13/04/2014 Sunday Politics West

Aternoon folks, and welcome to the Sunday Politics. As MPs head off for

their Easter break, campaigning for the European elections in six weeks'

time gets underway. In a Sunday Politics special, we'll debate the

issues at stake on May 22nd with senior party figures from the

Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats, and UKIP. And as ever

we'll be discussing the week ahead with our panel of top political

In the West, he said he would run commentators.

In the West, he said he would run the greenest government ever, but

after controversy over fracking and nuclear power, have

newspapers which some claim are politically slanted and not

impartial about informing people of local services.

So all that to come between now and quarter to four and for the next

thirty minutes or so we'll be debating the European elections

Here in the studio we have Syed Kamall, leader of the Conservatives

in the European Parliament, Richard Howitt, chair of the Labour group of

MEPs, Sarah Ludford, deputy leader of the Lib Dems in Europe, and

Patrick O'Flynn, UKIP's director of communications. Welcome to you all.

In a moment, all four will give us their opening pitch for the

elections. A little earlier they drew lots to decide who'll go first.

And that privilege goes to Syed Before that, though, here's a quick

reminder of what all the fuss is about.

The vote to choose members of the European Parliament takes place on

Thursday the 22nd of May. The same day as local elections are held in

England and Northern Ireland. The UK sends 73

England and Northern Ireland. The UK sends NTP is to Brussels. And the

vote is a form of proportional representation. In total, there are

751 MEPs from the 28 member states. What do they do all day? The

European Parliament's power has grown. A vet of the EU commissioners

and they can amend, approve or reject nearly all EU legislation and

the EU budget. Some laws MEPs have been responsible for include price

caps on mobile phone chargers, banking regulation and cover food

regulation two -- labelling. Syed Kamall, you have 30 seconds.

Europe cannot go on as it is. Europe needs to change. And our

relationship with Europe needs to change. Only the Conservatives have

a plan to deliver that change and of the British people and in-out

referendum. Labour and the Lib Dems will not and UKIP simply cannot

Only the Conservatives will offer the three yards, with Conservative

MEPs working alongside a conservative Prime Minister. For,

really is and above all a referendum. Sarah Ludford is next.

Your choice is simple. If you think Britain is better off in Europe

vote for the Liberal Democrats. The Lib Dems are the only party of Ian,

fighting to keep Britain in Europe and in work. There is nothing

patriotic about UKIP's desire to pull-out. That is playing Russian

roulette with Britain's economy and jobs. The Conservatives are flirting

with exit and Labour lacks the courage to speak up. Thought Liberal

Democrat on May the 22nd to say in Europe for jobs and security. Sarah

Ludford. Next, Richard Howitt from Labour. The European elections are

about who represents you. They are not a referendum on a referendum.

Labour MEPs believe in putting jobs and growth first. A guarantee to

help young people into work, reforming energy markets so that

bills are brought down for good Labour believes in reform in Europe,

but within. It is David Cameron who is risking your job and Britain s

prosperity because of divisions in his own party. Labour MEPs put

British interests first. Our fourth opening statement from Patrick

O'Flynn. The EU is old hat. It is a declining regional trade bloc in an

era of global trade. It is a 20th-century political project

designed to prevent conflict in Europe that is now reawakening old

hostilities. It is an attempt to force on the European people

European this as their primary collective identity. It has hollowed

out British democracy and now we do not even control our own borders.

That is why you should vote UKIP. That is the opening statements.

Let's get on with the debate. Why should people vote in the

selections? If you vote UKIP, we can deliver an earthquake that will rock

the foundations of British politics and the European political class. We

can send a signal to Europe that Britain has had enough, that Britain

wants to retain its nation state status and regain political power

and the ability to forge trading deals across the world. Britain

leading Europe to freedom twice in the last century through bloodshed.

We feel that a UKIP win in those elections could help Britain set an

example to lead European nation states back to free assembly again.

Syed Kamall, isn't it the case that many Tory voters will vote you clip

to keep you honest, to keep your feet to the fire? Whatever you think

of the European Parliament or the EU, the fact is that the European

Parliament as equal power with the 28 governments of the EU. When David

Cameron delivered the first cut to the EU budget, the first ever cut,

he needed a strong team of Conservative MEPs working alongside

him. But many of your supporters will vote for UKIP for the reasons I

gave. Many will vote Liberal Democrat. Not very many. Many of our

supporters will vote for us because we are the only party trying to

change the EU and offer reform. We have offered renegotiation and a

referendum. And how would you vote in such a referendum? We have no

idea whether he would vote yes or no. Let him answer. I will answer

that question. If the EU continues on this road, towards a United

States of Europe, and if there was no change at the time of the

referendum, then I would probably vote to leave. You have no

confidence in David Cameron? We Javier Culson opportunity to read

negotiate our relationship with Europe and the Conservatives are at

the forefront of that agenda. David Cameron have not given a list of

demands. He said that if things do not change, he will probably vote to

leave, is that right? If at the time of the referendum, things had not

changed, I would vote to leave and we have a golden opportunity to

perform the agenda. Richard, the last time the British people had a

say on this was over 40 years ago. Under a Labour government. Which was

deeply divided on the issue. And that was a say on the common market.

Today's EU is a very different animal from the common market. Why

can we not, under another Labour government, have another vote? First

of all, we want it to be more than a free trading area. We make no

apologies about that. But in the elections because this is half of

Britain's exports and investment. If you care about your job and

business, you cannot hear from the party of government that they

probably want you to leave because the CBI, the engineering employees

in Federation and the chimp of commerce, 80% of them say it is

necessary to stay in. So why not give us a vote? When David Cameron

says he wants to repatriate social powers, he means takeaway maternity

rights and holidays. If the case is so strong, why not give us an in-out

vote? David Miliband has said that there will be a referendum if there

was a proposal to change powers Why wait? This is based on a series of

reforms. Labour has a set of reforms. David Cameron is silent

about what they would be. That is because he knows that if he put them

forward, they would either be unsatisfactory to his Eurosceptic

backbenchers and he would be out of a job, or they would be unacceptable

to European leaders. Why is your leader missing in action? Ed

Miliband is unable to say even the positive things that you are saying.

He has run away from the argument. He actually said there would not be

a referendum in his time. For a conservative to say they will

have a referendum but not give the reforms, it is a mistake. Nick Clegg

gave Nigel Farage a huge opportunity in that debate. He said that the

Eurosceptic view was to leave Britain like Billy no mates. I can

say that he is the best qualified person to say that. Sarah Ludford,

you have said that lots of people are going to vote Lib Dem but that

is not what the polls are saying. You are 7% in two polls this

morning. Eclectic's decision to champion Europe has been a disaster

for you. You face wet out. We swayed a lot of people our way with Nick

Clegg's debate. Where is the evidence? We are the only party that

is completely united, saying that we are wanting to stay in. It is

essential because formally and jobs are supported by our trade with the

EU. Linked to the EU. We are finding a lot of moderate conservative

voters are actually fed up with the Tories being split and divided all

over the place. Syed Kamall saying that we might vote in rout. -- in or

out. We are consistent. A poll in London showed that 18% would vote

for us. I am delighted about that. London is not the whole country it

may surprise you. We need to move on to immigration, an important issue.

We are a member of the EU and the rules say that with a few caveats,

our fellow EU citizens are free to come here if they want. Why can we

not just accept that? Britain has a proud record when it comes to

immigration. We have been open to people across the world for

centuries. But we welcome people who come to our country to contribute to

pay taxes and two wards are a society positively. But there are

three real concerns that we have to address. The first one is numbers,

and secondly people who may come here not to work but for benefits,

and thirdly, getting a hang of the numbers. I think it is shameful that

only this week the office for National said that they did not

collect sufficient figures under a Labour government. 350,000 extra

people came in and they did not count the numbers. That is the size

of a city like Cardiff. That is shameful. 350,000 came from all over

the place. Do you accept the free movement of peoples within the EU? I

accept and am open to people who want to come here and contribute. In

the same way... Do you accept the free movement of peoples within the

EU? In our manifesto, we have said it is an issue for reform. We have

to make sure that people are coming here to work and contribute

positively, not simply to come here and take advantage of the system. I

will tell you what else is shameful. What is shameful is David

Cameron making a pledge to the British people on an issue that they

really care about, to bring net immigration down to the tens of

thousands a year, having no means of fulfilling that pledge. And we see

now it is back up to 212,000 a year because we have no volume control

and no quality control from immigration from our neighbours And

that is a disgrace. How could UKIP address that issue? Because we would

leave the EU. How? Tell me how. You do not have a single member of

Parliament. He will not get a single member of Parliament. How are

you... ? TUC are hoping to get an MEP. What do you say? -- he is here

today hoping to get an MEP. All of -- almost 2 million Brits live and

work in the rest of the EU. Is that worth having? The majority are

wealthy, retired people. Why do not object to bilateral agreements with

countries with similar living standards to us. France, the

Netherlands, that works fine. But these three people want Turkey to

join the EU, 75 Na Li and people running our country, only 10% of

which... Syed Kamall is Michael year to say whether they are in favour of

free movement for work, not for benefits... That is what I'm

saying. You said you were unable to be clear. That leaves 2 million

British people absolutely unsure as to whether they would have a right

to continue to live in other countries. It is a two-way street.

You are putting those people in a state of uncertainty. EU migrants

have been good for the British economy and contribute far more than

they take out in services and benefits. One in seven businesses

were founded in -- by migrants. And they cannot just turn up and claim

benefits. The coalition government has legislated to make sure that

they cannot claim for three months. They will not be able to claim for

more than six months. Richard Howitt, Jack Straw said it was A

spectacular mistake for Labour to allow EU migrants from Poland and

Hungary to work in the UK from 2004." Why should we trust a party

that makes spectacular mistakes and hasn't apologised for it? We accept

it is a mistake and I apologise We make a firm commitment for new EU

states we will put down transitional controls. When I listen to the

Conservatives and UKIP trying to re-write history, saying immigration

was out of control, uncontrolled, open door, we hear it over and over

again. It is not true. Anyone who was around at the time... Come on,

Richard. Hold on, you undercounted by 350,000. You were letting 2

million in over the years, an under-counted by 350,000 people you

didn't know came in. You should have tightened the benefit rules. The

Conservative MEP today has, in four years in government in Britain, is

trying it blame the previous Labour Government over the fact they won't

count people in or people out. Yvette Cooper - it is not easy for

people to come to the country and benefits are changing, changing the

habitual residence test and we are going to say that migrants can't

come and claim child benefit if their children are outside the

country. Labour a has shown they have listened to concerns but we say

it is a stronger, better, country because it is diverse and

multicultural snoo.d this is fantasy politics from all the Peters. They

are committed to a system with no volume control and no quality

control. You talk about benefits as if it is only out of work benefits.

In work benefits cost a lot of money for the British taxpayer. Big

businesses bring in minimum wage workers. It is ?5,000 per perschool

place What are you going to do? Have all the pensioners come back to

Britain? How will will you fund the health care? Do you really think

Spain and pour tu ghal their current situation, are going to turn their

backs on British property owners with wealth? -- Portugal. They might

not wanting pensioners to use their health service. Pensioners often

come back to Britain to use the health service. You have shown it

represents wealthy people's interests. A second Conservative

Party. Hang on a minute... Blue collar wages were down. They want it

character for the National Health Service, have cuts that go farther

and comprehensive education. This is a debate on the wider politics

between Conservatives and UKIP and Labour will... You can't both talk

time. UKIP - they haven't thought it through, thousand they will have

trade access in the EU, hasn't thought how they will have trade

deals that the Liberal Democrats support, like with the United

States: Would you have a cap on non-EU immigrants? We are not in

favour of a cap. No cap on either. No. Well it is a target. It is a

moving feast, as it were. Would you have a limit on non-EU limits? We

have limits on quality. We have people who are skilled migrants

coming in. Lip its? . By quality, not by quantity. -- Limits.

How do you do that? We need to move on to foreign affairs.

Should we pool more sovereignty to give the European Union more clout

in foreign and defence matters? I'm Labour's defence and foreign affairs

spokesperson. No we don't need to pull more powers into Europe. As we

undertake this live debate there are guns being fired in Ukraine as we

speak. Europe is facing, for the first time, since the end of the

Second World War, Armies crossing national borders and floatening

peace. Doesn't it -- threatening peace. Doesn't it need to come

together of the We don't need more powers. We need political will. With

Vladimir Putin, in my view, he has -- we have fallen short in the

sanctions. But it is Europe, not Britain. Remember Putin calling

Britain little England a small island with no influence. Labour

doesn't agree with that. But if that's the mindset that allows

someone like Vladimir Putin to send troops across borders threatening

peace, it is worrying. And when we have, in UKIP a party that say they

admire Putin and support his policies, that is no recipe for how

Europe should be wrong. I was waiting for that. Let me ask him. We

don't admire Putin as a leader. . Oh. No we don't. What Nigel Farage

said, was he admired him as a political operator. Testifies

Franklin D Roosevelt who said a good foreign policy was speaking softly

but carrying a big stick. The EU shouts its mouthed off while

carrying a matchstick. It is fantasy that you wiebl it stand up to Putin

over the Ukraine. -- that you would be able to stand up. Do you admire

what Putin is doing in the Ukraine? No. What matters in foreign policy

is the outcould. We have a terrible outcome in the Ukraine, like Syria,

and Georgia... What would UKIP do? What u skip would do, would be to

keep our people safe -- UKIP. How? And not commit our Foreign

Office and troops Foreign wars. Patrick O'Flynn. You brought up this

issue of foreign wars. Now Nigel Farage said in previous debates that

Britain should leave the EU because, "We have had enough of endless

foreign wars." Which wars has the EU taken us into? The EU has ban very

important factor in the push towards trying to get military intervention

in Syria, for example. What wars has the etch U taken us into it -- EU.

Fortunately the EU doesn't have its own army yet. It has wanted to sign

up to an expansionist agenda. Did it want Iraq? No, that was Labour. UKIP

opposed Iraq, so did most of the mainline Europeans. Germany was

against Syria and Libya. No EU policy. We had an Anglo French deal

on Syria. A by lateral deal. A European dimension. No, buy lateral.

We have a European Union that wants to expand ever-more into other

people's spheres of influence. If we are going to stand up to what Putin

is do, which obviously Nigel Farage has no intentions of doing, you have

to get your act together on economic sanctions and diplomatic force and

in trade matters, in supporting eastern European countries. Sayeria,

who and whose army? And NATO and working transatlanticically, is

important through NATO. I will come to you in a moment. Nick Clegg said

that the idea of an EU Army was "A dangerous fantasy that is simply not

true ""Why then, are we already working on etch U-owned and

controlled drones -- EU-owned and the President of the European

Parliament has said that the majority of MEPs want the EU to have

"deployable troops." He is not speaking for me or Liberal

Democrats. The EU does not and will not have an army. Our defence is

mainly shaped through NATO. He is President of the Parliament What we

must do is to get equipment which can operate together. We waste an

awful lot of our spending in Europe because we duplicate equipment. We

don't get the bang for our bucks that we should. It is a useful role

for the EU, to get equipment working together. That doesn't make sense.

You say military equipment, a NATO job. No, the EU, there is a kind of

dimension of the EU members of NATO, in working together on a common

quument o o so they can talk to each other -- on common equipment, so

they can talk to each other. The EU has a role but not an army. So a

European defence agency, that helps our defence industries and those

jobs are extremely important and would be threatened if the

Conservatives and UKIP took us out of Europe but it is 100 years since

the start of the fist world war Remember that Europe was set up to

try to get a secure peace within Europe T succeeded. Now look on

Ukraine but also on the southern borders to the Arab Spring countries

in North Africa. It is more important than ever that we work to

keep keep peace and stability on our borders. Can I say to Syed and the

Conservative MEPs. You talk about the three Rs, I have a fourth,

retreat. If you take us out of the European Union, it will be the worse

retreat by Britain since Gallipoli. Let him answer If he wants answers

-- the British Parliament is the right place with a British Foreign

Secretary to decide our foreign policy. You say that, but can I

quote David Cameron, this is germain to what you are saying, David

Cameron said "There is no doubt that we are more powerful than

Washington, Beijing and Delhi, because we are a powerful player in

the European Union." Do you agree? He is saying that there are times

when it comes to international foreign affairs when you have to

cooperate with partners. Often they are EU partners but often they are

not. The problem we have... Washington have made it very clear

that it wants Britain to talk through Brussels. No, not at all.

Talk through the French and Italians, come on, wake up? Through

the EU collective. I'm vice chair of the EU delegation. I hear it from

the American counterparts. They want the EU to get itself together and

not least on Ukraine. Why should our sovereignty be at the behest of .. ?

I want to hear from Syed calm amplgts the British Parliament is

the right place to decide our foreign poll sinchts sometimes we

work with our European partners sometimes we work with our

non-European partners. It is our choice to pull sovereign trito work

together. G, we move on to our foirt area. We hear a lot in this country

about MPs expenses. Snted the real scan dalt MEPs gravy train. -- isn't

the real scandal, the MEPs gravy train? You all have your snouts The

trough? I don't think so. There is transpancy. The way we use our

expenses is online and anyone can ask to examine those. We have

actually voted to reform MEPs' allowances. We regularly vote but

unfortunately the majority in Parliament don't. Have you voted to

cut them? Yes. By how much? About 5%. A 5% We hoped to have economies

I never fly except across the Atlantic. Difficult to do it any

other way. I didn't swim. But we voted for economy flutes We

voted for European Parliament policy of transparency which other groups

haven't. UKIP don't turn up to vote. They don't earn their salaries.

Dhoent do anything. They should hand their salaries and allowances back.

You can't ause UKIP of being on the gravy train and the other that we

don't claim our attendance allowance because our MEPs are not there. Your

attendance allowance is if you are there, you are saying we don't turn

up You are in the building and claim the allowances. You are not an MEP,

UKIP are so ashamed of what their MEPs have done in Brussels, they

didn't field a sitting MEP for today's debate. I think each party

decides who it wishes to field. I have the honour of being the UKIP

representative. I would say by going in the past few weeks, xeeming to me

saying - we are sick of the others. -- people saying to me. : We are

quite excited. Can I ask Patrick O'Flynn. He says he touched a chord

and his party is strong in the polls today, between 18% and 20%. Haven't

you also struck a chord with hip crasscy. Two of your MEPs were

jailed for expenses and benefits' fraud. Two more asked to pay back

?37,000 for using European funds. Nigel Farage has boosted about

getting ?2 million in expenses and he went on to employ his wife as a

secretarial allowance after telling other members not to People who do

wrong and break the law, go to ja. I have no time. -- go to jail. People

who spend money they are not entitled to should pay it back and

that's right. But what UKIP does and the good UKIP MEPs do, is use the

allowances they are given to pursue the political agenda they put up

when elected which is to get Britain out of this superstate. Instead of

using it for parliamentary work Very interesting. Richard Howitt. We

were the first British political party to have independent audits of

our MEPs' expenses, from 1990, way before the expenses crisis blew up.

The Maria Miller scandal has of course hit David Cameron and the

Conservative Party hard as it should do. But you are right, even in my

own region you have UKIP candidates and councillors who have been

charged with fraudulently filling out election papers and other shot

lifting. Another independent inquiry found he made racist comments. We

had a European candidate last week in Hertfordshire who got a parking

ticket from the police and called the police fascists. These people

aren't here. I'll let you have a quick reply We

can bring up parochial cases. Let him answer. Not so long ago a

Liberal Democrat councillor was sent down for firebombing, I don't say

they are a bunch of arsonists, but now I think, Nick Clegg might have

burnt some cactuses, once. I'm glad you pronounced that word carefully.

Syed Kemal, the EU's auditors, they are strongly critical of the EU s

financials saying "Errors permist in all main spending areas", the

financials are poorly managed. It is a shambles And that's something that

all parties agree on. As we agree on expenses, the British parties are at

the forefront of transpancy. Every year when we vote for the discharge

of the budget, the Conservatives also vote for it but we don't get

enough MEPs from other countries to investigate in favour. The Liberal

Democrats have put forward to make each Finance Minister, George

Osborne and his counterpart to sign a declaration to say all EU money is

properly spent in my country. Funnily enough they don't want to do

that but I look forward to you confirming that George Osborne will

sign it. All the time we hear it is about the money we pay in, about

?150 per family per year. What about the money that comes back? ?1.

billion that comes to Britain's regions because of being in Europe.

I myself helped to negotiate a fund to help Britain's food banks to

ensure so. Poorest and most destitute people... Isn't it our

money that went there first. Can I tell you the Conservative-led

Government have blocked us from claiming that money. If you want to

have the clearest choice at these European elections, it is between...

Tell us why. It affects our rebate. Tony Blair gave away our rebate He

is quite right. Lib Dems fought to make sure that we apply for money to

help with flooding. That is what the Tories were blocking. If you want

the clearest example at the European elections, the Conservative Party

and MEPs blocked the cap on bankers bonuses, and then blocked a Labour

victory to get money for free banks. We need to move on to the

future. It is important and people are watching. The EU's Justice

Minister says that we need to build a United States of Europe with the

commission as its government. Is she right? Not at all. But the future,

if we take the next ten years, thinks about climate change and the

fact that we are not going to hit of the two degrees target. Europe has

led and needs to lead towards getting a new sustainable world It

is the political will to use these powers, so she is wrong. It is about

the threats from abroad. Labour reforms like getting a commissioner

for growth and rebalancing the budget, reforming the common

agricultural policy, all of those things will need to happen to make

Europe more democratic and open But against the rise of Brazil and

China... We do not need more treaties and powers. We need more

action with more Labour MEPs. Sarah Ludford, you would sign up to that?

No. Unless they do not think that should concentrate on institutional

matters. What we need to do is concentrate on making Europe

progrowth and competitive and create more jobs in a competitive world. We

need more trade deals to open up our exports, we need to streamline the

EU. We need less red tape and Liberal Democrats have done a lot on

that. We need better scrutiny of EU legislation at West Munster because

the national parties... More powers or less for the EU government? In

some areas, I would like to see it slimmed down. Including, I am not

sure whether the EU should be funding food banks. I think that is

a national responsibility. Dearie me. The EU have to concentrate on

the economy and climate change. This is the coalition talking. If we want

to fritter away political capital on things which are interfering in

national matters, then we do not have the support to tackle those big

challenges. Would you still want to join the Euro one-day? Now is not a

good idea. We wanted the Eurozone to still be sound, which is why... Did

not ask you that. Do you want to join the Euro one-day? If it is a

success and it did the economy. Now is not the time but in principle,

the idea of a single currency has advantages. That was a yes. We are

not ruling it out for ever but not in the foreseeable future. It is not

on the horizon. What would our relationship be with Europe in the

future if UKIP got its way and we left? We would be trading partners

with Europe and we would seek partnership in specific serious I'd

tell you what, can I just say.. Would we be Norway? We would be

stronger than Norway because we are the biggest export market in the

Eurozone. We can negotiate a bespoke trading agreement reflecting our

enormous importance. Not on services, which make up 80% of the

economy. We are the biggest export market in the Eurozone. Our biggest

exports are services and they would have to agree to free trade and

services. They still have not. Can I read you something? Let me read you

something. There would be a free trade agreement in place the day

after our exit. Germany would demand no less. Who said that? Not somebody

from UKIP, but Digby Jones. Mr business. He is talking about

goods, not services. Norway has that and they have no say. You would have

to accept the EU rules without any say. No MEPs are commissioners. Let

me give you another. Enough. One is enough. Syed Kamall, is it not

looking forward pretty much Mission: Impossible for Mr Cameron to get

anything like the repatriations of powers that would satisfy your

irreconcilables? My father was a bus driver in the 50s and one of the

reasons I am here today is because he told me that you can achieve

anything if you work hard. He said to me, do not listen to the

doubters. When people tell you that something cannot be done, it is a

sign of their limitations, not yours. They said that we could not

pull Britain out of the bailout mechanism but we did it. He said we

could not be to a -- veto European treaty and we did that. They said we

would never cut the budget and we did that. The first ever. But

overall, we are paying more into the European budget. And they are not

sticking to it. More, not less. They say that we cannot achieve reform

but we have achieved reform and we are at the forefront of that.

Science's father came to Britain because Britain was open and looking

outward. What the Conservatives now have, with leaderless Cameron, is an

inward looking attitude. They are allowing the rise of UKIP. They are

putting so much at risk. People should vote Labour. We are going to

have to stop now. No point talking because we are about to finish. I

think you all for a spirited debate. I'm sure Nigel Fries and Mr Clegg

will have learned a lot about how to debate. -- Nigel Farage.

It's just gone 3pm, and you're watching the Sunday Politics. We say

goodbye to viewers in Scotland who leave us now for Sunday Politics

Scotland. Coming up here in twenty minutes, the

Scotland. Coming up here in twenty Good afternoon to you and wdlcome to

the later edition of the Sunday Politics here in the West Country.

Coming up, we will examine the Government's promised to be the

greenest on record. The Prile Minister went to the Arctic to show

just how green he was beford the last election, but after backing

fracking and going nuclear hn Somerset, his opponents clahm it was

just green wash. Our guests this afternoon are the Liberal Ddmocrat

MP Tessa Munt and Molly Scott Cato who is the Green candidate hn the

European elections. More from them in a moment. Let's turn our

attention to trust in polithcians. On the same day that Maria Liller

resigned from Cabinet over her expenses, a Bristol MP was `lso in

hot water over her parliamentary paperwork. The Conservative

Charlotte Leslie failed to record the nation Star constituencx

association in the register of members' interests. `` faildd to

record donations. Charlotte Leslie offered this apology.

Although I'm registered dyslexic and sought to put in place additional

administrative support as a result, I take complete responsibilhty for

this. I'm unspeakably sorry that despite all the efforts I m`de as a

new MP to get things right, I have nevertheless made this very serious

error. And I want to reiter`te my heartfelt apologies to the House and

have sought the earliest possible opportunity to do so.

She now faces an investigathon by the Standards Commissioner which

could last months. She's also called on Parliament to offer new LPs more

support when they take office. When you first come into Parliament

as a new MP, you don't have an office, you often struggle to find a

secretary, you have to find somewhere to live, you have to find

a constituency office, therd is a lot going on. I had a brand`new

secretary who had never dond this before either. I was new, she was

new. It would be useful at that point have someone who is

experienced, perhaps a civil servant, just in that first month to

take MPs through and just m`ke sure that right at the outset whdn

everybody is new that things are done as they need to be dond and

guide people through. Tessa Munt, you were a new LP in

2010. Are things really that complicated?

I think they are unnecessarhly bureaucratic. I think all of us know

that we have to declare all of our donations and this sort of thing.

This is what this relates to. You declare donations to the Eldctoral

Commission. Then you have to declare them all over again. She is claiming

that new MPs can't cope with this. I have said this is a completdly

different thing from the Maria Miller thing, because Charlotte had

declared what she had received, it's just that she did not know, and it

could happen to any of us... It's all about trust, though, isn't

it? Yes, but declaring it twice is a bit

daft. You're good mates, aren't you? How

will she be feeling? She will be feeling horrendous.

Because this will feel in the current somewhat febrile clhmate as

though she has done something dishonest, she has not. She has made

an administrative slip, I wouldn't be quite so generous if there was

anything wrong, but she has declared to one body without realising that

you have to declare to the other body. Why we don't just declare to

one body and everybody else taps into that, I don't know.

Molly, are you so sympathethc? I think even if we accept this might

be an innocent mistake by Charlotte Leslie, when we allow rich people

and big companies to fund politics there is always a suspicion it is in

exchange for favours and lobbying interests, and the obvious way to do

that is to tax rich people `nd companies properly and then fund

political parties through a public funding system like they do in

Germany. It seems to be the rational way to proceed.

So taxpayers should pay for your campaign?

Not taxpayers, no. These rich companies who at the moment are

choosing which parties to ftnd. They should be forced to fund you?

To fund a democratic system. If we believe in the democratic sxstem,

then I think that should be publicly funded, and I think companids and

rich people should pay enough tax to enable that to take place.

That would mean taxpayers. That does mean taxpayers because

effectively they put their prices up. Are you suggesting that

companies should fund the BNP? I think parties should be ftnded

relative to how much support they have. That's the system thex have in

Germany. Then you never allow parties to

grow, that's the trouble. That is exactly how parties do grow. For

example, the German Greens were publicly funded and they were able

to grow as a consequence, whereas we are struggling all the time.

The Liberal Democrats, we h`ve always existed on a relativdly small

night of money, and over a period of 30 years we have gone from... They

used to say that all of us could get into one taxi to a point whdre. .

But all parties have got into trouble over funding, haven't they?

You have to take funding from big corporations to enable that, and

that is the problem, I think. And I think it would be much bettdr to

have... If we want to have ` democracy, we have to pay for it.

And you could stomach it evdn if it was funding a party on the far left

or the fascist right? Well, we might question UKIP. I find

UKIP completely unpalatable, but if people want to vote for thel, that

is what democracy is about. Thank you.

Remember David Cameron's plddged to be the greenest government dver

Four years on his government's track record is under attack from those on

the other side. It was a PR coup. Eight years ago

the Conservative party's new leader used huskies to boost his claim that

we should vote Lou to go grden. `` we should vote loser. `` vote blue.

That was before he joined forces with environmentally minded Liberal

Democrats in government. Clhmate change is in my view, a revhew, the

greatest challenge of our thme. We in both of our parties made a

commitment to go further and faster than ever before. I want us to be

the greenest government ever. A very simple ambition, and one th`t I am

absolutely committed to achheving. The coalition, though, have changed.

Some more than others. In opposition, George Osborne joined in

with the jolly green stuff, like promoting low`energy light bulbs.

But as Chancellor, he has t`ken strikingly different tone.

We are not go to save the planet are putting our country out of business.

So let's at the very least resolve that we will cut our carbon

emissions no slower but also no faster than our fellow countries in

Europe. That is what I have insisted on in the recent carbon budget.

What of the government's tr`ck record? Green measures incltded

ruling out new runways at Hdathrow and elsewhere, raising greenhouse

gas reduction targets and introducing rising taxes on big

carbon emitters. But against that, critics point to a rise in carbon

emissions in 2012, and thosd same taxes on big carbon emitters have

been frozen. Visiting a tid`l energy firm in Bristol on Thursday, the

energy secretary was bullish. We've actually done amazing things

on the green agenda. Look at renewable electricity, we h`ve

doubled the amount of power going to people's homes from renewable

sources, and we are set to hncrease that, we are set to beat our own

targets. Internationally we have been leading the way in the way the

world tackles climate changd. Being green means different things

to different people. The government, including the Liberal Democrats

believe that kicking off a new generation of nuclear power stations

is crucial to cutting carbon emissions. The Greens emphatically

disagree. They protested at the Somerset plant on Thursday.

The hypocrisy at the heart of this government's energy policy hs

immense. Leading the charge, the MP Caroline

Lucas, recently called to opposition over fracking. `` recently hn

court. If you look at the latest btdget,

more subsidies to things like fracking, oil, the Chancellor

himself said we will get evdry drop of oil out of the North Sea, he said

proudly during his budget statement. I don't think anybody could be in

any doubt at all that this government would not now grden if it

saw it in the face. Next month the diggers are going to

prepare for the new reactors. These fields, a bit like government

policy, soon won't appear so green. Merlin Hyman keeps close tabs on the

government's green credenti`ls. He's the chief executive of Regen

SouthWest. It helps promote renewable energy projects. Hs this

the greenest government ever? It's a pretty mixed record. If you

look at renewable energy, some of the policy framework and wh`t has

been achieved is actually pretty good. But a lot of the mess`ge has

been pretty confused, and coming from the Treasury or the pl`nning

department, you have heard some pretty mixed messages. For companies

who are thinking of investing millions or billions of pounds into

major project or a range of projects, that kind of sign`lling is

not helpful. I think we havd missed out a little on the opportunity to

pioneer a new renewable energy sector and create jobs and

opportunities because of th`t confuse messaging that sometimes

comes out. Is there an appetite among the

general public to pay for rdnewable energy? To pay the excess that you

have to? At the moment we pay about ?50 on

our energy bills to incentivise renewable energy, and I think most

people, and I do spend a lot of time going out and talking to colmunities

I think most people say the fact that in an uncertain world, when we

say things like the Ukraine crisis and Vladimir Putin threatenhng to

turn off the gas, when we h`ve some natural and clean resources, and we

can generate our own energy locally, that is pretty much common

sense. What we see is the price of that coming down pretty raphdly In

the Telegraph just today we saw article suggesting that sol`r power

would soon be cheaper than fossil fuel sources.

But talk to you, Tessa Mont. Lib Dem in charge of liberal policy, how are

you greener than Molly from the Green party?

We have taken the power we have been given as Secretary of State running

that department and we have brought in some green policies. If xou

compare it to governance from the past, I don't think you can deny...

Fracking? Fracking is Matt.

But you are part of the govdrnment! Going hell`bent for fracking?

Norway! Molly, are you greener?

If they think this government is not living up to expectations, the

Liberal Democrats should le`ve the coalition.

We have got the green deal, we could do it better.

The green deal has been a dhsaster. That happened 30 schemes funded and

they were looking for 10,000. You are against nuclear, yot are

against fracking, you are against call, you are against a barrage

What are you for? The main thing we need to do is

reduce our energy demand. In terms of the energy we need to

generate... Does that mean not using my washing

machine or not driving a car? Does that mean?

Increasing the efficiency of all products people use, that is

important, but also changing our communities so that people have to

travel less. Flying abroad less for business trips, that is part of

its. But we also want to sed more renewables onshore and offshore And

as Merlin Hyman already pointed out, if you support nuclear and support

fracking, you are taking funding from renewable funding.

We see conversations coming up to manifestoes and elections, there is

a risk of making a terrible strategic mistake. The rest of the

world is going rapidly towards renewable energy. 70% of new

electricity capacity in Europe last year was renewable. China h`s

massive investment in renew`ble energy, and we have a huge

opportunity. We have great resources, opportunities,

companies. But you always need the back`up for

when the sun does not shine and the wind does not low.

The idea is to have the European interconnected system. Somewhere in

Europe they are generating electricity, no need to better

interconnectivity to deal whth that.

Germany have gone to renewables their emissions have gone up as they

have had to use coal to fill the gaps.

That is true, but over time that'll be resolved because of the

investment. Important thing to remember is that a lot of it is

owned by communities, some of the people that own the wind farms are

benefiting from them. That is important. As we develop

renewables will need to eng`ge local people and local communities much

more. That is happening. Thanks for coming in.

The Liberal Democrat MP for Taunton has compared his party to a shopping

trolley with a wonky wheel but always veers towards the left. Now

he has written a book that `ppears to pool that trolley sharplx to the

right. The Race Plan calls for the top rate of tax to be cut, he wants

more free schools, and on transport feedbacks big investment in

infrastructure with a huge new airport. He has accused his fellow

Liberal Democrat of being too timid. I asked him if he was talking

down his own party. I don't think I am being disdainful

of the Liberal Democrats. I recognise that we have got some

difficulties at the moment but we have made very substantial

contribution to the governmdnt of this country.

It doesn't sound as if they are doing anything right in your book.

I am trying to make a big argument, and that is that the whole world

order is changing quite dralatically with the rise of countries hn Asia,

China and India and others, and the question for countries like Britain,

one of the established powers, is what do we need to do in order to

overhaul ourselves in order to make sure we continue to be prosperous

and influential in a much more competitive world.

You are calling for the top rate of tax to be reduced to 40p.

I am in the same place as Gordon Brown and Tony Blair were. H think

40p is a reasonable rate. I think it is easy for people to understand, it

is a fair burden on people hn different incomes.

The Tories don't dare do it. I can speak for the Conserv`tives,

all I'm saying is what I thhnk will make Britain a competitive country.

But people will say, this gty is in the wrong party.

I don't see why favouring the top rate of tax the same as Tonx Blair

makes me conservative. Tony Blair was a labour Prime Minister, and I

am Liberal Democrat. The West Country is a Liber`l

Democrat stronghold, so what are people in the West supposed to think

of this? Nick Clegg is therd saying that he is the break on number ten

stopping the Tories doing something that is too radical. And now you are

being more radical than all of them.

I want the Liberal Democrats to be the accelerator rather than the

break. Do you accept they are the break at

the moment? Sometimes that is the mode we going

to. In politics there is a place for stopping people you disagred with

from doing things they want to do, but I think generally it is a

mindset I am uncomfortable with to think that the main defining role

you have is not to put forw`rd your own ideas for how to make the

country a better place but stop people using their ideas. I want the

party to be more self`confident more outward looking, more bald. I don't

see liberalism is being a ddfensive ideology about splitting thd

difference between others, trying to download the ideas of other people.

I think liberalism can be a radical and progressive policy.

But you are fundamentally ott of step with the party.

I don't accept that. Is that why you are fired?

Nick Clegg made the decision, you will have to ask him.

Is it a bid for the leadership? There is no vacancy for the

leadership. I won't argue, why, if the Liberal Democrats did not exist,

why would it be necessary to invent us? And I don't think it is to have

a party that dilutes the vidws of other political parties, but I do

think that having a bold, ottward looking and authentic liber`lism is

part of the solution to the country's predicament and l`wmakers

more prosperous in the future. Tessa you have brought his book You

have been queuing in the shops for that. Is your poster boy, or is the

outsider? I think some of the points he makes

are probably good in that hd would probably have to invent the Liberal

Democrats if we were not here already. I would say that I possibly

disagree with some of the things he is saying. I have not read the book,

but I feel we have offered our own acceleration.

He says that Nick Clegg alw`ys says, I have stop them doing that and I

would stop maybe doing something else, and that is not very

inspiring. Absolutely, but look at what we have

done in government. Jeremy hs talking about the future, btt look

at what we have done. We have thousands of people in Somerset

having had a tax cut, millions of pounds going into schools.

Are you a left of centre party? I don't think we are, we ard

liberal. Would you support the top r`te of

tax as 40p? After we sort out the shambles of

National Insurance attributhon is that people start paying at ?8, 00.

We need to make sure that N`tional Insurance conurbations don't get

charged... Molly, part of his thesis is how do

you prepare for the emerging world which is very competitive. Lakes the

point that while we have bedn faffing around about a new runway at

Heathrow, the Chinese have built easy to airports. What is the green

response to that? The green response is to protect us

where we are and protect people at home and not focus so much on being

globally competitive and focusing on growth.

What would that do to stand`rd of living?

It would improve it because we would create more luckily `` more locally

based jobs. His idea is to get government OAS are competing with

people with Laura working conditions and that's not something I would be

part of. Without the command economy?

It would be a command econoly. Liberalism was always about small

government, and the reason ht failed because people suffered at work

Rampant capitalism meant th`t they had very poor conditions and also

destroyed the environment. We have seen other political movements come

along to respond to that. Let's take a look back at the

political week as we set thd stopwatch 46 the second. `` 62

seconds. The Mirror Swindon apologisdd over

remarks about disabilities. An independent panel found him guilty

of breaching a code of condtct. A former Mayor of Cheltenham has also

had to say sorry. She says she was not thinking when she made ` remark

about rape during a debate on housing. Motorists face a hhgh end

tools over the Clifton Suspdnsion Bridge. The Transport Secretary

approved arise from 50p to ?1 after an enquiry. Money will be spent on

repairs and maintenance. Grden belt campaigners in Gloucestershhre lost

out in their battle on houshng. Councillors have improved the plan

which will see 40,000 homes built in Gloucestershire and Tewkesbtry. And

the West has its first schools Commissioner. Former music teacher

said David Carter takes up the post and will decide where new academies

are built on behalf of the government.

Molly, 30,000 new houses in Gloucestershire. You must approve.

We think local communities should maintain the power to decidd where

houses are built, and that has been completely centralised and Dric

Pickles is overturning our decisions locally, so we have lost control of

planning. How many committees would s`y,

building next to me? It is not in favour of the

committees, it is in favour of their builders and that is what is ruining

planning. People still do not have enough

places to live. Thousands of people on waithng

lists, we have to make sure houses are affordable and built in a really

sound environmental way so that people have good standards `nd have

space to live. If I had my way, what I would do is let every comlunity, I

would give them the right to choose where it goes, but the

responsibility of making sure they provide for it.

And that's just about all for us. Are thanks to Molly Scott C`to and

Tessa Mont. We are back in Lay to follow all the twists and ttrns of

particular candidates. Back to you, Andrew.

The sun's out, Ed Balls has run the London Marathon, and MPs leave

Westminster for their Easter break. Let's discuss what's coming up in

the Week Ahead. We will get more of what we have

just seen. Let's look back on the debate. What did we learn from the

argument is? That it is going to bore and irritate whole lot of

people, this election campaign. Four parties shouting at each other about

things that most people do not know much about. They know very little

about how the European Parliament works, what an MEP is supposed to

do. A lot of heat and not a lot of light. I've updated well, all of

them, but the net effect is not going to encourage people to go out

and vote and not many do. One thing that struck me was that on Europe,

the Labour and Lib Dem positions are not that far apart. They are pretty

much the same. And yet the knocks lots of each other. I suppose they

feel that they had to do that because that is the format. I'd

agree with Polly. Their word UKIP and the Tories to attack two we try

to make it exciting, and we know the issues are important. But people out

there have not heard of these individuals. It is not very

exciting. That is worrying because these are huge national questions

for us. We need to find a way of making it more fun. People may not

know these MEPs, they may not know the detail of the debate, but it is

an issue on which people have strong opinions. It is a visceral thing for

many people. Especially on the immigration issue. The debate took

off and became more vociferous at that point. To a large extent, you

wonder whether not only this European election but the eventual

referendum will be a referendum on the issue of immigration and free

movement. If we did not learn much from the argument, the thing we did

learn is that the structure of these televised debate influences the

outcome. One of the reasons that Nigel Farage did well in the debate

is that in a two-man debate, each man has as good a chance as the

other. If it is four people, one man can be ganged up on. Patrick O'Flynn

did well for a man who is not an elected politician yet. At times, 40

came under attack and did not hold the line as well as you would

expect. Does that create a perverse incentive for the main parties to

agree to a four way debate before the general election? I do not think

the David Cameron has nearly as much to worry about from a televised

debate in the run-up to the elections than his spin doctors

believe. When you put him up against Ed Miliband, and we have not

actually seen Ed Miliband in that format, I think he will come off all

right. This is an election which the polls would have us believe that the

battle for first place is between UKIP and labour. It certainly is.

Obviously, it is neck and neck and we will not know until we are

closer. And it matters a lot to both of them. If Mr Miliband does not

come first, that is not good news for the main opposition at this

stage. Except to some extent all of the people will put it to one side

and say that this is a bizarre election. A plague on both your

houses, let's vote UKIP. It is not clear how much that translates into

the next election. It is not too disastrous for Labour. It would be

better if they came first. If Mr Miliband comes first, not a problem,

but it becomes second and UKIP soars away, what are the consequences I

think there is a widespread expectation already at Westminster

that UKIP is very likely to come first. If Ed Miliband fails to come

first, there will not be a great deal of shock in the West Mr

village. Else think what is remarkable about Ed Miliband is that

despite consistently poor personal leadership approval ratings, the

overall Labour poll is consistently very high. We have seen that budget

blip, it seems to have taken us back to where we were before. Leadership

is not everything. Mrs Thatcher was miles behind James Callaghan but in

the end, it was the party politics that mattered more. If Mr Cameron

comes third and the Tories come third, maybe a poor third, is it

headless chicken time on the Tory backbenchers? It has often been said

that the Tory Party has two modes, complacency and panic. You will see

them shift into panic mode. By June, I think. Many of the stories in the

sun will be about David Cameron s personal leadership and his grip on

the party. There will be pressure on conference by the time that comes

around. It is a natural consequence of being the incumbent party. The

Lib Dems are 7% in two of the polls today. It was widely thought that in

the first and second debates, Nigel Farage won both. In retrospect, was

the challenge strategy a disaster for Mr Clegg? I do not think it was

because he had nothing to lose. But he is lower in the polls than when

he started. He has not lost a great deal. The polls were quite often

that low. I think it was a good thing to do. It raised his profile.

It made him the leading party in. That may be a difficult place to

be. That is how you end up with 7% in the polls. The reason he is

fighting with Labour is that he knows very well that all he has to

do is to get his votes back that have gone to Labour and labour have

to fight hard to make sure that they do not go back. Every party looks to

where it is going to get it support. If it is a wipe-out for the

Lib Dems, and they lose all their MEPs, not saying that is going to

happen but you could not rule it out for, are we back in Nick Clegg

leadership crisis territory? One of the astonishing things about this

Parliament is the relative absence of leadership speculation about Nick

Clegg will stop at the first couple of years, his position seems

tricky, but maybe that is because Chris Hughton is gone and he was the

only plausible candidate. This cable is not getting any younger, to put

it delicately. That was not delegate at all! And we have reached a

desperate stage where Danny Alexander is talked about as a

candidate. That was not delegate either! Maybe he is holding onto

power the lack of alternatives. If they ended up with no MEPs at all,

and a less than double digits score... With Danny Alexander, it is

clear that Scotland, one way or another, will be moving further

away. You could not have the leader of a national party be a Scot. But

he does not have the following in the party. I'm glad you're liberal

attitudes to immigration extends to me. I would not have been here for

43 years. There will be leadership talk after that holes. It has been

bubbling in the background, but you have to talk to the grass roots

activists. -- after the polls. The grass roots activists are

despairing. If things are bad, they lose their network of activists who

they need to fight the next election. I think you mean, not that

you could have a Scot, but that it would be more difficult to have a

Scot from a Scottish constituency. Absolutely. I think a Scottish

constituency, so many things will be different. Or to hold the great

offices of state. Let's come onto the Crown Prosecution Service is. It

is an English institution. Where does the CPS and after losing yet

another high-profile case come this time Nigel Evans? They had nine

counts against him and they did not win on one. It is obviously very

embarrassing. They will have a bit of explain to do but I guess the

threshold for bringing these cases is high. There has to be considered

at least a 50-50 chance of actually winning the case. We do not know

what went on behind the scenes when they weighed up whether to bring the

case. Nigel Evans makes an interesting point about whether it

is legitimate to bundle together a number of stand-alone relatively

weak accusations, and when you put them together to militantly, the CPS

uses that to make a case. Is that a legitimate thing to do? He was a

high-profile figure, not just because he was a Tory MP. He was the

deputy speaker of the House. And yet the CPS are certainly the police, to

begin with they did not have that many people to testify against him.

And then they trawled for more. You wonder if they would have done that

if it was not for the fact that he was a public figure. The trouble is,

they are dammed if they do and dammed if they do not. Particularly

with politicians and the reputation they have these days, if there is

any suggestion that they let somebody off because they are a

high-profile politician, and they are saying that about Cyril Smith,

that is the accusation. A strange story. Most unlikely and very

bizarre. But that is the accusation. If there is any with of that, I can

see why the CPS says, we better let the courts try this one. Also, they

are in trouble overrated cases because their success rate on

bringing people to court for rape is so thin. When it looked as if his

accusers were not really accusing him, it looks quite weak. You cannot

help but feeling that they are falling over backwards now in

high-profile cases because of their abject and total failure over Jimmy

Savile. I think this is exactly the kind of case that happens when you

are trying to make a point or redeem a reputation or change a culture.

All of these big things. As opposed to what criminal justice is supposed

to be about, which is specific crimes and specific evidence

matching those crimes. The CPS has no copper a fleet joined in this

list of public and situations that has taken a fall over the past five

or six years. We have had Parliament, the newspapers, the

police will stop I think this is as bad a humiliation as any of those

because it is Innocent people suffering. You are the most recent,

being a lobby correspondent in Westminster, and we now see on

Channel 4 News that basically, Westminster is twinned with Sodom

and Gomorrah. Yes. I know. Is this true? It is all rather the red. I do

not move in those circles. And you were in the lobby at one stage? Not

that long ago. Is it right. Is it right to be twinned with Sodom and

Gomorrah? I'll ask him for his opinion. Being technically a member

of the lobby, I can observe some of this stuff. And what surprises me is

that journalists, when the complain about Sodom and Gomorrah, write

themselves out of it. It is as if it is just MPs. We are unalloyed and

unvarnished. Actually, the fact is it has always been a bit like Sodom

and tomorrow. Of course it has. Think about how we have had wave

after wave of stories and scandals. But less of it recently. It was I

think that attitudes have slightly changed. I'll also think that if you

get 650 people in any organisation and you put that much scrutiny on

them, you will find an awful lot going on in most people's officers

of a scurrilous nature. Even in the BBC

In 2013, the public voted for a portrait of

At times he's interesting, at times he's very funny,

My life is a very happy life and I'm a very happy person.

Will you feel nervous when this is unveiled?

I suppose being the centre of attention but for ever.