction industry. The question

is, what tools do you use when it comes to the rest of society?

I'm joined now by Yasmin Alibhai-Brown,

a columnist for the Independent and by Munira Mirza, the deputy

mayor of London responsible for education and culture.

Cabinet wee shovel coming up punches though. Should David Cameron be

promoting women? He is going to do it anyway. He should have a long

time ago. It does not feel quite right that a few months before the

election it would do the party a lot of good to be seen as a party

properly reflective of the entire population. He should promote women

because they are women? I think he should think about lots of different

factors, whether the people he wants promote have proven themselves in

their current reefs, whether they are good performers in the media,

whether they represent different parts of the party, but the main

principle is to promote on basis of merit. There are many talented women

who fill that description. It should be that merit is the important thing

rather than what you were born with. The thing about positive

discrimination as it flies in the face of that kind of principle. You

are shaking your head. We have always had positive discrimination.

Men of a certain class have appointed in their own image because

they feel most comfortable with that. We have had unspoken positive

discrimination in this country and every other country throughout

history. We are asking as women, all minorities, let us get into the same

game. What do you say? You cannot solve the racism or the sexism of

the past by more racism and sexism. It is not the past. There are

complex reasons why a smaller number of women will appear in certain

industries. It has a lot to do with childcare, education, expected. You

cannot short cut that by setting a target. That is not how you achieve

equality. Things are changing and more women are appearing in

engineering and so on but it will take time. My worry is that these

kinds of measures are counter-productive and undermine the

perception that women can do it on their own merit rather

counter-productive and undermine the perception that women can do it than

because they need a helping hand. It is not a helping hand. It is to say,

we are as good as men and these hidden barriers. Dot. Either they

are not as good or they do not want it, which is just how we persuade

are not as good or they do not want it, which ourselves that it is not

happening, or there are barriers. How we judge meritocracy is at the

heart of it. Are lots of industries won there are not that many women,

such as engineering. We need more engineers generally. I think it is

fine to try to encourage more women to study that subject. By setting a

target you put pressure on an organisation. You tried to ignore

the complex reasons why women do not go into those sectors. I think an

all-female short list achieved miracle in Parliament. This is

following up from having an injection of women coming up because

the system was changed and a large percentage of women went into

Parliament under the all-female short list were brilliant, so why

not? So if the Prime Minister is mailed the Deputy Prime Minister has

to be female and vice versa? Yes, absolutely, 50-50. We need to

reflect the population. If we want to play this as a symbolic gesture,

ideally we should have one of each. Why should a man get the job if you

have a great female prime minister and a great female Deputy Prime

Minister? I personally wouldn't mind this. I hear the disgruntled man and

I want to come -- them to come with us. You're choosing people on the

basis of traits they were born with. Are there too many Indian

doctors in the NHS? I would argue not. Given that we tend to have male

prime ministers rather than female ones, and we don't see another

female one coming down the pipe very quickly... In the time before women

short lists by the way. If you had a male prime minister with a female

Deputy Prime Minister, wouldn't that give some balance? Why women? Why

not working class person, which group do you prioritise? I would go

with you that we need something fundamental to change. This idea

that what we have now is a reflection of a genuine meritocracy

is highly questionable. I would argue that when you look at the

statistics things are changing. argue that when you look at the

statistics things There are more women appearing in parts of public

life, that is a long-term trend, but if you are trying to appoint people

on what they were born with... That is not the only reason but it is an

additional reason. She has to be able to do the job, obviously. I am

saying the policy of hazard to discrimination explicitly state that

you should choose somebody who is female because they are female. At

the moment there is already enough suspicion about women who are

successful to get to the senior position and if you institutionalise

it you reinforce that suspicion. Harriet Harman is still complaining

women are not being treated fairly. I think the policy reinforces the

prejudice that women are not getting there because they are treated on

the same basis. Although you may not want to have the all-female short

list forever, wasn't it the kind of shock to the system that made a

visible change in female representation, which the Tory side

hasn't got? Of course it will work short-term but longer term it has a

very degrading effect on the principle of equality and the fact

Harriet Harman is saying she wasn't treated equally, whether it is true

or not, the perception is still there. A number of women find this

position must be reserved for a woman lying patronising, and

speaking of patronising women, you spoken your Independent column, she

presses all of the buttons for white people... Was that patronising and

offensive? Probably. I wrote it because I felt that at the time but

the point is that I was a token when I was appointed. The paper brought

me in because I was a woman and I was a muslin or whatever. You are

not writing about yourself. I was writing... It doesn't mean you don't

criticise other women. We absolutely have to be tough, Manira is tough

and so am I. Do you want to take back what you wrote? No. Do you

really think positive discrimination has gone too far? I think there is

already a suspicion out there that in certain sectors women are being

promoted for the wrong reasons or ethnic minorities are being promoted

for the wrong reasons. That is a shame and my worry is that by tying

funding to your ethnicity or your gender, by saying you will get a

promotion if you check that box, gender, by saying you will get a

promotion if you check that box but promotion if you check that box, but

you feel that resentment and prejudice and undermine the case for

inequality. I wanted to be treated equally, because I am capable of

doing that job. Only two months to go before Scotland takes its biggest

constitutional decision in 300 years - should it quit or stay with the

UK? For some in Scotland campaign has been going on forever. What has

been the impact on the campaign to date?

Alex Salmond says Scotland would remain part of the European Union

with sterling as its currency in a monetary union with the rest of the

UK, but he has also promised more public spending, increased child

care provision and free personal care for the elderly. The SNP claims

it would leave people better off by ?1000 though that partly depends on

the price of oil. With the Better Together arguing against

independence, it has naturally been attacking the SNP on all fronts.

George Osborne says there will be no monetary union. President Barroso

told the BBC it would be extremely difficult for Scotland to join the

EU after a yes vote. His successor this week said he agreed. Unions

claim Scotland benefit by ?1400 by being part of the UK. A poll this

morning shows a significant lead of 57% for the no campaign, leaving the

SNP to claim it will go their way in the last ten weeks. Nicola Sturgeon,

the Deputy First Minister of Scotland, joins me now. You want an

independent Scotland to keep the pound, stay in NATO, stay in the

EU, Scotland already has all of that but you cannot guarantee it would

have any of it in an independent Scotland, why take the risk? All of

these things should be the case because they are in the best

interests of Scotland and the rest of the UK but we want the powers to

enable us to grow our economy faster, to be productive, and

overtime increased the prosperity of people living in Scotland. We also

want powers over our social security system so that we can create a

system that meets our needs, one that also has a safety net for the

most vulnerable people in our society. Independence is about

letting us decide our own priorities. You didn't answer my

question, you cannot guarantee you would be able to keep the pound

within a monetary union, stay in NATO and the EU, you cannot

guarantee you could produce any of these things, correct? I would argue

that we can because these things are also in the interest of the rest of

the UK. No country can be prevented from using the pound, I suggest we

use that within a formal monetary union. We have had the UK minister

quoted in the Guardian saying the position of the UK Government right

now is one based on campaign rhetoric and following a yes vote,

of course there would be a currency union. Who is that minister? The

Minister is unnamed, but nevertheless that story in the

Guardian was a solid one and not substantially denied. So you are

basing your monetary policy on one on named minister in one story?

Basing it on Common sense because monetary union would be in the best

interests for Scotland but also overwhelmingly in the interests of

the rest of the UK, given their trading relationship with Scotland

and the contribution Scotland's exports make. We are having a very

good debate and the UK Government and the no campaign, and this is not

a criticism, want to talk up in -- uncertainty to make people feel

scared, but after independence there will be constructed process of

negotiation. Let's stick with the monetary union because most

economists agree it would be very good for an independent Scotland to

have a monetary union but George Osborne, Ed Balls, Danny Alexander

are unequivocal, they say you won't get it. You claim they are bluffing

but again you cannot guarantee that so why the risk? I would say the

benefits of independence are substantial but I would also say to

George Osborne and his counterparts in the other parties that it would

be a very brave Chancellor that says to businesses in the rest of the UK

that they have to incur unnecessary additional transaction costs of half

a very brave Chancellor that says to businesses in the rest of

a very brave Chancellor that says to and one said it could even be

impossible, you dismissed him because he was standing down, but

impossible, you dismissed him still says it will be anything but a

seamless transition. He said you could not join the European Union by

sending a letter, that is not our proposal. We set down a robust

proposal and the timescale we think is reasonable under these

circumstances. There are many nationals of other states living in

Scotland right now, if we were to be outside of the European Union for

any period of time, something the current treaty doesn't even provide

for, they would lose their right to stay here. The interests of Scotland

and the interests of European Union are in favour of a seamless

transition. It comes down to common sense and people in Scotland will

make sense and people in Scotland will

their own judgement on who is talking the common-sense. What about

NATO, two years ago you told Newsnight the SNP's position is that

we wouldn't stay in NATO. We had a democratic debate, we looked at

whether it would be in the interests of an independent Scotland, which

forms a significant part of the territory of the North Atlantic and

the party changed its mind. It did so in a thoroughly democratic way.

That is the nature of democracy. That is the nature of democracy

Would you accept the protection of the NATO nuclear umbrella? There is

no doubt the SNP's position is that we do not want nuclear weapons in

Scotland. That is not what I asked. The world rid themselves of nuclear

weapons. One of the interesting point is of the 28 member countries

of Natal 25 do not have nuclear weapons. An independent Scotland...

I asked if you would accept the nuclear umbrella. The key feature of

NATO's military dog train is now clear shrike. We would accept the

basis of which NATO is founded but we would argue two things. We want

Trident removed from Scotland rather than have a situation where might we

are spending ?100 billion over the next generation replacing Trident

and we would argue within the international community that the

world should move much more quickly to rid itself of nuclear weapons.

That is the principal position and won the SNP has held consistently

for many years. You would get rid of one of the key parts of the NATO

deterrent based in Scotland. You would kick that out. You would not

accept all of the club rules because you do not like the idea of nuclear.

Why would they like a member like you in? Because Scotland is a

significant part of the territory of the North Atlantic. You do not

subscribe to the rules. 25 of the member states of NATO are

non-nuclear members. You are saying you do not follow the doctrine. NATO

has said it wants to move away from reliance on nuclear weapons. An

independent Scotland would be entering the majority mainstream of

NATO as a country that did not have nuclear weapons. By leading by

example our moral authority and encouraging others to do likewise

would be increased. Money and oil, the finance minister has said that

an independent Scotland would increase public spending by 3% a

year. He would pay for that by borrowing. Your First Minister says

he is going to stash money in an oil fund. You're going to borrow and

save. How does that work? There are two points. Firstly in terms of the

outlook for finances and what is one of the central debates of this

referendum campaign, austerity that we know will continue if we stay as

part of the Westminster system versus prosperity. The economy can

afford a higher level of increase in public spending while we continue to

have deficit levels at a sustainable level. What is the point of

borrowing and saving at the same time? People who have a mortgage and

the savings account would not themselves what the wisdom of that

is. This is based on recommendations of our expert fiscal Commission that

as borrowing reduces to sustainable levels it makes sense to start

saving a proportion of our oil wealth. In Norway, which has many

similarities to Scotland, they have an oil fund worth ?500 billion.

Scotland is part of the Westminster system is sitting on a share of UK

debt. We can continue to allow our oil wealth, our vast oil wealth,

debt. We can continue to allow our oil wealth, our vast oil wealth to

be mismanaged or we can decide we are going to manage that resource

better in the years to come. Your figures do not add up unless you are

about oil prices and revenue and you have been consistently wrong in your

predictions. Last year you forecast that revenues would be the .7

billion more than they actually work -- 3.7 billion. The cost of the

Scottish school system gone. There were particular reasons for that in

terms of interruption to production and bigger levels of investment.

Used ill have to find the money Let me explain. They are based on robust

assumptions, firstly a production estimates that is in line with the

estimates of the oil and gas industry. Use of figures that are

based on production of 10 billion barrels of oil. Oil and gas has been

wrong as well. It is 24 billion left to be recovered. That is what is in

the UK Government's oil and gas strategy so production in line with

industry estimates and an oil price of $110 per barrel which is flat in

cash terms would be a real terms reduction. The Department of energy

is estimating $128 per barrel so our estimate compared to that is

cautious. These are robust estimates based on robust assumptions. Except

they have been wrong. Finally, we hear a lot from you and your fellow

nationalists, you want a Scandinavian style social democracy,

you know how to spend the money but you never tell us about social

democratic levels of taxation. Also should grizzlies have higher levels

of tax in Scotland does at the moment -- all social grizzlies. I

want a Scottish style of social democracy. Free education, free

medicines and balancing the books every single year. We want to get

more people into work in Scotland, raise the level of distribution in

the Labour market and make the economy more productive so we are

raising the overall tax revenue Over the last 33 years we have

generated more taxpayer head of population than is the case and the

rest of the UK. Those last 33 years, some of those years oil prices would

have been high and in others they would have been law but we take

different decisions. A report showed that if we go as part of the

Westminster system down the plate -- route of replacing Trident then the

cost will be as high as ?4 billion every year. Our share of that is the

hundred million pounds a year. Let us get access to our own resources

so we can make different and better decisions about how to spend the

resources we have. You are promising Scandinavian style social democratic

levels of public spending but you say you will not need a top rate of

tax of 56% which is what Scandinavia has, that all 25%, which is what

Scandinavia has and VAT of 15%. You are going to have the spending but

none of the taxes that make it possible in Scandinavia. For

mischievous reasons you are met -- misrepresenting what I am saying.

The Scottish economy can afford it and we want to generate more wealth

in our economy. We want to use the existing resources Scotland has. We

are the 14th richest country in the world in terms of what we produce.

We do not want to be wasting resources. We want to be spending

resources on the things that other priority for the people of Scotland.

These are the benefits and the opportunities really get if we take

the opportunity of voting yes and becoming independent.

This is a week in which we have had public sector strikes. Andrdw, how

This is a week in which we have had public sector strikes.

Andrew, how disruptive were they in your constituency?

I've had very few constituents claiming disruption to

There is a lot of discussion nationally about

Unions are claiming one figure but I think the actual number was

Are they running out of steam do you think, Bill?

I think that the people who went on strike on Thursday feel thex have

absolutely no choice but to protest against what the Government is doing

to them and they have had enough of the way they've been tre`ted

Many schools, libraries and leisure centres were

closed this week as thousands of public sector workers across

Unions say millions of workers are worse off under this Governlent

They gathered together to protest here in Preston.

In Liverpool, Chester, Manchester and across the region,

council staff, health workers, civil servants,

teachers and firefighters picketing outside their places of work,

marching outside their high streets, unhappy with their places of work.

After years of a pay freeze, the Government's latest offer is 1%

I am very committed to my job and helping the children learn

and yet I do not feel this hs reflected in my pay.

The worst of the cuts in local Government are going to

come in the next two or three years and it is going to absolutely

For the low`paid workers that represent

the council, the canteen workers, the cleaners and also women.

These are the biggest strikes we've seen

And for the workers here in Preston, marching through the city cdntre,

It is a message to the Government but also to the Labour leader

Ed Miliband who, in the past, has been reluctant to discuss

Do you think the strike acthon will make any difference?

We want to get the Government to listen.

At the end of the day, there are hundreds of people here who are all

protesting about the fact that the Government aren't engaging hn talks.

Talks we've been trying to negotiate with someone who is not prepared to

negotiate, so I want the Government to listen.

We are not paying for the mhstakes of the rich in the city of London.

But these strikes have divided public opinion.

The economic climate being what it is,

I think people should be not totally subservient but grateful for a job.

They're not getting enough pay for the job that they do

They've done it once before and didn't get anywhere.

Are they going to get anywhere this time?

A local Conservative is sympathetic to concerns over low pay but says

There is an assumption now we get an annual rise which

That doesn't happen and can't always happen.

All I'm saying is what?s affordable and, in certain circumstances,

For those involved in the strikes, there is great frustration.

They may want a better wage, but the Government is standing firm.

This will be a hot topic in the run`up to the general election.

And we're also joined by Avis Gilmore,

the North West Regional Secretary for the National Union of Tdachers.

What was the objective of the strikes?

They were sheer frustration from workers across the public sector to

the fact that this Government is importing some horrendous pay

freezes and caps, trying to decimate the working conditions of people in

the public sector and, in otr view, destroy our services as well.

The people who work in those services aren't prepared to

What are you trying to get out of striking?

Some sensible dialogue with the Government.

We have had some talks with some officials from the National Union

of Teachers' point of view with officials

in the Department of Educathon, but they have only been allowed to talk

to us about how the Government's policies are implemented.

We want to talk to Michael Gove himself about the policies.

In terms of the impact of the strikes,

in no way are you any closer to getting more pay as a result.

That's how strongly our members feel, that they are

It's how strongly some of them feel, isn't it?

Because your strike mandate was two years ago and, in fact,

In fact, when we balloted two years ago, we got 40% responding

and that is significantly more than the Government's mandate

It is significantly more th`n the ballots for the Mayor of London

and the Police Commission, so we think it is quite accdptable.

The Prime Minister is saying they are considering for the legislation

`` further legislation, so it may be impossible to hold a strike unless

In a way, you are in a worse position.

I think it would be very difficult for the Government to bring that in.

I think the working people of this country know that

the only power they have is that when they are so frustrated they are

If that legislation comes in for trade union ballots,

surely it has to come in for other ballots as well.

Andrew Bingham, how much more pay do you want public

It's a question of what is affordable.

We inherited a dreadful financial situathon

and we have to cut, we can't afford to keep giving big pay rises.

I looked at the strikes and what struck me, and I come from `

background in the private sector and I've had to go a month with no pay

sometimes, I look at people who have had to make childcare arrangements

and take the day off themselves because teachers have

Yet these people are having to make childcare arrangements for people

The reality is that, since you guys came into Government,

public pay, taking inflation into account, is down by 9%, and you're

No, what I'm saying is that we can only afford to pay what we've got.

Tax`free threshold has risen, so people can take more

I'm sorry to be harsh about it but the Government inherited

a huge deficit and it has to be brought under control.

It might be better if your economic plans were on target.

You said you were going to balance books by the end of this Parliament.

That hasn't happened so public sector workers are going to have

Many private`sector workers in my constituency have had waged

To come back to another point, if we get everyone 5% or 6%,

I think people would have more sympathy for what Andrew is saying

if the Government hadn't looked after some of the wealthiest people

society by giving a tax cut to the people earning over ?150,000 a year.

Not just 9%, some have seen their paid for

by 15% or more, especially with the changes in pension arrangemdnts

Public sector workers think they have been under attack and not

Teachers tell me that their working day has becomd longer

and longer in the last four years because of the changes.

I think it is very understandable why people go on strike

when they feel they have no other choice and the Government will not

There are changes constantlx going on so I think it is

entirely understandable people choose to go on strike.

I actually think the people on strike don't want to be

The only people who want to see strikes are the Government because

they think it puts hard`working people in the public sector...

Ed Miliband has said nobody wants to see strikes,

He quite clearly said that nobody wants to see strikes,

but what is important is that we understand why they are happening.

They are happening because people feel they have no choice

Avis, would you be better off under Labour?

We would like to see which of the Government is in powdr

talking to us on a reasonable level and listening to the people.

Where public sector workers are in the position where the lowest paid

are having to go to food banks and the salary isn't reaching n`tional

18 year`old Saffiyah wants to study medicine at university, inctrring

With family unable to find the fees, she's resigned to being charged

It's agains Sharia law, interest and stuff.

If there was another option, I would have taken it.

Yusuf hopes to study philosophy and economics

He thinks pragmatism must whn over dogma if young Muslims are to get

I come from a family of practicing Muslims, but it?s something we had

to think twice about, purelx because the need for education is equally as

important if not more important than following something that might be

dogmatic or constraining to our education. Sharia law tdaches

that interest makes the rich richer and the poor poorer.

The Government is considering a loan system that would solve

the conflict between Sharia law and the current student loan system

But according to one Islamic finance expert, the solution is simple.

The Government, they should be looking to the future

of a society who are educated and they are willing to pay for it.

That could be done by just giving simple interest`free loans,

Until a solution is agreed, many practicing Muslim teenagers face

And I spoke to Professor Mohammed Abdel`Haq,

an expert in Islamic Finance at the University of Bolton and I

There is nothing against Islamic finance. I don't think Islalic

finance would be an alternative. finance. I don't think Islamic

finance would be an alternative I finance would be an alternative. I

think it would be part of the offering. If you want a conventional

loan, you should take it. If you feel the only barrier betwedn

loan, you should take it. If you feel the only barrier between you

feel the only barrier betwedn you and further education at University

is that you don't have an Islamic loan, I think, why not? There are

two ways of looking at it. One is that it is good for integration

because it allows more Muslhms to go because it allows more Muslhms to go

to university. The other is that it promotes separatism because you're

creating two systems. I don't want to support two different systems.

Given what we are witnessing and facing the challenges of Islamic

extremism, I think this is one of the good ways. To integrate the

Islamic finance for Islamic youngsters. If you want to further

your education through an Islamic loan, yes, we have nothing against

loan, yes, we have nothing `gainst Islam because if we don't do this,

guess what? Someone else might provide it. Where we are telling

them to come and study and hn provide it. Where we are telling

them to come and study and in return we want you to be a good citizen,

someone else might provide this and make promote them going to Syria. As

as long we don't compromise on our values, I don't think we should be

worried. Andrew, what do you think worried. Andrew, what do yot think

of this idea. I don't want anyone to of this idea. I don't want `nyone to

be excluded from university for their faith. If they met it can be

found to comply with sharia law, I found to comply with sharia law, I

would support it. It is there as an option for people who feel they have

to go that way. It doesn't impose option for people who feel they have

to go that way. It doesn't hmpose it to go that way. It doesn't hmpose it

on other students, they just broadens choice, so I'm find with

it. I agree. I think we need to find more ways of encouraging yotng

more ways of encouraging young people to go to further education

which have seen fees go frol ?3 00 which have seen fees go from ?3000

to ?9,000. It has become incredibly difficult for young people,

particularly from poorer backgrounds and working`class backgrounds, to

get into higher education. So a scheme like this has to be a

get into higher education. So a scheme like this has to be ` good

thing. Is there a danger of us moving towards a world of greater

separatism were Muslims have to go through a different type of loan? We

are only talking about the need to go to university and there are

are only talking about the need to go to university and there `re loads

go to university and there are loads of Muslims who just get on with it.

It depends on each individual It depends on each individual

person, whatever their faces. I think it would be very easy to turn

the argument into separatism, but I the argument into separatisl, but I

don't think it does, I think it is just a different option for

different people. There havd always different people. There have always

been various things on the market. You can get energy from companies

that operate certain policids, this that operate certain policids, this

is just like that. Professor Abdul Hakim ancient integration.

and it emerged this week th`t twin sisters from Manchester may have

Counter terrorism officers say they're concerned about the safety

of Salma and Zahra Hullarnie but also believe they could pose

One organisation that works with Muslim women says they

Maybe their brothers encouraged them, I don?t know.

But the term I would use is religious grooming.

Bill, how concerned should we be about security implications? I think

that if the story is true, it is that if the story is true, it is

extremely worrying. I am worried about what is happening to young

people. When we have childrdn who people. When we have children who

are ending up going to a war zone, it is something we should bd

extremely worried about and something that we all have a

responsibility to do somethhng responsibility to do somethhng

about. We should be putting resources into schools and colleges

to make sure that children are to make sure that children `re

supported. To stop radicalisation? Yes. I think it is something that

has to be handled a very sensitive way. Coverage and some popular

newspapers hasn't helped. Is it worrying that people who are brought

up in mainstream education here in Manchester suddenly feel thd

up in mainstream education here in Manchester suddenly feel the need to

Manchester suddenly feel thd need to go to a foreign country and start

fighting? It's very worrying. We all remember being young and

impressionable and you might adopt your own political ethos at school

or later, and I think there is a real danger that this vulnerability

can be exploited by different groups. There is no sign so far that

there has been a huge amount of success in preventing it. It's how

do you prevent it. What mothvates people? Is it a belief or a lack of

belief? I don't know. I think you have to find the cause to deal

belief? I don't know. I think you have to find the cause to ddal with

have to find the cause to deal with it.

Let's have a look at the rest of the week's news now.

Here's Stuart Pollitt with 60 Seconds.

Rochdale Council suspended its inquiry into a possible covdr`up up

of abuse at Knowl View residential school after Greater Manchester

Police said it had enough evidence for a criminal investigation.

The North West was promised ?1 billion pounds

in the latest round of Government Growth Fund investment.

Labour says London's still getting too much.

This is a continuing problel and it is vitally important to correct the

balance. Greater Manchester's health service

is preparing A public consultation got underway

into plans for as many Critics say it will cost too much

and others will have to close. Backing for fracking `

Blackpool hoteliers came out in support of drilling

for shale gas on the Fylde coast. Opponents say it damages

the environment And open Government `

the Manx Parliament was held outside for the annual national celdbration

of Tynwald Day. As we head into the summer recess,

where do they stand in terms of political parties? How confident

where do they stand in terms of political parties? How confhdent are

political parties? How confident are you that Labour is on the rhght path

you that Labour is on the right path for a factory next year? I think

Labour has the right offer for the electorate next year. We have

National policy Forum announcements next weekend with the conference in

autumn. We already have some strong policies including the energy price

freeze changes, national investment and the support for small

businesses. Ed Miliband is the leader with those policies and

businesses. Ed Miliband is the leader with those policies `nd I

think he is the one who will put them into practice. They ard his

policies, that's the important policies, that's the import`nt

point. We were a consistent lead in the opinion polls. Andrew? The

economy is on the up. There is growth and people can see that. It

is beginning to filter into people's pockets, slowly. We

is beginning to filter into people's pockets, slowly. Wd had a

people's pockets, slowly. We had a dreadful inheritance. Do yot think

you are in a better place than Labour? I think so because the

economy is moving in the right direction. It has been tough and

people have understood that. My constituents aren't seeing that

improvement. Most of my constituents have not seen any improvement.

Just time to thanks my guests, Bill Esterson and Andrew Bingham.

Now I'll hand you back to Andrew Neil in London.

will keep a bit safer. That is all the time we have.

So, plenty happening in Parliament this coming week, including

a controversial bill to make so-called assisted dying legal and

Lord Carey has intervened in the assisted dying debate. Will it make

a difference? It will make a difference because we have

established in the House of Lords, I am not sure who they speak for and

why they should have a privileged position, but he was a big opponent

and has made a change of heart. The fact that the Daily Mail has printed

this shows this is a big intervention. The Bill being pushed

through, is it now on the agenda? I think it is. There are international

examples of assisted dying elsewhere. The state of Oregon

passed a Bill similar to this in the 1990s and things have not got out of

control. That has not been an expansion or abuse. It has settled

down and become part of the furniture. That makes it easier for

this Bill, to make the case for it. Religious people may still have a

principled objection but most other people have a practical objection,

which is how to put in place safeguards to deal with unscrupulous

relatives or anyone else who wants to abuse this right? Once a

controversial issue is only being opposed for practical reasons it is

on its way to getting its way. What is the division, is it the Church

against everybody else? Is it a right and left division? What is

stopping it? It is a very difficult moral issue and there are people who

can have genuinely held Christian beliefs or non-Christian beliefs who

can be on both sides. I think that the Lord Carey intervention is

potentially a game changer not just because he is a former Archbishop of

Canterbury but because he was on the Evan Jellicoe side of the Church of

England. That is quite a big move. The response was to say, please

withdraw your bell and let us have a royal Commission. The Supreme Court

kicked the ball back to Parliament when they rejected the cases of

three people who had been taking the case and said, we could say that

banning the right to life is against the European Court of Human Rights,

but it is a moral issue and an issue for Parliament. Parliament needs to

decide. The data act that is going to be pushed through Parliament. In

record time. To comply with a European court judgement. Tom Watson

and David Davis, some dissent. Are you so prized with how united the

establishment, left, right and centre is? No. There is a great

quote saying this has been enacted under the something must be done act

and that captures it exactly. Even Cameron says he does not want to

look people in the eye and say that he did not do everything he could.

There is no end to the power of surveillance. It is all was about

drawing a distinction. I am always suspicious when politicians look

something up and said, we have all agreed. Are there at the centre is

right or is the political establishment right? I think the

establishment is right. I think it is stronger than other issues. We

are in a unique position where all three political parties have

relatively recent experience of government so they now that security

threats are not made up by unscrupulous people. The legislation

being proposed is not dramatic, it is to fill a gap that was created. I

do not see the political controversy. All three political

parties support it. David Davis and Liberty are against that, and always

are. Would you not have expected... The Lib Dems are in government, but

a bit more rebellion on the Labour backbenches? There is no political

controversy put outside parliament there's quite a lot of controversy

about this. My paper has taken an interest in this. It is interesting,

it does not feel, it is not a 1950s, three public school boys

setting, let us have this deal. The Liberal Democrats and Labour have

serious questions. There's going to be a sunset clause that will run out

in 2016. The Liberal Democrats, who asked pretty tough questions, have

said there are assurances. Ed Miliband did not go to public

school. For many English football fans,

tonight's World Cup final presents How do you pick

between two traditional foes Well, if you're

a political obsessive, like these three, you could always back the

nation according to how it votes. The website LabourList has produced

a political guide to the tournament. At the beginning of the tournament,

it was a fairly balanced playing field politically with 15 left wing

and 17 right-wing countries. England found themselves isolated in a group

with three left-wing countries. That was the least of their problems.

There was a clear domination of democratic regimes over

authoritarian with only six of oratory and countries making it

through to the finals and the only all authoritarian tie was dubbed the

worst match of the World Cup. By the second round 16 teams remained. The

left had a clear advantage with nine, seven from the right and

authoritarian countries all but wiped out. Two representatives

remained. Both were beaten by European democracies. By the

semi-finals, all was even Stephen. A right-wing Protestant Europe taking

on Catholics South America. With one victory apiece, Germany knocking out

Brazil and Argentina beating the Dutch, tonight's final repeats that

pattern. Who will win? Angela Merkel's Germany or Argentina?

We're joined now by Britain's only Labour adviser

Should we read political significance in to the fact that the

only time England has won the World Cup was under a Labour government?

Of course. The problem is we did not qualify for Euro 2008 when it was a

Labour government. We have had some pretty shoddy results under a Labour

government. As someone under the left, are you backing Argentina?

Absolutely not. I do not think it has anything to do with politics. It

is a bit of fun. People should choose it is Don Hoop plays the best

football and the Germans have been fantastic. They were great in 2010

fantastic. They were great in 2 10 as well. They started this model in

2008 and that is the sort of thing people should be supporting. Who

should a Eurosceptic support? I would not say Argentina because that

is the country that has tried to seize British sovereign territory

within my lifetime. You were not around for the Blitz. Believe it or

not, I was not. There is a strong political case to support Germany.

They are probably going to win the World Cup with a clear of -- with

players of Polish origin. That sort of cultural change they have forced

themselves to go through... You talk about them being right wing, but in

fact the way that the German league is structured, and I am an expert,

is based on ownership. It is very different from the Premier League.

It is about football as a usual good. The ticket prices are lower.

The fans are involved in running the club. It is a model that all English

football clubs should emulate. Germany had a strong football team

under centre right governments and centre left governments and a

coalition. A strong football team and a strong economy.

coalition. A strong football team Conservative MP who is the

coalition. A strong football team was outraged and said you should not

do that, so he could happily support Germany. What was interesting about

the authoritarian and democratic regimes, what is great is that the

World Cup is run by this open and democratic organisation Fifa. It is

similar to the EU in many regards. Two countries led by women. Maybe

gender is the thing. We did not Two countries led by women. Maybe

watching? Absolutely. Thank you This is the last Sunday Politics

for the summer. But we'll be back in early autumn

and our first programme will be live from Scotland,

the weekend before the referendum The Daily Politics is back tomorrow

at noon and we'll bring you the last PMQs before the summer

on Wednesday morning from 11:30am. Remember, if it's Sunday,

it's the Sunday Politics, unless