:00:34. > :00:37.Morning, folks. Welcome to the Sunday Politics.
:00:38. > :00:41.No surprise that Cameron didn't get his way at the European summit.
:00:42. > :00:45.But does it mean Britain has just moved closer to the EU exit?
:00:46. > :00:51.Doctors want to ban smoking outright.
:00:52. > :00:59.or the health lobby's secret plan all along? We'll debate.
:01:00. > :01:02.Too white, too male? We've been crunching the numbers to find out
:01:03. > :01:07.whether Parliament's about to become more like the country.
:01:08. > :01:09.Coming up on Sunday Politics Scotland:
:01:10. > :01:12.Lives could have been saved if the RAF's Tornado fleet had
:01:13. > :01:26.according to the official investigation.
:01:27. > :01:30.And with me, as always, the best and the brightest political
:01:31. > :01:41.panel in the business Nick Watt, Helen Lewis and Janan Ganesh.
:01:42. > :01:44.They've had their usual cognac, or Juncker as it's known in
:01:45. > :01:47.Luxembourg, for breakfast and will be tweeting under the influence.
:01:48. > :01:49.He's a boozing, chain-smoking, millionaire bon viveur who's made
:01:50. > :01:51.it big in the world of European politic.
:01:52. > :01:55.I speak of Jean-Claude Juncker, the former Prime Minister of Luxembourg
:01:56. > :01:58.He'll soon be President of the European Commission,
:01:59. > :02:05.He wasn't David Cameron's choice of course.
:02:06. > :02:08.But those the PM thought were his allies deserted him and he ended up
:02:09. > :02:23.on the wrong end of a 26-2 vote in favour of Arch-Fedrealist Juncker.
:02:24. > :02:26.-- on the wrong end of a 26-2 vote in favour of Arch-Federalist
:02:27. > :02:29.So where does this leave Mr Cameron's hopes
:02:30. > :02:32.of major reform and repatriation of EU powers back to the UK?
:02:33. > :02:36.Let's speak to his Europe Minister David Lidington.
:02:37. > :02:43.Welcome to the programme. The Prime Minister says that now with Mr
:02:44. > :02:46.Juncker at the helm, the battle to keep Britain in the EU has got
:02:47. > :02:51.harder. In what way has it got harder? For two reasons. The
:02:52. > :02:57.majority of the leaders have accepted the process that shifts
:02:58. > :03:01.power, it will not careful, from the elected heads of government right
:03:02. > :03:09.cross Europe to the party bosses, the faction leaders in the European
:03:10. > :03:18.Parliament and and the disaffection was made clear in many European
:03:19. > :03:21.countries. Mr Juncker had a distinguished period as head of
:03:22. > :03:24.Luxembourg, and was not a known reformer, but we have to judge on
:03:25. > :03:26.how he leads the commission and there were some elements in the
:03:27. > :03:32.mandate that the heads of government gave this week to the new incoming
:03:33. > :03:36.European Commission that I think are cautiously encouraging for us. The
:03:37. > :03:43.Prime Minister talked about those that not everybody wants to
:03:44. > :03:49.integrate and to the same extent and speed. Let me just interrupt you.
:03:50. > :03:53.What is new about saying that Europe can go closer to closer union at
:03:54. > :04:01.different speeds? That has always been the case. It's nothing new.
:04:02. > :04:11.Indeed there are precedents, and they are good examples of the
:04:12. > :04:17.approach as part of the course and one of the elements that the Prime
:04:18. > :04:20.Minister is taking forward in the strategy is to get general
:04:21. > :04:25.acceptance that while we agree that most of the partners have agreed to
:04:26. > :04:28.the single currency will want to press forward with closer
:04:29. > :04:33.integration of their economic and tax policies, but not every country
:04:34. > :04:38.in the EU is going to want to do that. We have to see the pattern
:04:39. > :04:42.that has grown up enough to recognise there is a diverse EU with
:04:43. > :04:47.28 member states and more in the future. We won't all integrate the
:04:48. > :04:52.extent. It is a matter of a pattern that is differentiation and
:04:53. > :04:56.integration. I understand that. John Major used to call it variable
:04:57. > :05:00.geometry, and other phrases nobody used to understand, but the point is
:05:01. > :05:04.that you're back benches don't want any union at any speed, even in the
:05:05. > :05:09.slow lane. They want to go in the other direction. It depends which
:05:10. > :05:22.backbencher you talk to. There's a diverse range of views. I think that
:05:23. > :05:26.there is acceptance that the core of the Prime Minister's approaches to
:05:27. > :05:29.seek reform of the European Union, for renegotiation after the
:05:30. > :05:33.election, then put it to the British people to decide. It won't be the
:05:34. > :05:37.British government or ministers that take the final decision, it's the
:05:38. > :05:39.British people, provided they are a Conservative government, who will
:05:40. > :05:43.take the decision on the basis of the reforms that David Cameron
:05:44. > :05:47.secures whether they want to stay in or not. Is there more of a chance,
:05:48. > :05:52.not a certainty or probability, but at least more of a chance that with
:05:53. > :05:58.Mr Juncker in that position of Britain leaving the EU? I don't
:05:59. > :06:02.think we can say that at the moment. I think we can say that the task of
:06:03. > :06:11.reform looks harder than it did a couple of weeks ago. But we have do
:06:12. > :06:23.put Mr Juncker to the test. I do think he would want his commission
:06:24. > :06:28.to be marked and I think that there is, and I find this in numbers
:06:29. > :06:31.around Europe, and there is a growing recognition that things
:06:32. > :06:35.cannot go on as they have been. Europe, economically, is in danger
:06:36. > :06:39.of losing a lot of ground will stop millions of youngsters are out of
:06:40. > :06:43.work already that reform. There is real anxiety and a number of
:06:44. > :06:45.countries now about the extent to which opinion polls and election
:06:46. > :06:50.results are showing a shift of support to both left and right wing
:06:51. > :06:52.parties, sometimes outright neofascist movements, expressing
:06:53. > :07:01.real content and resentment at Howard in touch -- how out of touch
:07:02. > :07:04.decisions have become. You say you are sensing anxiety about the
:07:05. > :07:10.condition of Europe, so why did they choose Mr Juncker then? You would
:07:11. > :07:16.have to put that question to some of the heads of European government.
:07:17. > :07:20.Clearly there were a number for whom domestic politics played a big role
:07:21. > :07:28.in the eventual decision that they took. There were some who had signed
:07:29. > :07:32.up to the lead candidate process and felt they could not back away from
:07:33. > :07:36.that, whatever their private feelings might have been, but I
:07:37. > :07:39.think the PM was right to say that this was a matter of principle and
:07:40. > :07:45.it shouldn't just be left as a stitch up by the European Parliament
:07:46. > :07:50.to tell us what they do. He said, I can't agree to pretend to acquiesce.
:07:51. > :07:54.They have to make the opposition clear that go on with reform. Are
:07:55. > :08:01.the current terms of membership for us unacceptable? The current terms
:08:02. > :08:08.of the membership are very far from perfect. Are they unacceptable? The
:08:09. > :08:14.current terms are certainly not ones that I feel comfortable with. The
:08:15. > :08:19.Prime Minister described them as unacceptable. Do you think they are?
:08:20. > :08:24.We look at the views of the British people at the moment. If you look at
:08:25. > :08:27.the polling at the moment, the evidence is that people are split on
:08:28. > :08:37.whether they think membership is a good thing. I'm asking what you
:08:38. > :08:41.think. David Cameron wants to in -- endorse changes in our interest, but
:08:42. > :08:45.also because the biggest market is going to suffer if they don't
:08:46. > :08:50.challenge -- grasp the challenge of political and economic reform.
:08:51. > :08:55.Newsnight, Friday night, Malcolm Rifkind the former Secretary of
:08:56. > :08:58.State said to me that even if the choice was to stay in on the
:08:59. > :09:01.existing terms, he would vote to stay in on the existing terms. He
:09:02. > :09:05.doesn't necessarily like them, but he would vote to stay in. That is
:09:06. > :09:09.the authentic voice of the Foreign Office, isn't it? That is the
:09:10. > :09:16.position of your department. Is it your position? Malcolm Rifkind is a
:09:17. > :09:21.distinguished and independent minded backbencher. He's not in government
:09:22. > :09:24.now. But that is your position. No, the position of the government and
:09:25. > :09:28.the Conservative Party in the government is that we believe that
:09:29. > :09:33.important changes, both economic and political reforms, are necessary and
:09:34. > :09:37.that they are attainable in our interest and those of Europe as a
:09:38. > :09:43.whole. Would you vote to stay in on the existing terms? That's not going
:09:44. > :09:49.to be a question that the referendum. Really? I know that in
:09:50. > :09:53.2017 Europe is going to look rather different to how it looks today. For
:09:54. > :09:56.one thing our colleagues in the Eurozone will want and need to press
:09:57. > :10:00.ahead with closer integration. That, in our view, needs to be done
:10:01. > :10:05.in a way that fully respects the rights of those of us who remain
:10:06. > :10:09.outside. Variable geometry, tackling things like the abuse of freedom of
:10:10. > :10:13.migration. Those are all in the conclusions from the leader this
:10:14. > :10:17.week and we should welcome that. Very briefly, finally, when will
:10:18. > :10:20.you, as a government, give us the negotiating position of the
:10:21. > :10:24.government? Will you give us what you hope to achieve before the
:10:25. > :10:30.election or not? David Cameron set out very clearly in his Bloomberg
:10:31. > :10:36.speech that he wanted a Europe that was more democratically accountable,
:10:37. > :10:39.more flexible, more at it -- economically competitive. That is
:10:40. > :10:43.all very general. When will you lay out the negotiating position? It's
:10:44. > :10:48.not general. It is very far from general. We have seen evidence in
:10:49. > :10:54.the successful cut of the European budget, the reform of fisheries,
:10:55. > :10:58.those reforms have started to take effect. We have won some victories
:10:59. > :11:02.and I'm sure the Prime Minister, as we get towards the general election,
:11:03. > :11:04.will want to make clear what the Conservative Party position is, and
:11:05. > :11:12.perhaps other political leaders will do the same for their party. Thank
:11:13. > :11:16.you for joining us this morning. The harsh reality of this is that there
:11:17. > :11:20.is a yawning gap between what the Prime Minister can hope to bring
:11:21. > :11:25.back and what will satisfy his Conservative backbenchers. Yes, I
:11:26. > :11:29.think the Parliamentary Conservative Party is divided into three parts,
:11:30. > :11:32.those who would vote to leave the EU regardless, those who would stay
:11:33. > :11:36.regardless, and a huge middle ground of people who want to stay in on
:11:37. > :11:40.renegotiated terms. These are not three equal parts. Those who would
:11:41. > :11:44.vote to stay in regardless are smaller and smaller. Compared to 20
:11:45. > :11:49.years ago, tiny. But the people in the middle, generally, would only
:11:50. > :11:52.stay in if you secure a renegotiation that will not be
:11:53. > :11:59.re-secured. In other words, they are de facto, out by 2017 and the
:12:00. > :12:02.referendum. This whole saga of the recent weeks has been the single
:12:03. > :12:07.biggest economy in foreign policy under this government. That's not
:12:08. > :12:12.what the voters think. -- single biggest ignominy. I mean the failure
:12:13. > :12:17.to secure the target. The opinion polls show that standing up against
:12:18. > :12:21.Mr Juncker has proved rather popular. I suggest that is not Mr
:12:22. > :12:24.Cameron's problem. His problem is that, if in the end he gets only
:12:25. > :12:30.because Medic changes, and if he says he still thinks that with these
:12:31. > :12:33.changes -- cosmetic changes. And he says that they should stay in, that
:12:34. > :12:38.would split the Tory party wide open. Eurosceptics say would be the
:12:39. > :12:44.biggest split since the corn laws. He wants to protect the position of
:12:45. > :12:51.coming out, and you might get that. He wants to crack down on abuse of
:12:52. > :12:53.benefits, and he might get that. He wants to restrict freedom of
:12:54. > :12:57.movement for future member states, and that's difficult, because it is
:12:58. > :13:02.a treaty change. And he wants to deal with closer union, but that is
:13:03. > :13:05.also treaty change. In the Council conclusions, David Cameron was
:13:06. > :13:10.encouraged because it said, let's look at closer union, but it did not
:13:11. > :13:14.say it would reform. All it said was ever closer union can be interpreted
:13:15. > :13:17.in different ways. In other words, we're not going to change it. The
:13:18. > :13:28.fundamental problem the David Cameron was that two years ago, when
:13:29. > :13:30.he vetoed the fiscal compact, that showed Angela Merkel was unwilling
:13:31. > :13:33.to help them and what happened in the last two weeks was that Angela
:13:34. > :13:36.Merkel was unable to help him. There is not a single leader of the
:13:37. > :13:39.European Union that once Juncker as president, and he doesn't want it,
:13:40. > :13:41.he wants the note take a job at the European Council. But there was this
:13:42. > :13:44.basic stitch up by the European basic stitch up by the European
:13:45. > :13:48.Parliament that meant he was presented, and when Angela Merkel
:13:49. > :13:52.put the question over his head there was a huge backlash in Germany and
:13:53. > :13:57.she was unable to deliver. I understand that, but I'm looking
:13:58. > :14:01.forward to Mr Cameron's predicament. I don't know how he squares the
:14:02. > :14:06.circle. It seems inconceivable that he can bring back enough from
:14:07. > :14:11.Brussels to satisfy his backbenchers. No, you can't. Most of
:14:12. > :14:15.them fundamentally want out. They don't want to be persuaded by
:14:16. > :14:18.renegotiations. Where it's hard to draw conclusions from the polling is
:14:19. > :14:22.that if you ask people question that sounds like, do you like the fact
:14:23. > :14:25.that our Prime Minister has gone to Brussels and stuck it to the man,
:14:26. > :14:30.they say yes, but how many people will go to the voting booths and put
:14:31. > :14:34.their cross in the box based on Europe? We know mostly voters care
:14:35. > :14:41.about Europe as a proxy for immigration fears. In ten people in
:14:42. > :14:44.this country could not tell you who John Claude Juncker is Angela Weir
:14:45. > :14:47.is replacing. -- and who he is replacing.
:14:48. > :14:50.And I'm joined in the studio now by arch-Eurosceptic Conservative MEP,
:14:51. > :14:53.Daniel Hannan and from Strasbourg by staunch European and former Liberal
:14:54. > :15:14.war? His declared objectives would leave Britain still in the common
:15:15. > :15:20.agricultural policy, the common foreign policy, the European arrest
:15:21. > :15:24.warrant, so the negotiating aims which we just heard Nick setting out
:15:25. > :15:29.wouldn't fundamentally change anything. It would be easy for the
:15:30. > :15:36.Government to declare war on any of these things. The danger from your
:15:37. > :15:41.point of view as someone who wants to stay in is that if David Cameron
:15:42. > :15:45.only gets cosmetic changes, the chance of getting the vote to leave
:15:46. > :15:54.the European Union increases, doesn't it? Hypothetically it
:15:55. > :15:58.probably does but we have two big things to get through first in
:15:59. > :16:04.domestic politics before we even reach a negotiation. One is are we
:16:05. > :16:11.going to have the United Kingdom this time next year following the
:16:12. > :16:15.referendum in Scotland? Secondly, are the Conservatives after the
:16:16. > :16:19.general election next year going to be in a position to pursue a
:16:20. > :16:25.negotiation? In other words are they going to be a majority government or
:16:26. > :16:30.even a minority government? For the sake of this morning let's assume
:16:31. > :16:35.the answer to both is yes, the UK stays intact and against the polls
:16:36. > :16:39.they were saying this morning, David Cameron forms an overall majority
:16:40. > :16:45.after the election. There is a danger, if he doesn't bring much
:16:46. > :16:52.back, that people will vote yes, correct? There is that danger and I
:16:53. > :16:56.see a lot of the British press comment this morning saying this
:16:57. > :17:01.could be a rerun of the Harold Wilson like negotiation of the
:17:02. > :17:06.1970s, a bit cosmetic but enough to say we have got new terms and you
:17:07. > :17:11.should go with it. I think what is different however, and this is
:17:12. > :17:13.really an appeal if you like, it cannot just be left to the Liberal
:17:14. > :17:18.Democrats and coalition government cannot just be left to the Liberal
:17:19. > :17:24.to make this case on our Rome. A lot of interest groups across the land
:17:25. > :17:27.will have to start being prepared to put their head above the parapet on
:17:28. > :17:33.the fundamental - do you want Britain to remain in the European
:17:34. > :17:37.Union? Yes or no? Are you willing to put your public reputations on the
:17:38. > :17:42.line? We are not getting enough of that at the moment and it is getting
:17:43. > :17:53.dangerously close to closing time. Daniel Hannan, David Cameron will
:17:54. > :17:59.not get away with this, will he? It will be an acceptable to his party.
:18:00. > :18:04.If it is an acceptable to Tory backbenchers it is because it is
:18:05. > :18:09.working and they are reflecting what their constituents say. A majority
:18:10. > :18:13.of people in the country are unhappy with the present terms. They can see
:18:14. > :18:19.there is a huge wide world beyond the oceans and we have confined
:18:20. > :18:24.ourselves to this small trade bloc. There is a huge debate to be had
:18:25. > :18:30.about whether we could be doing better outside. It is not danger, it
:18:31. > :18:34.is democracy, trusting people. If the only person offering a
:18:35. > :18:39.referendum at the moment is the Prime Minister, it has serious
:18:40. > :18:45.consequences for his party, your party, that's what I'm talking
:18:46. > :18:50.about. I am very proud of being part of the party that is trusting people
:18:51. > :18:56.to offer this. If he only gets cosmetic changes he cannot carry his
:18:57. > :19:01.party. But ultimately it will not be his party, it is the electorate as a
:19:02. > :19:05.whole that has to decide whether the changes are substantive. Everything
:19:06. > :19:10.we have been hearing just now is about staying out of future
:19:11. > :19:14.integration, protecting the role of the non-euro countries. People are
:19:15. > :19:20.upset about what is going on today with the EU. They can see laws being
:19:21. > :19:24.passed by people they cannot vote for, friendships overseas are
:19:25. > :19:29.prejudiced, and they conceive that the European Union has just put in
:19:30. > :19:33.charge in the top slot somebody who wants a United States of Europe into
:19:34. > :19:39.which we will eventually be dragged into as some kind of Providence.
:19:40. > :19:49.Jean-Claude Juncker is a Federalist, you are Federalist, why did the Lib
:19:50. > :19:54.Dems oppose him? We shared the view that whilst you take account of what
:19:55. > :19:57.the members of the European Parliament say, ultimately the
:19:58. > :20:02.choice of the presidency in the commission should be the political
:20:03. > :20:07.leaders, the governmental leaders at a national level, and that's why we
:20:08. > :20:11.went down the route we did. It was more to do with the system than the
:20:12. > :20:16.individual. Although I would say that you need to bear in mind, I
:20:17. > :20:21.mean Daniel, I respect him personally and the integrity of his
:20:22. > :20:29.views, as I think he does mine, but to dismiss the European Union as a
:20:30. > :20:33.small trading block globally, when you have got the United States of
:20:34. > :20:43.America, China and other countries acknowledging its importance, it is
:20:44. > :20:56.really Walter Mitty land. Are we closer than... Daniel Hannan, are we
:20:57. > :21:01.closer to an exit after what happened last week? Yes, because the
:21:02. > :21:11.idea that we could get substantive reforms, gets a mythic and powers
:21:12. > :21:19.back and be within a looser, more flexible European Union has plainly
:21:20. > :21:24.been closed off. We have to face up to the actual European Union that
:21:25. > :21:29.has taken shape on our doorstep. Are we going to be part of that or are
:21:30. > :21:33.we going to have a much more semidetached, looser relationship
:21:34. > :21:45.with it which we can either achieve via a unilateral system of power or
:21:46. > :21:50.another way. This debate is never-ending, it is going on and on
:21:51. > :21:53.and has bedevilled British prime ministers for as long as I can
:21:54. > :21:58.remember. Shouldn't the Lib Dems change their stance on the
:21:59. > :22:04.referendum yet again let's just have this in-out referendum and have it
:22:05. > :22:09.sided one way or another? Our position remains clear. If there is
:22:10. > :22:17.a constitutional issue put before us in terms of treaty changes then we
:22:18. > :22:27.will have a referendum. Why not now? I am probably the wrong person to
:22:28. > :22:32.ask because I argued and voted for a referendum on Maastricht because I
:22:33. > :22:35.thought that was a constitutional treaty. Anything that makes the
:22:36. > :22:42.Queen a citizen of the European Union surely has constitutional
:22:43. > :22:47.implications. Anyway, 20 years on we are where we are and we need to
:22:48. > :22:55.established common vocabulary. You talk about federalism. What do we
:22:56. > :22:58.mean? Most of the people operating in the European Parliament and the
:22:59. > :23:03.institution across the road, the Council of Europe, they mean by
:23:04. > :23:10.federalism decentralisation of powers, not a Brussels superstate
:23:11. > :23:13.but actually the kind of decentralisation that maintains
:23:14. > :23:23.national characteristics and pools resources and sovereignty where it
:23:24. > :23:26.makes sense. Mr Juncker, who is now going to be in charge of the
:23:27. > :23:37.Brussels commission, he believes in a single EU reform policy, an EU
:23:38. > :23:41.wide minimum wage and EU wide taxes. You said this week that you
:23:42. > :23:48.liked the sound of Juncker federalism. Does that sound good to
:23:49. > :23:52.you? No, and I think the new president of the commission will be
:23:53. > :23:58.disappointed if he puts forward these views because although we only
:23:59. > :24:03.had Hungary voting with us, I think if you go to other countries,
:24:04. > :24:09.France, Poland, Scandinavia, they are not going to buy that kind of
:24:10. > :24:15.menu. What they mean by federalism is the continental concept, also the
:24:16. > :24:23.North American concept, that we can sit very happily... They have an
:24:24. > :24:32.army, a federal police force, federal taxation. Yes, but in terms
:24:33. > :24:36.of the political institutions which is what we are discussing here, you
:24:37. > :24:41.can have the supranational, the European level, whilst still having
:24:42. > :24:46.the very vibrant national, and indeed as we are practising in the
:24:47. > :24:52.United Kingdom the subnational. A very brief final word from you,
:24:53. > :24:58.Daniel. That is ultimately going to be the choice. The European Union is
:24:59. > :25:02.an evolving dynamic, we can see the direction it is going in. Do we want
:25:03. > :25:07.to be part of that? I suspect Charles Kennedy would have loved a
:25:08. > :25:22.referendum. I cannot help but notice his party is going downhill since he
:25:23. > :25:27.was running it. It is illegal to light up in the workplace, pubs and
:25:28. > :25:30.restaurants. Now the British Medical Association has voted to outlaw
:25:31. > :25:36.everywhere but not everybody at once. It would apply to anyone born
:25:37. > :25:41.after the year 2000. In a moment we will debate the merits of those
:25:42. > :25:47.plans but first he is Adam. There was a time when to be British
:25:48. > :25:52.was to be a smoker. 1948 was the year off peak fag with 82% of men
:25:53. > :25:57.smoking mainly cigarettes but it was a pipe that Harold Wilson used as a
:25:58. > :26:01.political prop to help with the hard-hitting interviews they did in
:26:02. > :26:12.those days. The advertisements make out pipe smokers to be more virile,
:26:13. > :26:17.more fascinating men than anybody else. Do you thought -- have that
:26:18. > :26:28.thought anywhere in your mind? No. It changed in 2006 when smoking in
:26:29. > :26:31.enclosed places was banned. I would rather be inside but unfortunately
:26:32. > :26:38.we have got to do what this Government tells us to do. I think
:26:39. > :26:43.it is good, it is calm and you can breathe. Research suggests it has
:26:44. > :26:48.improved the health of bar workers no end and reduced childhood asthma.
:26:49. > :26:53.Now just one in five adults is a smoker. Coming next, crackdowns on
:26:54. > :26:58.those newfangled e-cigarettes, smoking in cars and possibly the
:26:59. > :27:05.introduction of plain packaging. There is still those who take pride
:27:06. > :27:18.in smoking and see it as a war on freedom.
:27:19. > :27:21.We're joined now by Dr Vivienne Nathanson
:27:22. > :27:24.from the British Medical Association who voted for a graduated ban
:27:25. > :27:28.on smoking at their conference last week, and Simon Clark
:27:29. > :27:37.They're here to go head-to-head. There are plenty of things which are
:27:38. > :27:47.bad for our health, why single out cigarettes? We need some sugar in
:27:48. > :27:51.our diets but the fact is that we need to stop people smoking as
:27:52. > :27:56.children because if we can do that, the likelihood that they will start
:27:57. > :28:01.smoking is very small. In no circumstances is smoking good for
:28:02. > :28:06.you. There are lots of smokers who live long, healthy lives but we
:28:07. > :28:11.totally accept smoking is a risk to your health and adults have to make
:28:12. > :28:16.that decision, just as you make the decision about drinking alcohol,
:28:17. > :28:19.eating fatty foods and drinking sugary drinks. This proposal is
:28:20. > :28:24.totally impractical. It will create a huge black market in cigarettes
:28:25. > :28:27.which will get bigger every year. They say this is about stopping
:28:28. > :28:34.children smoking but there is already a law in place that stops
:28:35. > :28:39.shopkeepers from selling cigarettes to children. This target adults so
:28:40. > :28:45.you could have the bizarre situation in the year 3035 for example where a
:28:46. > :28:49.36-year-old can go into shops to buy cigarettes but if you are 35 you
:28:50. > :28:54.will be denied that, which is ludicrous. The point is that the
:28:55. > :28:58.younger you start smoking the more likely you will become heavily
:28:59. > :29:03.addicted. I take the point, but the point he is saying is that if this
:29:04. > :29:08.becomes law, down the road, if you go into shops to buy cigarettes you
:29:09. > :29:13.would have to take your birth certificate, wouldn't you? We have
:29:14. > :29:17.no idea how the legislation would be written but the key point is that if
:29:18. > :29:22.we can stop young people from starting to smoke, we will in 20
:29:23. > :29:27.years have a whole group of people who have never smoked so you won't
:29:28. > :29:31.have that problem of people who are smokers and they are now in their
:29:32. > :29:35.20s and 30s. Or you will have a lot of younger people who get cigarettes
:29:36. > :29:39.the way they currently get illegal drugs now. They are already getting
:29:40. > :29:45.cigarettes illegally and we have to deal with that. We have got to get
:29:46. > :29:56.better. The Government has not been able to stop it. We know this is
:29:57. > :30:00.going to kill 50%... When you are 15 you think you will live for ever.
:30:01. > :30:04.Indeed but they also do it as rebellion and because they see
:30:05. > :30:09.adults and it is remarkably easy to buy cigarettes. Whatever the case is
:30:10. > :30:13.for individual choice, won't most people agree that if you could stop
:30:14. > :30:17.young people smoking, so that through the rest of their lives they
:30:18. > :30:27.never smoked, that would be worth doing? You get 16 or 17-year-olds
:30:28. > :30:33.who already do that. Is it worth trying? When the government
:30:34. > :30:37.increased the age at which shopkeepers could sell from 16 to
:30:38. > :30:42.18, we supported it. We don't support a ban on proxy purchasing,
:30:43. > :30:45.we support reasonable measures, but this is unreasonable. This proposal
:30:46. > :30:51.says a lot about the BMA, because this week the BMA also passed a
:30:52. > :30:54.motion to ban the use of E cigarettes in public places. There
:30:55. > :30:58.is no evidence that they are dangerous to health, so why are they
:30:59. > :31:02.doing that? They are becoming a temperance society. This is not
:31:03. > :31:05.about public health, it's an old-fashioned temperance society and
:31:06. > :31:09.they have to get their act together because they are bringing the
:31:10. > :31:14.medical profession into disrepute. We were having argument is about
:31:15. > :31:19.things that people buy large accept, smoking in bars or public places,
:31:20. > :31:21.but the real aim of the BMA was the total banning of cigarettes
:31:22. > :31:28.altogether. This would suggest that that was true to claim that. It's
:31:29. > :31:32.not about a ban, it's about a move to a country where nobody wants to
:31:33. > :31:37.smoke and no one is a smoker. But it would be illegal to smoke. It would
:31:38. > :31:43.be illegal to buy, not smoke, and there's a difference between two. So
:31:44. > :31:47.even if I am born in the year 2000, it would still be illegal to smoke,
:31:48. > :31:53.just illegal to buy the cigarettes? Indeed. The point being that the
:31:54. > :31:57.habit of smoking is very strongly linked to your ability to buy, so
:31:58. > :32:02.that is why things like Price and availability and marketing are so
:32:03. > :32:06.important. People will flood across the Channel with the cigarettes. One
:32:07. > :32:08.thing you will find is that throughout the world people is
:32:09. > :32:13.looking at -- people are looking at the same kind of measures, and
:32:14. > :32:16.different countries like Australia, they were the first with a
:32:17. > :32:19.standardised packaging. Other countries will follow, because all
:32:20. > :32:25.of us are facing the fact that we can't afford to pay for the
:32:26. > :32:29.tragedy. There will be people waiting to flood the market with
:32:30. > :32:32.cigarettes. This is nonsense. Thanks for both coming and going
:32:33. > :32:35."Unless we have more equal head-to-head.
:32:36. > :32:38."Unless we have more equal representation, our politics won't
:32:39. > :32:41.be half as good as it should be." So said David Cameron back in 2009.
:32:42. > :32:44.So how's it going? Well, you can judge the quality
:32:45. > :32:46.of the politics for yourself, but we've been crunching
:32:47. > :32:49.the numbers to find out what parliament might look like after
:32:50. > :32:53.the next year's general election. Here's Giles.
:32:54. > :32:57.Politicians are elected to Parliament to represent their
:32:58. > :33:03.constituents, but the make-up of Parliament does not reflect society
:33:04. > :33:05.well at all the parties it. In 2010 more women and ethnic minority
:33:06. > :33:15.candidates entered Westminster but not significantly more inner chamber
:33:16. > :33:20.still dominated by white males. Looking at the current make-up of
:33:21. > :33:26.the Commons, Labour has 83 female MPs, the Conservative have 47 women
:33:27. > :33:31.MPs, which is just over 47% -- and the Lib Dems have 12% of the
:33:32. > :33:35.parties. All of the parties have selected parliaments in those seats
:33:36. > :33:38.where existing MPs are retiring and to fight seats at the next
:33:39. > :33:41.election, and they've all been trying to up the number of women and
:33:42. > :33:46.ethnic minorities because discounts and can be capitalised on. A picture
:33:47. > :33:51.tells a thousand words. Look at the all-male front bench before us. And
:33:52. > :33:56.he says he wants to represent the whole country. Despite the jibe, the
:33:57. > :33:58.Labour Party know they have a long way to go on the issue of being
:33:59. > :34:09.representative. So we way to go on the issue of being
:34:10. > :34:10.look at this particular area of lack of women and ethnic minorities.
:34:11. > :34:42.In the most marginal, 40 have women candidates, that would mean if they
:34:43. > :34:49.got just enough to win power, they would have 133 women, which is 41%
:34:50. > :34:50.The Conservatives currently have 305 MPs and their strategy
:34:51. > :34:53.at the next election is to concentrate on their 40 most
:34:54. > :34:56.marginal seats, and the 40 seats most mathematically likely to turn
:34:57. > :34:59.In those 40, 29 candidates have been selected
:35:00. > :35:05.If they kept hold of their existing seats and won those 29 new ones,
:35:06. > :35:08.they would have 56 women MPs, around 17%, and up 2% from last time.
:35:09. > :35:31.The Liberal Democrats are fighting to hold on to the 57 seats they won
:35:32. > :35:37.One Conservative peer who thinks the party needs to look at all options
:35:38. > :35:43.in its female -- if its female numbers go down says element is
:35:44. > :35:49.simply missing trick. If 50% of our population is not being looked at,
:35:50. > :35:56.even, are we really using the best of our talent? Yes, women's life
:35:57. > :36:00.experiences are different, they are not superior, or inferior. They are
:36:01. > :36:05.different. But surely, those experiences need to be represented
:36:06. > :36:08.here at Westminster. That is the Parliamentary projection for
:36:09. > :36:14.gender, what about ethnicity? According to the last census in
:36:15. > :36:19.2011, 13% of people in the UK describe themselves as non-white.
:36:20. > :36:23.Labour currently has 16 MPs from black, Asian or minority
:36:24. > :36:28.backgrounds, with just over 6%. If they get the extra 60 seats, that
:36:29. > :36:31.figure goes up to 26, it was sent off their party. The Tories
:36:32. > :36:37.currently have 11 black ethic minority candidates, or 4% of the
:36:38. > :36:41.party. The biggest and next 29 seats, it would mean 14 black and
:36:42. > :36:47.ethnic minority MPs, again putting them on for percent. The Lib Dems do
:36:48. > :36:50.not have any black or ethic minority MPs, if they managed to cling on to
:36:51. > :36:56.the current number of seats they would have two, giving them a
:36:57. > :37:02.proportion of 4%. If they lost the 20 most vulnerable seats, it would
:37:03. > :37:06.go back down to zero. But even if you change the mix of gender and
:37:07. > :37:10.ethnicity in Parliament, would it solve the problem? Probably not.
:37:11. > :37:16.Only 10% of us have gone to a private, fee-paying school. 33% of
:37:17. > :37:20.new MPs in 2010 dead. A quarter of all MPs went to Oxford or
:37:21. > :37:26.Cambridge. Only a fifth of us went to any university. There is a huge
:37:27. > :37:32.disillusion in this place which has summoning people -- so many people
:37:33. > :37:37.who do not look like us. They cannot communicate in a way that we can
:37:38. > :37:41.relate to. If you look at turnout, at the moment, if you are an
:37:42. > :37:45.unskilled worker, you are 20 times less likely to turn out and vote.
:37:46. > :37:49.That is getting worse and worse at every election. That is the key,
:37:50. > :37:54.evidence does suggest that if a party reflects the society it exists
:37:55. > :38:00.within, it is more likely to get the votes they also badly need. -- they
:38:01. > :38:07.all so badly need. It is just about time for Sunday
:38:08. > :38:13.Good morning and welcome to Sunday Politics Scotland.
:38:14. > :38:17.An official investigation into a head-on collision of
:38:18. > :38:22.two RAF Tornados over the Moray Firth in 2012 concludes that
:38:23. > :38:28.an on-board collision warning system would have saved lives.
:38:29. > :38:31.A sledgehammer to crack a nut - that's how one critic describes
:38:32. > :38:33.the Government's policy to give each youngster a named person
:38:34. > :38:49.We have a look at the history of the TV political debate.
:38:50. > :38:52.Air accident investigators have concluded that if
:38:53. > :38:55.an on-board collision warning system had been fitted to the RAF's fleet
:38:56. > :38:59.of Tornados, it would have saved lives when two of the jets crashed
:39:00. > :39:04.The BBC understands the finding is contained in
:39:05. > :39:08.a highly critical and long awaited report into the accident, due to be
:39:09. > :39:11.published tomorrow by the Military Aviation Authority ahead of the
:39:12. > :39:23.Our Westminster correspondent Tim Reid has this exclusive report.
:39:24. > :39:30.Being brought ashore, the wreckage of a collision between two Tornado
:39:31. > :39:34.jets over the Moray Firth in July 2012. The accident happened in misty
:39:35. > :39:38.conditions but investigators believe fatalities would have been avoided
:39:39. > :39:44.if the collision warning system, for years delayed or cancelled by the
:39:45. > :39:50.MOD, had been fitted. The aircrew died in the accident and the fourth
:39:51. > :39:53.was seriously injured. A long-awaited report by the Military
:39:54. > :39:55.Aviation Authority makes 50 recommendations, it says a new
:39:56. > :40:00.on-board one in system which was only approved months after the crash
:40:01. > :40:03.must be operational as soon as possible. Campaigners say they will
:40:04. > :40:06.step up their calls for a fatal accident enquiries to get to the
:40:07. > :40:10.full truth. The report is particularly critical of the
:40:11. > :40:15.procurement processes within the MOD, it talks of smoke and mirrors
:40:16. > :40:18.over costs of delaying and cancelling the system, which is only
:40:19. > :40:22.due to become operational in the Tornado fleet by the end of the
:40:23. > :40:23.year, but which is still not fitted the Typhoon aircraft, which are also
:40:24. > :40:27.based at RAF Lossiemouth. I'm joined now by the SNP defence
:40:28. > :40:29.spokesman, Angus Robertson, the House of Commons Defence Select
:40:30. > :40:41.Committee, and joins us from London. And as Robertson, this report is
:40:42. > :40:47.expected to say that lives could have been saved, had a collision
:40:48. > :40:54.warning system been installed. What is your reaction to that? Well, I
:40:55. > :40:59.think that has long been the view of experts, people who understand their
:41:00. > :41:05.worthiness, but for it to be confirmed this report, and we are
:41:06. > :41:08.still waiting for the final text, it would be a damning indictment on the
:41:09. > :41:13.approach that the Ministry of Defence takes to the safety of
:41:14. > :41:17.service personnel. It raises very serious questions about the
:41:18. > :41:20.decision-making process, which recommended the installation of a
:41:21. > :41:26.collision warning system in Tornado aircraft in the 1990s, yet they are
:41:27. > :41:30.still not installed. It also raises questions about why no
:41:31. > :41:34.recommendations have yet been made for the installation of a collision
:41:35. > :41:40.warning system on board Typhoon aircraft, which are operating at
:41:41. > :41:46.present in Scotland. This is not new, we lost far too many people in
:41:47. > :41:52.that accident and serious issues were raised about MOD airworthiness
:41:53. > :41:57.management then. This is not a new story, and it really does make a
:41:58. > :42:02.case or a fatal accident enquiry, so the MOD and people who make
:42:03. > :42:07.decisions within the MOD, like Liam Fox, have to answer for the delays
:42:08. > :42:10.in installation of collision warning system is, indeed for its
:42:11. > :42:14.cancellation at one stage. Our service personnel's lives, their
:42:15. > :42:20.safety, must come first, always. It does seem extraordinary that the
:42:21. > :42:25.installation of a collision one exist on Tornados was recommended 14
:42:26. > :42:32.years before this accident happened. Yet, based on her not been
:42:33. > :42:35.installed. That is right, they should have been installed. And it
:42:36. > :42:43.should have happened a long time ago. The big problem is, people have
:42:44. > :42:49.to make decisions on what they can afford. I would love to see far more
:42:50. > :42:54.money spent on defence. Too much of our defence policy is done sort of
:42:55. > :42:59.on the cheap. I would very much like to have seen a collision warning
:43:00. > :43:02.system put on the Tornado and indeed on the Typhoon. We have not had the
:43:03. > :43:07.result of this report yet, so I assume that what you see may be the
:43:08. > :43:12.truth, but I have not read it. But if it is someone who points the
:43:13. > :43:16.finger and says, if we had a collision warning system on this
:43:17. > :43:21.aircraft, this might not have happened, I totally endorse that. We
:43:22. > :43:28.require a collision avoidance system on all our aircraft. But Tornados is
:43:29. > :43:35.one thing, it seems one thing -- it seems extraordinary that the Typhoon
:43:36. > :43:42.aircraft, the next generation aircraft, they are not even
:43:43. > :43:46.installed on that. They are not just desirable on civilian aircraft, they
:43:47. > :43:49.are Monday on civil in aircraft that carry more than 20 passengers, yet
:43:50. > :43:57.we have these multi-million pound fighter aircraft that have not
:43:58. > :44:03.bothered to put them on. I agree. All I am saying is, frankly, we are
:44:04. > :44:08.in a martial profession in the Royal Belfast, and sometimes risks are
:44:09. > :44:13.taken. The people in the RAF do what they can with the equipment they
:44:14. > :44:18.have. It is a political decision, as do resources. And I agree with
:44:19. > :44:22.Angus, perhaps we should have put these collision warning systems on
:44:23. > :44:26.our craft a long time ago. But then my question is, what do we not put
:44:27. > :44:30.on the aeroplanes? Someone in the RAF who understands it much better
:44:31. > :44:37.than us next the decision on priorities. I do not know what the
:44:38. > :44:40.priorities were. Angus Robertson, I presume there is an economic case
:44:41. > :44:44.for these things, because there is the tragic loss of life in the 2012
:44:45. > :44:52.incident, but without sounding callous, these particular
:44:53. > :44:55.Eurofighter is, these cost millions of pounds each, it would surely be
:44:56. > :45:01.cheaper to put something in them that would stop losing that
:45:02. > :45:04.multi-million pound investment. I think it needs context, we must
:45:05. > :45:08.understand that there are families, friends and colleagues who are
:45:09. > :45:11.watching programmes like this, they have not seen the report but what
:45:12. > :45:15.they are about to be able to read is a detailed account of how their
:45:16. > :45:19.loved ones died. It is going to be extremely distressing for them. And
:45:20. > :45:24.everybody was my first thoughts need to be in that context. The point you
:45:25. > :45:30.raised about the value, the cost, both of equipment for the Tornado or
:45:31. > :45:35.the Typhoon, and the crew who have gone through years of training and
:45:36. > :45:39.have experience, that has cost a lot as well. All of this does beg the
:45:40. > :45:43.question, why is it that we would send some of our most highly trained
:45:44. > :45:49.service men and women, using some of the most expensive equipment that
:45:50. > :45:55.the RAF has at its disposal, regularly into exercises and
:45:56. > :45:58.low-flying, into operations, without a collision warning system, when we
:45:59. > :46:02.know it has been recommended for such a long time? Bob raises a
:46:03. > :46:07.question about the decisions that are made, and he is right, it would
:46:08. > :46:11.be very difficult decisions. I completely agree. But when it comes
:46:12. > :46:15.down to people's lives and people's lives being put at risk, or when we
:46:16. > :46:24.know that air proximity examples, when planes come close enough to
:46:25. > :46:27.collide, they happen on a very regular, they occur very regularly
:46:28. > :46:30.in Scottish airspace and the rest of the UK, when we know there are
:46:31. > :46:34.issues about the amount of engineering personnel who maintain
:46:35. > :46:39.the highest safety standards, given we know all this, and we also know
:46:40. > :46:43.that the recommendation to install a collision warning system was
:46:44. > :46:48.followed by decisions that slowed that down and at one stage stopped
:46:49. > :46:55.it, that was on Liam Fox's watch, all of this makes the case
:46:56. > :47:00.overwhelmingly for a fatal accident enquiry so the conclusions of this
:47:01. > :47:06.military and the -- military of poverty report are to conduct --
:47:07. > :47:13.Military Aviation Authority report are taken in detail. I should point
:47:14. > :47:18.out, we did ask Liam Fox to appear on the programme today, but he was
:47:19. > :47:22.unavailable. Angus Robertson,, you talked about the need for a fatal
:47:23. > :47:28.accident enquiry, think one of the organ as you will face, possibly
:47:29. > :47:33.tomorrow, is that -- one of the arguments you will face, if this is
:47:34. > :47:38.as critical as we are led to believe of procurement policy in the Royal
:47:39. > :47:42.Air Force, people will say, there is no need for a fatal accident
:47:43. > :47:49.enquiry, we have already got it, in effect. If that were the case, there
:47:50. > :47:54.would have been no need for justice -- for the judge to conduct a
:47:55. > :47:58.coroner's inquest into the loss of the Nimrod aircraft. There are many
:47:59. > :48:05.other examples that we know of. The loss in the Mull of Kintyre of the
:48:06. > :48:09.helicopter, which was followed by a fatal accident enquiry. We need to
:48:10. > :48:15.get to the bottom of this, people's lives were lost, millions of pounds
:48:16. > :48:20.worth of equivalent was lost and the decision-making systems in the MOD,
:48:21. > :48:24.it appears, have broken down. We need to understand this so it never
:48:25. > :48:29.happens again. We cannot ask our service personnel to put the lights
:48:30. > :48:34.on the line then lose it, because basic safety equipment was not
:48:35. > :48:38.installed in aircraft. Bob Stuart, would you agree that there needs to
:48:39. > :48:42.be a fatal accident enquiry following the publication of the
:48:43. > :48:46.report? I do not know, to be honest. I have not seen the report or the
:48:47. > :48:53.recommendations. But I do know one thing, the Royal Air Force and the
:48:54. > :48:59.Ministry of Defence will be taking note of what it says. The idea that
:49:00. > :49:03.we would not try and put urgently collision avoiding systems on all
:49:04. > :49:08.our fast jets seems to me strange will stop if it is not immediately
:49:09. > :49:13.done. But the problem is, we have got to make decisions on priorities.
:49:14. > :49:19.Can I point out that these very gallant young men, all of them, were
:49:20. > :49:23.doing their very best to fly as well as they could, to man their
:49:24. > :49:30.equipment as well as they could, but the equipment they had, they had to
:49:31. > :49:33.fly. They do not have a choice. No blame on them whatsoever. We all
:49:34. > :49:39.feel, as Angus and myself and everyone watching this programme
:49:40. > :49:45.does, how tragic the result was. But everyone, like myself and everyone
:49:46. > :49:51.in Parliament, really wants us to fly as safely as we can, but these
:49:52. > :49:55.aeroplanes and these aircrew are there to defend our country and
:49:56. > :49:57.sometimes they have to take risks in training, which is what they were
:49:58. > :50:08.doing. How A key support for families or big
:50:09. > :50:11.brother gone too far? That's the debate surrounding the Scottish
:50:12. > :50:15.Government's named person policy. Brought in under the Children and
:50:16. > :50:18.Young People Bill earlier this year, the policy gives every Scot under 18
:50:19. > :50:23.a designated person responsible for their well being. That person isn't
:50:24. > :50:26.a parent or relative but someone from the public sector. Some
:50:27. > :50:29.charities have welcomed the move as a step towards greater child
:50:30. > :50:34.protection, others feel parents' human rights are being infringed.
:50:35. > :50:38.Next month opponents will see a judicial review of the measure.
:50:39. > :50:49.Megan Paterson has been exploring the debate. The visit from the
:50:50. > :50:55.health visitor finds this baby happy, healthy and progressing well.
:50:56. > :51:01.But his health visitor serves another purpose, she is his named
:51:02. > :51:07.person, assigned by the government to monitor his well-being. Every
:51:08. > :51:12.family is different, every family dynamic is different as well. It is
:51:13. > :51:17.really a matter of making relationships and building on that.
:51:18. > :51:24.There is trust each way between the families and hoping you are giving
:51:25. > :51:33.them the help they are looking for in their child's's development up to
:51:34. > :51:38.the age of five. It has made a great difference. In the hospital he was
:51:39. > :51:44.taken to special care, we were in longer and when we came home it was
:51:45. > :51:49.good to have somebody. I was nervous because he had been encamped,
:51:50. > :52:01.special Kier that I was doing everything right. The decision was
:52:02. > :52:06.taken to roll out this system across the whole country. The Christian
:52:07. > :52:13.Institute have mounted a judicial review funded by members of the
:52:14. > :52:17.public. It gives huge powers to named persons to advise and talk to
:52:18. > :52:25.children without the parents even knowing about it or without their
:52:26. > :52:31.consent. The same state bodies will be involved in looking for all these
:52:32. > :52:37.families where there is no issue at all. Instead of actually finding
:52:38. > :52:43.that needle in the haystack actually making the haystack much bigger.
:52:44. > :52:49.That will find it much more difficult to get to that vulnerable
:52:50. > :52:52.child. They still have to respect family rights. Health visitors or
:52:53. > :53:00.teachers will usually take on the role of named person, people the
:53:01. > :53:08.families already know but some people feel it will be to the
:53:09. > :53:15.conflict of interests especially when children get ill. We saw our
:53:16. > :53:21.son's health decline quite rapidly and he was being forced to attend to
:53:22. > :53:26.school, we took the health professionals at their word that
:53:27. > :53:32.this was the thing to do, to keep him any routine, get him up and not
:53:33. > :53:37.let him rest. When we saw his health deteriorate rapidly we stepped in.
:53:38. > :53:41.The named person makes that extremely difficult for parents to
:53:42. > :53:45.do now because you have an extra layer of bureaucracy that makes it
:53:46. > :53:57.difficult for the parents to have the final word on the ear of their
:53:58. > :54:03.children. -- care of their children. At the moment people already have
:54:04. > :54:08.information where there are concerns about a child. This is about
:54:09. > :54:15.coordinating it and making sure the best use is made of the information
:54:16. > :54:20.for the care of the child. Most people will not need to use the
:54:21. > :54:26.named person in the way we go to the doctor. We do not use the doctor
:54:27. > :54:32.every day or every week but we go when we need them. We do not know
:54:33. > :54:36.when children or families may become vulnerable and need extra help but
:54:37. > :54:40.it is important that when this happens the children have a named
:54:41. > :54:46.person to go to to get the extra help or advice they need. With the
:54:47. > :54:51.campaign against named person stepping up over the summer the
:54:52. > :54:59.roll-out seems far from trouble-free. I am joined by the
:55:00. > :55:10.Minister for young people and the Conservative Gavin Brown. Proponents
:55:11. > :55:18.of this legislation are seeking a judicial view. -- review. They have
:55:19. > :55:23.asked you not to finalise the bill until a decision is made on the
:55:24. > :55:31.legal probe cess, are you prepared to do that? We are very clear we
:55:32. > :55:38.want to give children the best start in life. We are confident this goes
:55:39. > :55:42.through all the requirements to go through Parliament, it has already
:55:43. > :55:49.had royal assent as well. We see no reason to delay unless any good
:55:50. > :55:59.reason comes forward which we do not believe their Es. So you will go
:56:00. > :56:03.ahead? Implementation is in 2016. It has received support through the
:56:04. > :56:06.consultation and we are absolutely clear this complies with all the
:56:07. > :56:14.legal requirements that legislation needs. The argument for having a
:56:15. > :56:19.named person for every child, it is the every that seems to be the bone
:56:20. > :56:28.of contention, is that you never know which child will need help,
:56:29. > :56:32.that has some force, does it not? If you have universal provision for
:56:33. > :56:37.every person in Scotland between the age of zero and 18 it means you are
:56:38. > :56:43.expending resources on people who do not want it and do not need it. The
:56:44. > :56:47.money cannot be spent twice. The money that could be targeted on our
:56:48. > :56:53.most vulnerable is being spent on people who do not want it so I think
:56:54. > :56:58.it has the danger of being very inefficient. It is bending money on
:56:59. > :57:07.an enormous bureaucracy that does not help every single child. --
:57:08. > :57:16.spending money. I do not agree. It is about getting help for a family
:57:17. > :57:21.or child as early as possible. A named person could have access to
:57:22. > :57:31.the medical records of a child, isn't that correct? This does not
:57:32. > :57:35.interfere with parents rights at all. Couldn't they have that access
:57:36. > :57:41.without the rights of the parents being considered? It is help for
:57:42. > :57:48.families with everyone being brought on board. If the named person is not
:57:49. > :57:52.satisfied with the response of the parent they could have access to the
:57:53. > :57:59.medical records of the child without the parent's consent, is that
:58:00. > :58:05.correct? We are sharing information in a proportionate way that makes
:58:06. > :58:10.sure we have the best interests of children at the very heart of
:58:11. > :58:15.decision-making. Be honest and is to the question I have just asked is
:58:16. > :58:20.yes, in certain circumstances the named person could have access to
:58:21. > :58:33.information like that. Where the person feels that the children's
:58:34. > :58:36.safety is at risk they may have access but they live their robust
:58:37. > :58:42.framework to make sure this sharing of information is done in a robust
:58:43. > :58:45.and appropriate way. It could be access to private information about
:58:46. > :58:53.a child without the consent of the parent of that child. It provides a
:58:54. > :58:59.consistent framework. Do you think there is a question of parental
:59:00. > :59:03.rights here? Of course there is. These are the fundamental
:59:04. > :59:08.practicality issue. You are disrupting the autonomy of the
:59:09. > :59:13.family, moving the balance towards the state and away from parents. In
:59:14. > :59:20.many circumstances parents know best, the state does not know best,
:59:21. > :59:23.it does not have an unblemished record in this area. Responses came
:59:24. > :59:37.back from many organisations that their was very little consultation
:59:38. > :59:43.with parents. That is not true. There are a huge number of people
:59:44. > :59:48.and organisations already responsible for children in
:59:49. > :59:54.Scotland. What precisely is added by having a named person for every
:59:55. > :00:00.Child? It is about embedding good practice. If you are correct that it
:00:01. > :00:08.is not the gross infringement of the rights of parents, what does it do?
:00:09. > :00:15.The leader of the Conservative group in the Borders said this does not
:00:16. > :00:22.interfere with parental rights. If you have the teacher who is a named
:00:23. > :00:28.person, that teacher could have access to private medical records of
:00:29. > :00:36.the Child. The parent of that child is concerned and if that teacher at
:00:37. > :00:43.the child another named person could have access to private information
:00:44. > :00:50.on their child in an infinite gene, isn't there something slightly east
:00:51. > :00:55.German about this? Though, because it is about embedding good
:00:56. > :01:00.practice. This reduces bureaucracy, allows professionals to intervene
:01:01. > :01:05.where families most that need require additional support. It saves
:01:06. > :01:09.money. It is about wider reform to make sure we get help to families
:01:10. > :01:14.who need it and require it, with children who require it in a timely
:01:15. > :01:20.way because the cost to the public purse of not doing these things is
:01:21. > :01:26.if problems escalate into crises. That is something we want to avoid.
:01:27. > :01:29.This supports parents. In response to what parents have to what parents
:01:30. > :01:33.have told as they want through this parenting strategy. It has been very
:01:34. > :01:39.much done in consultation with parents. Thank you very much indeed.
:01:40. > :01:50.In a moment we will be looking at the history of TV political debate
:01:51. > :01:53.but first, the news. Good afternoon. Air accident investigators have
:01:54. > :01:56.concluded that if an onboard collision warning system had been
:01:57. > :01:59.fitted to the RAF's fleet of Tornados, it could have saved lives.
:02:00. > :02:02.Three airmen died when two jets crashed off the Caithness coast in
:02:03. > :02:06.July 2012. The Military Aviation Authority is due to publish a long
:02:07. > :02:10.awaited report into the accident tomorrow. The BBC understands the
:02:11. > :02:13.report is highly critical of the Ministry of Defence, which for years
:02:14. > :02:22.repeatedly delayed and cancelled the fitting of a collision warning
:02:23. > :02:25.system to the aircraft. The Treasury has claimed that Scottish Government
:02:26. > :02:36.plans to increase borrowing under independence would be incompatible
:02:37. > :02:39.with retaining the pound. The First Minister said initial borrowing
:02:40. > :02:45.would boost the economy and allow a sustainable cut in the deficit. He
:02:46. > :02:50.added that Scotland would start out being more prosperous per head than
:02:51. > :02:52.the UK, France or Japan. Danny Alexander said that boosting
:02:53. > :03:03.borrowing to fund higher spending would set Scotland on a different
:03:04. > :03:09.path from the rest of the UK. You cannot both have massive extra
:03:10. > :03:15.borrowing and ensure that currency union will take place. We have to
:03:16. > :03:21.accept that they will not be a currency union. They are not being
:03:22. > :03:26.transparent and open with the people of Scotland about their alternative
:03:27. > :03:28.plan. And, it's the second day of the Bannockburn Live festival,
:03:29. > :03:31.marking the 700th anniversary of the famous battle. Hundreds of actors
:03:32. > :03:34.are recreating the 1314 military encounter in which Robert the Bruce
:03:35. > :03:37.defeated the forces of Edward the Second. Musicians and comedians are
:03:38. > :03:40.performing over two days with more than 40 clans gathering for the
:03:41. > :03:48.occasion. Despite initial concern over slow ticket sales, organisers
:03:49. > :03:58.said yesterday's event sold out. The weather forecast now with
:03:59. > :04:02.Christopher. Generally a better day today compared with yesterday. Some
:04:03. > :04:06.sunshine developing but also the risk of one or two showers, and
:04:07. > :04:15.regularly down the south of the country. Feeling cooler where clouds
:04:16. > :04:18.are thicker. This evening and overnight the showers will tend to
:04:19. > :04:25.feed. And when exactly do you do it,
:04:26. > :04:30.if you decide to do it? TV debates are a big worry
:04:31. > :04:33.for politicians and the scrutiny is even more intense and instantaneous
:04:34. > :04:37.in the age of social media. Just when your campaign is going
:04:38. > :04:42.well, one clanger can give Timing is crucial too - when do
:04:43. > :04:48.you decide to meet for battle, and Andrew Kerr takes a look back
:04:49. > :05:10.at debates of the past. And this was a common 1960, when
:05:11. > :05:13.campaigning changed for ever. More than 60 million Americans tuned
:05:14. > :05:19.in to watch the first ever televised debate between the two tank --
:05:20. > :05:23.candidates running for presidency. I know what it means to be caught, I
:05:24. > :05:31.know what it means to see people who are unemployed. This party has
:05:32. > :05:35.produced Harry Truman, which supports and sustains these
:05:36. > :05:40.programmes I discussed tonight. Tanned and relaxed, JFK looked
:05:41. > :05:44.confident, compared to the shifty looking Nixon. TV viewers thought
:05:45. > :05:50.Kennedy had one, the radio listeners thought it was a close call in the
:05:51. > :05:54.race for the White House. In the last presidential election, there
:05:55. > :06:02.were three debates of varying formats. We welcome President Obama
:06:03. > :06:09.and Governor Romney. President Obama lost the first one, it was probably
:06:10. > :06:12.a draw in the second, and he won the final. These were key staging posts
:06:13. > :06:15.in the campaign. Popular with voters, even more popular with the
:06:16. > :06:26.media. These debates are embedded in popular culture. The renowned
:06:27. > :06:34.presidential series the West When she was the effort that goes into
:06:35. > :06:43.reparation. Why did you nominate him? Bite me, that's why. So, these
:06:44. > :06:53.debates are part and parcel of political life in the US. And even
:06:54. > :06:58.Scottish campaigns. In 2011, the main party leaders gathered in Perth
:06:59. > :07:03.ahead of the Holyrood election. Voters had their say and the rough
:07:04. > :07:08.idea was given when a possible referendum could be held. Tonight,
:07:09. > :07:18.who do you want to be your next Prime Minister? It was not until
:07:19. > :07:24.2010 that the UK party leaders could show off their wares in this type of
:07:25. > :07:29.forum. All tracked by the so-called war as voters expressed their views.
:07:30. > :07:33.These dates can so often provide an unexpected boost to those struggling
:07:34. > :07:48.to make a challenge. -- so-called war. -- worm. A word to the wise, it
:07:49. > :07:56.was not the debate, but there was an audience. And DV cameras were
:07:57. > :08:05.running. All right! We're all right! After that performance, act
:08:06. > :08:12.normally, don't be overconfident, and do wear a decent tie.
:08:13. > :08:16.Now it's time to have a look at what's happening in the week ahead.
:08:17. > :08:19.the Political editor of the Herald, Magnus Gardham,
:08:20. > :08:24.and Stephen McGinty from the Scotsman.
:08:25. > :08:35.Let's start with this story about Danny Alexander having written a
:08:36. > :08:38.letter, very stern one, but plans the Scottish Government have for
:08:39. > :08:43.increasing spending, should they get a Yes vote in a referendum and
:08:44. > :08:48.saying, hang on, that is not the same as the austerity programme,
:08:49. > :08:52.therefore not only can you not have a currency union, but it sure was
:08:53. > :08:56.you that you don't really believe you're going to get one. It is
:08:57. > :09:05.interesting that Danny Alexander has picked up on this. The SNP set out
:09:06. > :09:09.their borrowing plans, it is the case that they would burrow billions
:09:10. > :09:15.of pounds between 2016 and 2019, would amount to 2.4 billion alone,
:09:16. > :09:19.in order to boost the economy and move away from austerity. Danny
:09:20. > :09:25.Alexander has said, that is exactly the kind of policy divergence which
:09:26. > :09:28.took -- which would put some pressure on a currency union that it
:09:29. > :09:34.would be unsustainable. You might ask, why has he written a letter,
:09:35. > :09:38.given he has already ruled it out? But I think it is a sign that a
:09:39. > :09:42.currency union is not going to go away, the issue is not going to go
:09:43. > :09:48.away throughout this referendum campaign. Magnus is saying why did
:09:49. > :09:53.he write the letter? I suspect the politics of this is the dimension
:09:54. > :09:56.that he was to say, hang on, it only is this incompatible with a currency
:09:57. > :10:01.union, but in my view as Danny Alexander, you realise that, or you
:10:02. > :10:05.would not be saying this. He is effectively trying to make the point
:10:06. > :10:12.that the currency union has not been agreed, it is a major problem for
:10:13. > :10:15.the SNP, though -- that is the way it is being viewed by many people
:10:16. > :10:19.and he is time to drive that point home. Scottish Government would say
:10:20. > :10:25.that a better economic strategy than anything you whatever, with. The
:10:26. > :10:29.Treasury are constantly saying this is our predicted spending, this is
:10:30. > :10:34.what we're going to do, and then the future happens and you revise it. It
:10:35. > :10:39.will be interesting to see in the future whether this will invariably
:10:40. > :10:44.change. And whether it is on a par with what the SNP want to do anyway.
:10:45. > :10:50.A quick comment on the Tornados story. It does seem, it surprised me
:10:51. > :10:56.on a looked into this, that even the most advanced next generation
:10:57. > :11:00.aircraft in the RAF, as of now, do not have these collision warning
:11:01. > :11:06.system is installed. It is a very alarming finding. Clearly we will
:11:07. > :11:10.have to wait until tomorrow to hear more from the MOD to see what they
:11:11. > :11:15.are saying in response to that. In the meantime, I think it is hard to
:11:16. > :11:17.say a lot more than it is good that the report has finally been
:11:18. > :11:22.published, it is good for the families, obviously, and I think
:11:23. > :11:26.taking up from what we heard Angus Robertson saying, I can see pressure
:11:27. > :11:33.for a fatal accident enquiry beginning to grow. I think it is
:11:34. > :11:37.tragic that it happened and it must be very galling for the families.
:11:38. > :11:43.The fact that a collision warning system was suggested in the 1990s
:11:44. > :11:48.and nothing happens, the loved ones are now dead, it could have been
:11:49. > :11:55.avoided. I think it is tragic for them, and it is crucial that the MOD
:11:56. > :11:59.continue the roll-out of the system. The Armed Forces are featured in a
:12:00. > :12:05.very different way on the front pages of the papers. This is
:12:06. > :12:11.allegations that David Cameron was politicising Armed Forces Day by his
:12:12. > :12:15.speech and so allegations that leaflets are being circulate it by
:12:16. > :12:22.the MOD through the services which take a position on the referendum.
:12:23. > :12:27.It is interesting. He clearly said he was not going to politicise the
:12:28. > :12:35.day, it should be a neutral day, but politics will invariably come into
:12:36. > :12:41.this. This could be one of the last ones, and he used the opportunity to
:12:42. > :12:44.make a point. I think there was criticism of it, I was at the event
:12:45. > :12:48.yesterday and this book is an ex-soldiers afterwards and one of
:12:49. > :12:51.them wait -- made the point that this was the one day people come
:12:52. > :12:56.together and celebrate the Armed Forces and it was wrong for the
:12:57. > :13:02.Prime Minister to play politics with that day. What did you make of it? I
:13:03. > :13:06.am in two minds. Given the weight of symbolism around Armed Forces Day,
:13:07. > :13:09.out of me thinks it would be rather odd if the Prime Minister had not
:13:10. > :13:14.made a passing reference to the referendum. Another part of me
:13:15. > :13:18.thinks, given the weight of symbolism around Armed Forces Day,
:13:19. > :13:22.was it really necessary? What it does show is the heightened
:13:23. > :13:27.sensitivity around the referendum issue, and woke the type any
:13:28. > :13:31.politician who is contemplating politicising the Commonwealth Games.
:13:32. > :13:34.This thing about the leaflets, there are allegations from both sides that
:13:35. > :13:40.the Government is being used inappropriately. If Government is
:13:41. > :13:46.being used in a properly, both of them, we are seeing huge spending on
:13:47. > :13:50.the White Paper, huge spending on the Scotland Office leaflets. We
:13:51. > :13:54.will have to leave it there. That's all we have time for, I will be back
:13:55. > :13:58.at the same time next week. Until then, goodbye.