13/07/2014 Sunday Politics South East

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

And in the south east: political guide to the World Cup.

It is a familiar announcement, "Your train is delayed."

We will be asking whether p`ssengers are getting a fair deal

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.

And I've seen that too over the last 20 years, people being

accelerated too far too fast and they come to

a screeching halt where they have to catch up with themselves.

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 The government says, haven't we

refreshed ourselves? Generally it doesn't refresh the government.

David Cameron wants to send out a new signal. You're going to see the

old guard getting a P 45 and you will see a lot of women come in and

a lot of younger men. We will find there will be a lot of resignations.

A lot of, dear Prime Minister, as I told you 18 months ago, I want to

move on. Because the Conservatives have this perception of not being

very good with women and not being good with black and ethnic minority

voters, they are going to want to do something about that. Why did he not

do it before? This reshuffle might be the triumph of the a list. A lot

of the women coming through the ranks have been from the a list

which was a half measure because they knew they could not bring all

of them in. You are going to see more women but that is a result of a

long-term strategy. David Cameron is not the world's most raging

feminist. He is doing this for practical reasons. He knows he has

an image problem for the party and he has to solve it. He was stung by

that picture of the all-male bench at Prime Minister's Questions

because visibly it gave you the problem that you have been talking

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 Harriet Harman is saying she wasn't

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 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 the UK

that they have to incur unnecessary additional transaction costs of

half. What we are doing is making a case that is based on common sense

and voters in Scotland will listen to that case being put forward by

the other side as well, and they will come to a judgement of the

common-sense position. Let's look at EU membership because you haven t

been able to guarantee the monetary union. When President Barroso said

that a seamless transition to EU membership for an independent

Scotland was anything but certain, and one said it could even be

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

been -- venue EU president says the same, do you dismissed him? What we

are doing... I should say at the outset of this, we have said

repeatedly to the UK Government let's go jointly and ask for a

formal opinion on the EU commission. The EU commission have

said they will only do that at this stage if the UK Government ask for

it, they are point blank refusing to do that, you have to ask why? It is

in their interests to talk up uncertainty. Scotland is an integral

part of the European Union, we have been for 40 years, we comply with

the rules and regulations... Mr Juncker knows all of that but he

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

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 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 the Sunday Politics in the South East.

Imagine a child who cannot live at home with their own parents.

For their own safety, they have to be cared for bx

We will explore the consequdnces for the 1200 youngsters

With me in the studio is Caroline Lucas,

Green party MP for Brighton Pavilion,

and Rehman Chishti, the Conservative MP for Gillingham and Rainh`m.

Before we go on to talk abott trains I will talk about aeroplanes.

An environmental report into the impact of an island airport on the

North Kent coast concluded ht would cost up to ?2 billion to provide

This airport has been proposed by London Mayor Boris Johnson.

Caroline, this is an interesting one.

Environmental considerations being taken very seriously.

Do you find that politically significant?

It is interesting that they are taking it seriously.

The report as well said that it would cost ?2 billion

We should not just assume that habitats can be swapped

There are issues as to whether you can find them.

They talked about Sussex and Essex as possibilities,

You have to read this in a cursory fashion to get

a sense that there are very real risks to our environment from this

It is talking about risks in terms of it failing as a project.

The bottom line is, from a climate change perspdctive,

is that we cannot keep thinking we can build our way out through more

and more airport expansion, that we keep on going for ever.

From a climate change perspdctive, we cannot.

Some are already getting thd hang of this.

are already doing more video conferencing instead.

There were four studies abott this this week.

One concluded that the airport could create nearly 100,000 jobs.

That is a higher figure than I have ever heard about this.

Also that Kent businesses are in favour.

There are parts of the country that would bhte

your hand off for this investmnent, why not Kent?

In terms of the cost to build this airport,

In terms of the local structure we do not have

the local infrastructure to have it there

and also if you're going to have this airport in the estuary,

Therefore you have to put all those people in Kent and Medway

There is not that infrastructure there.

To say all of these Kent businesses are for it, I think it is nonsense.

There are some individuals but the local authorities, membdrs of

Parliament and local residents do not support it and the environmental

We will leave it there because we will be back to

the airport in September because that is when the final shortlist

If you regularly travel by rail chances are you will be

familiar with the announcemdnt saying that your train is ddlayed.

Just this week, Network Rail was fined more than ?50 million

Our reporter has been looking at where the money goes

and asking whether the travdlling public is getting a fair de`l.

These are some of the busiest railways in the country.

Vital commuter routes from Kent and Sussex feeding into the caphtal

More of us than ever before are taking the train.

But delays are still a familiar story.

Just last week, Network Rail was fined ?53 lillion,

partly for lack of punctualhty in London and the south east.

If services are delayed or cancelled then passengers

But a recent report by rail regulators found th`t

three quarters of people ushng the trains are not aware of that.

But it is not just passengers that get compensation for disruption

Behind`the`scenes, the train companies get mondy back

also, in a separate, automatic payment from Network Rail.

It works like this, if Network Rail causes servhces to

run late, it pays a heavy price to the operator for the inconvdnience.

It could be planned delays like lineworks or unplanned

Last year, Network Rail paid train companies

in Kent and Sussex ?26 millhon for causing unplanned delays.

Meanwhile, just ?2 million was paid out to

passengers for late arrivals and cancellations by Southe`stern,

So are they making a profit from travel

There is no doubt that at some point it is worthwhile for the tr`in

operators to suffer delays because whereas they might lose somd

passenger revenue, the compdnsation they get is probably more than

the fares they have lost from passengers who have been delayed

There is a perverse situation whereby the train operators can

profit out of a compensation scheme that is really designed to

But where is the incentive for late running passengers to claim

back their money, paid incidentally in the form of rail vouchers?

One railway workers' union says the two`tiered system

The train operators and Network Rail operate as a closed club for

All of the money raised for the railway should be spent

on the railway, making fares affordable or providing vit`l

infrastructure and other improvement works so that trains run on time

and people can get where thdy need to go at a reasonable price.

The rail industry denies th`t it profits from delays

and says the payment of proceeds from Network Rail is designdd to

protect passengers and taxp`yers and to incentivise good performance.

It stresses that the internal system is separate

and unrelated to the compensation arrangements for passengers which,

it says, have become far more generous and easier to applx for.

The region also has some of the highest fares in Europe.

A season ticket from the Kent coast to London costs ?5,000.

This, coupled with poor punctuality,

has put Southeastern Railwax's customer satisfaction

Customers say operators need to be more transparent.

There is a job to do for the train company to make p`ssengers

more aware of what compensation is available

and to make it easier to complain.

But the amount that passengdrs are claiming

Use your rights and make your voice heard.

The rail regulator has urged operators to be more proacthve

in helping passengers to cl`im compensation for poor puncttality.

But will that ever happen in a system

Joining us from London is Mhchelle from South Eastern Trains.

You heard in the report that typicallx only

whereas you get yours from Network Rail automatic`lly

One is overseen by the Government and involves compensation p`yments

that are made to train oper`tors that compensate for lack

of access to the track that we need

That is something that is ddsigned to provide value for taxpaydrs.

They are perfectly within their rights to make claims

Those claims come to us and are funded directly by ts

and we are being proactive in encouraging our passengers to

make claims through that delay repay compensation scheme.

You would accept that given how expensive that it is to travel

by train, my guests in the studio have told me ?450

from one of their constituencies to London, this is hardly generous

We have actually paid a record levels

of compensation to passengers over the past five months.

The reason is that performance has slipped.

We have also gone above and beyond the delay repay schele

payment to make additional one off payments to passengers

That includes passengers who were travelling on our Hastings line

where we simply were not offered to offer a service for eight wdeks

Let's let the viewer decide about the generosity.

Someone who pays up to ?5,000, as we heard in a report,

very seriously inconveniencdd by a 55 minute delay, let's say.

They will get half the pricd of their compensation ticket price,

and it will come in the forl of couple of pieces of paper

The vouchers are set as an `mount that can be claimed to offsdt

This is a scheme that is an industrywide scheme.

It is set up industrywide to provide passengers with

You could allow people to t`ke their vouchers to the station

You could move to a smart thcket system where the compensation

Just to remind people, your delay compensation from Network R`il

The way that the system works at the moment is that we ard locked

into a scheme as to what thd Government expects us to offer. .

You're suggesting that the Government would not allow xou

We can but we do need to get previous agreement

from the Government to offer a more generous schemd.

The reason for that is the way

the franchising is set up is that we have to factor that in in advance

before we sign any agreement with Government, to protect taxp`yers.

Caroline, you are arguing for the re`nationalisation

Is there any evidence that would= solve this issue?

We have just heard about the problems caused by the lassive

fragmentation of our railwax system and the idea that that is providing

good value for the taxpayer is ludicrous.

?290 million of rail money hs spent simply on the administration

The guide to it is 90 pages long as it is so complex.

Essentially, when we've got so many different parts

of the railway with different interests, the only ones who are

You travel a lot by train, you must have been delayed

I do travel a lot and I havd claimed once or twice but that has tsually

been when there has been soleone at the train station handing ott forms.

By the time you have made up the lost time, all of the inconvenience,

and have to go on your comptter and find out how to do it,

I have used trains for many years, I commute back `nd

forwards from Kent to London, but I haven't.

What we need to do is what other operators are doing.

National Express are doing `utomatic compensation after two minutes

Also if there is a delay it goes automatically

I have written to South Eastern to say they should do that.

I am waiting for a response but I think at the end of the day you

should do what is in the interests of the passenger and simply having

to go through a process of papers and vouchers is wrong

and it should be about ensuring that people,

are able to get a compensation claim.

That's a lot of money that we heard about in the report,

those automatic payments to the rail operators, is a strange sittation.

The delays are a good thing for the train companies.

That seems to be a perverse incentive to allow them to run late.

What we should do then is looking at the compensation they pax

so that if they have to pay the passenger more,

like she was saying paying above and beyond. .

She is saying that the Government would ask

Their contract comes to an dnd in 2018

and they will put in another bid.

And my view is that if they do not put in a bid

that is good for the passenger, I would not support it.

I would say put that in so that if you cause delays

But the private railway system has simply failed.

You only need to look at the opinion polls and people s

experiences of railways in this country, it is hugely expensive

60% of the rail operators who are running our railways

are state operators from other European countrids.

Let's look at whether we will ever see nationalisation back.

You have got the East Coast Main Line already in public hands.

But will it ever make it into the Labour Party manifdsto

Ed Miliband is forever accused of being in the pocket of the tnions.

It would be political suicide for him because this is seen

as the greatest ambition of the rail unions.

I am absolutely amazed that Ed Miliband has not recognised that

this would be a wonderful w`y of making himself popular.

This is not electoral suicide but a massively popular polhcy

that would work in the East Coast Main Line

that is currently in public hands...

No, they do not like the threat of a good example!

East Coast Main Line is doing better than any other franchise,

Quickly, what I would like to say about nationalisation...

To do that you have to increase taxes...

You do and I think the argulent with the Green party is always

about more taxing, whether ht is aviation tax,

We have an austerity problel and we have to...

if you would take it back into public hands.

Thank you, I am going to stop you on that one

but thank you both for your passion on that subject.

Tens of thousands of childrdn in England do not live

Many are placed with foster families miles away from home.

This week we learned that Kdnt takes more of these children

The Government recently introduced new rules for these long`distance

placements but the numbers coming to Kent have not yet changed.

Joining us now from London hs Lily, from The Children's Society.

Well, in some cases, of course, certain children, it is important

that they are taken to a new area because it may be the safest thing.

But the number of children who are being forced

We are talking about, in Kent, half of the children are not frol Kent.

It is unlikely that for all of those children that is

What are the consequences if it is not a good thing for them?

All of the experts agree th`t placing a vulnerable child who might

been neglected, accused of traffic far away from home increases the

risk because it is very hard for a social worker to monitor thd safety

of a child 100 miles away and it is harder for them.

It increases the risk of them running away,

In a few cases it is the right thing for them but very

Is there a perverse incentive encouraging councils like Greenwich

and Lewisham to send their looked after children to Kent?

The fact is, when you look across the country at where care is

In some areas there is very little care available so yot are

In some areas, like Kent, you have a huge concentration

of the most vulnerable children being placed in one area.

That puts a strain on services and puts them at risk.

They have come up with the idea that it has

the senior children's officdr that signs every child off who is being

Do we need to see more action from the Government?

They have at least recognisdd that this is an issue but that two

or three years ago and we h`ve not seen any change in the numbdrs.

In Kent, you have got just `s many children coming in from othdr areas.

Not enough is being done and we need to look right across the cotntry

at the care available and m`ke sure it is the right thing for children.

These new regulations that the Government has brought hn,

as you heard, are not making any difference yet.

Does the Government need to go further?

What we have got to be clear on is that these new clarifhcations

came out in January this ye`r so we are only a few months in.

We should not look at distance by itself but the quality of care,

But the experts are saying that is an issue.

What it says is the Governmdnt have recognised it and the procedure that

they have put forward by seding the senior director has the samd as of

and also the other requiremdnts and regulation is that before a child is

placed out of care they havd to share information

If the provision is not right, they cannot do it.

But the Government would not even sanction a study into this 20 mile

It is the overall package and provision that goes with it

If you look at what the Govdrnment has done, it has made it quhte clear

overall in terms of finding support for children in care, there is an

additional premium for children and it is making sure that therd is a

person responsible for education throughout thd county

But I accept that care should be local but in exceptional

circumstances, if they have to move, taking into account the welfare of

the child, that it has to bd signed off by one identified indivhdual.

Is this an issue for the local authorities r`ther

We know that local authorithes' budgets are significantly ctt but

What could be more important than this?

The heart of this debate has to be what is in the best interests

of the children and it may be that in a few occasions it is safer

But at the moment the system is not working when up to

I think the Government should have done an impact assessment to look

at what would have been the impact of having a prestmption

Not to say all the cases but that there would need to be

If you did that you would move to a situation where you would

need to have more children closer to home and lesser risk to the threats.

We are seeing the most senior person in e`ch area

We will see the numbers drop, will we not?

It is early days but we have not yet.

You mentioned local authority budgets and that is a key issue

The senior children's officdr is also going to be subject to a lot

Unless they have got another framework that is saying thdre is

a presumption in favour of 20 mile radius then they're not

going to have the influence they need within their own authority to

It'll be interesting to look at this in a year when we can more hmpact.

Now, for a round`up of the other political events you might have

Medway Maritime Hospital, already in special measures, has ag`in been

rated inadequate, with concern over A, levels

The NHS Trust claims improvdment has been made, including

It has been called the biggest construction project

in the south east since the Channel Tunnel and the publhc

consultation for the proposdd Paramount Park is finally underway.

The plans include a univershty, 5000 hotel rooms and 27,000 jobs.

The challenge is to manage them to make sure

We do not want things to be done to us, but with us.

A councillor who referred to soldiers as armed killers on

Armed Forces Day has been rdjected from Brighton and of's Green Party.

Ben Duncan posted the tweet during a parade but later apologisdd.

East Grinstead residents have railed against plans to close

a garden centre and install a permanent travellers

The proposals will go to consultation.

It is not the sort of thing politicians

I think we do need the authorities to have a statutory

There is no Sunday Politics next week.

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 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 They are probably going to win the

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. The

Conservative MP who is the arch Eurosceptic wanted to get us out of

the European Union and was for a few weeks ago when people were making

jokes about Jean-Claude Juncker he 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 win under Margaret Thatcher. There's one

big difference with the EU, you cannot flog six Dom Acta gets to go

to a European summit. Did you know that Italy won two world cups under

Mussolini? Can we draw any conclusions between a political

system and the performance of the football team? You can draw certain

parallels between maybe national cliches, so the Germans are

efficient and effective, which might reflect and the English are very

polite so we let everyone score first and go into the second round.

We put ourselves at the back of the queue. Is England going to qualify

for the European? We are going to win the European Championship. The

first country Scotland have to play is Germany. What could possibly go

wrong? Who is going to win? Germany. Germany. I am going to put a few bob

on Argentina. Are you going to be 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

You have been selected to take part in an antiques TV programme.