06/07/2014 Sunday Politics West


Andrew Neil and David Garmston with the latest political news, interviews and debate. Guests include Nick Clegg, Alistair Darling, Frances O'Grady and Matthew Hancock.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 06/07/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Up to a million public sector workers will strike this week.


It's one of the biggest walk-outs since 2010.


The country's top trade unionist Frances O'Grady and


Tory Business Minister Matt Hancock go head-to-head.


The Tour de France seems to have cheered him up - just as well


for the Deputy Prime Minister hasn't got much else to smile about.


Nick Clegg joins me live from Sheffield to discuss the


Just over ten weeks until Scotland determines its future.


The man leading the campaign AGAINST independence, Alistair Darling,


joins me from Edinburgh. In the West, selling your secrets.


And with me throughout the show, three top-flight political


journalists always ahead of the peleton - Nick Watt,


They'll be tweeting faster than Tour de France cyclists can pedal.


The news is dominated this morning by stories swirling


around allegations of an historic Westminster paedophile ring.


Concern has grown because of the disappearance of a dossier


handed over to the Home Office in 1983, along with over 100 official


files related to it and possibly containing details of historic child


Labour is calling for a public inquiry led by a child protection


But speaking earlier on The Andrew Marr Show this morning


the Education Secretary Michael Gove ruled that out.


The most important thing that we need to do is ensure that the due


process of law pursues those who may be guilty of individual crimes and


we also learn lessons about what may or may not have gone wrong in the


past, but it is also important to emphasise that many of the


allegations that are being made are historic. And what we do now in


order to keep children safer is better and stronger than was the


case when 20 or 30 years ago. Without getting into a boring


tit-for-tat, public inquiry, "yes" or "no"? No. Helen, can the


Government go on resisting calls for a full-scale inquiry? It is very


hard. There are cynical and non-cynical reasons for calling for


an inquiry. The cynical one allows you to say I can't comment on this.


The non-cynical is it manages to get people to air allegations in a way


that is safe. What we saw at the Leveson Inquiry was helpful, people


who felt they had been shut out from justice getting a chance to tell


their side of the story. A public inquiry in this case is a good idea.


Labour have called for a lot of public inquiries. A list was made in


2012 of how many they called for. Not only Savile, but the West Coast


Main Line and breast implants. On this particular issue, the people


don't trust the politicians, they don't trust the police either


because they may have been complicit in a cover-up. They may not trust


the Home Office who we are told some of their officials were mentioned in


the dossier? That is what David Cameron is hanging on to. This is a


matter now because they are alleged criminal activity, it is for the


police to investigate. In that big piece in the Sunday Times, Tim


Shipman reports one of the people making the allegations lives in the


United States making the allegations lives in the


been out to the United States to interview him. The Prime Minister


would say that is how serious the police are taking it. The problem


for the Prime Minister - he police are taking it. The problem


allergic to big public inquiry. His finest moment was his response to


the Bloody Sunday inquiry shortly after he became Prime


inrequest -- that inquiry took 12 years to report. The problem is the


dossier has gone missing, the files have gone missing, more allegations


keep coming out either directly or indirectly. It doesn't look like it


is going to go away? The fact the dossiers are missing means it is


inappropriate for the Home Office to be investigating this. There is


inappropriate for the Home Office to a police investigation. If after


that, there are questions unanswered which can only be answered by


that, there are questions unanswered public inquiry, or which require


resources that can only be commanded by a public inquiry, I could see the


case for going down that road. I fear that sometimes in this country


we invest almost supernatural powers in what a public inquiry can do. I


wonder whether there is another example of a country that goes


through this stale ritual every few years of a scandal emerging, the


opposition calling for an inquiry, the Government saying no and then


holding the line or giving in. I don't know what we think this


inquiries can do. It comes back to your point, Helen, you should be


careful what you call an inquiry on so it doesn't devalue the concept.


On Thursday up to a million public sector workers - including teachers,


firemen and council workers - will go on strike.


Their unions have differing gripes but the fact they're all striking


on the same day is designed to send a strong message to the government.


As the economy picks up again they're demanding an end


Growth has returned strongly to the UK economy


and unemployment is at its lowest level for more than five years.


So why is there still talk of austerity


The deficit is coming down but much more slowly than the government


And accumulated deficits - the national debt -


The UK is now in hock to the tune of ?1.3 trillion - and rising.


In fact, we're only 40% of the way through George Osborne's planned


austerity, with the chancellor now saying he won't manage to balance


Unions are now rebelling against tight pay controls.


Since 2010, average public sector pay, which goes to about 1 in 5


Over the same period, prices increased by 16% -


meaning the average public sector worker saw their pay squeezed


Going head-to-head on the public sector strikes and austerity -


the general secretary of the TUC Frances O'Grady, and Conservative


We have seen it, public sector pay squeezed by 9% under the Coalition


Government. Isn't it time to take your foot off the brake a bit? I


don't think it is the right time to let go of the public finances at


all. We were always clear that this is what's called a structural


deficit, it doesn't go away just because the growth is returning and


the economy is coming back. We have protected and are protecting the


lowest paid public sector workers who


lowest paid public sector workers many watching this programme, they


have had a 1% pay rise in some cases since 2010. The average gas bill is


up 57%, electric bill up 22%, food costs up 16%, running a car 11%, in


what way have you protected people from spending they have to make?


Firstly, you read out the average increases in public sector pay. That


has had the biggest impact at the top end and those at the bottom end


have been best protected, as best we could. Of course, we have also taken


two million people out of income tax and increased the income tax


threshold which has a big positive impact. We have frozen and then cut


fuel duty, which would have been 20 pence higher. I wanted to take on


this point about priorities. We have got to make sure that we get the


economy going at the same time and we raised more money from those at


the top than we did before 2010, partly because we have encouraged


them to invest. And this is a really important balance of making sure we


get the books back in order, we have stability for family finances and we


get the economy going. Why not spread the living wage? We know you


could pay for that pay increase itself if you spread the living wage


through the private sector and guarantee... The living wage being


above the minimum wage? Absolutely. ?7.65 in the rest of the country,


?8.80 in London. What is the answer? I'm a fan of the minimum wage. But


not for public sector workers. Being able to pay low-paid workers as much


as possible within the constraints of the public finances is something


I have pushed very hard. The evidence we can increase the minimum


wage has to be balanced which the Low Pay Commission do with the


impact on the number of jobs... Even after a pay freeze for quite a while


among public sector workers, they are still paid 15% on average more


than those in the private sector? That is not true. It is, according


to the ONS figures. I read that report this morning. If you look at


the whole package, what they are saying is public service workers are


worse off. Average earnings in the public sector are ?16.28 an hour


compared to ?14.16 private. You are comparing apples and pears. It's the


kind of jobs and the size of the workplace that people work in. They


are still overall on average better off? Lower paid workers tend to be


better off because unions negotiate better deals for lower paid workers.


They are more unionised in the pry private sector. The public sector is


worse off. This is a political strike, isn't it? There is a whole


disparate range of reasons. The strike is saying that you are


against this Government, that is what this is about? I this I what


firefighters, local government workers and health workers who are


protesting, too, alongside teachers are saying is that this Government


is not listening, it is out of touch, people can't carry on having


cuts in their living standards depending on benefits. When will the


public sector worker ever get a real increase in their pay under a


Conservative Government? Well, we certainly hope to have the books


balanced by 2018. Not before then? 2018 is when we hope to be able to


be in surplus. It is testament... So, no real pay increase for public


sector workers before 2018? Interestingly, this isn't just about


the Conservatives and the Lib Dems, the Labour Party leadership have


said it is a test of their credibility that they support the


squeeze on public sector pay. I look forward to them, they ought to come


out and say very clearly that these strikes are wrong and they are


against the strikes and stop taking union money. It is a democratic


right. Hold on. They are - they think the policy of pay restraint is


necessary. Alright. On this point about democracy... Ask yourself why


so many ordinary decent public service workers are so fed up. They


have seen so many billions of pounds wasted through outsourcing to


organisations like G4 S. In Unite and UNISON the turnout in this vote


was under 20%. Alright. OK. One final question... Hold on. You said


millions and millions voted on this... I want to ask you this


question. Is the story in the Mail on Sunday today that Mr Cameron's


planning a big crackdown on the unions over balloting, is that true?


Well, strikes like this... I know the cases, is it true you are going


to dhang the law? Strikes like this make that argument stronger. The


Conservative Party is in Government on the basis of 23% of the


electorate... We have run out of time. Thank you very much.


"Should Scotland be an independent country?"


That's the question the people of Scotland will answer in a referendum


If the polls are to be believed, the voters will answer "no".


But in 2011 - ten weeks before the Holyrood elections - the polls


told us that Labour was going to win and look what happened there - a


Alistair Darling is leading the campaign against independnence.


is one that puts the matter of independence to bed for a


generation. In numerical terms, what would that be? We need a decisive


result in September, I think we will get that provided we get our


arguments across in the next couple of months. What would it be in


figures? I am not going to put a number on it. People will look at it


and say, OK, you have had two and a half years of debate and Scotland


has now decided. The polls may be encouraging at the moment but I am


not complacent, there is still a long way to go. Speculating... If


you don't want to answer that, that is fair enough. Your side claims


that a vote for independence is a vote for massive uncertainty but if


it is a no vote there is lots of uncertainty too. All of the


Westminster parties are promising devolution but there is no


timetable, no certainty. Yes, there is. For the first time I can


remember, all three parties are more or less on the same page in terms of


additional powers, we already have powers in terms of policing and


transport, now more powers are planned in relation to tax and


welfare. But you are all saying different things. Between 2009 and


2012, the three parties have slightly different proposals but


they came together and there was an agreed series of reforms in relation


to tax which are now on the statute book. If you go back to the


devolutionary settlement in 1998, people unified around a single


proposition so there is history here and these three parties have


delivered and they will deliver in the event of people saying we will


stay part of the UK. If Scotland vote no to independence, when will


Scotland get these extra powers? I would imagine that in the general


election all three parties will have something in their manifesto and you


would expect to see legislation in the session of Parliament that


follows that. Imagining is not certainty. Because the three parties


have said this is what they will do, and it is important having said that


they stick to it. If you look in the past when the Nationalists said the


same thing, when they cast doubt over what would happen in 2012, we


delivered. The only party that walked out of both of these


discussions were the Nationalists because they are not interested in


more powers, they want a complete break. You cannot say that if


Edinburgh gets more devolution that wouldn't mean fewer Scottish MPs in


Westminster, can you? Nobody has any plans to reduce the number of MPs.


If you step back from this moment, what people have been asked to do in


September is to vote on the future of their country, Scotland, and


whether we should be part of the UK. When I say part of the UK, full


members of the UK with representation in the House of


Commons and the institutions that affect our lives. This is a


critically important vote. We want to see more decentralisation of


power to Scotland, and to local authorities within Scotland, but we


don't want a complete break with the uncertainties, the risks and the


downright disadvantages that would throw Scotland's away if we were to


make that break. The economic arguments are dominating people's


thinking, the polls show, that is what is dominating at the moment.


You cannot guarantee continued membership of the European Union


given all the talk now about an in-out UK referendum. Firstly I


don't think anyone has ever argued Scotland wouldn't get back in. The


big question is the terms and conditions we would have to meet and


we are applying to get into something that is established, it


wouldn't be a negotiation. What we have said is there is no way Europe


would let Scotland keep the rebate which Scotland has, there would be


big questions over whether we have to join the euro, and other terms


and conditions. The European Union does not act with any great speed,


on average it takes eight and a half years to get into Europe. I don't


want that uncertainty or the disadvantages that would come


Scotland's away that come with losing clout in the European Union.


The second point you asked me about is in relation to the UK's


membership of the European Union, and if you look at polls, the


majority of people still want to stay in the UK. Frankly, a lot of


people on my side didn't make the argument against independence for a


long time, we have been doing that over the last two and a half years


and we are making progress and that is why I can say I think we will win


provided we continue to get our arguments across. Similarly with the


European Union, the case needs to be made because it is a powerful case.


Isn't it true that the Nationalists win either way? They win if it is a


yes vote, and they win if it is a no vote. They wanted devolution max so


they win either way. There is a world of difference between


devolution and further devolution where you remain part of the UK.


There is a world of difference between that and making a break,


where Scotland becomes a foreign country to the rest of the UK. You


lose that security and those opportunities. You lose the same


currency, the opportunity with pensions and so on. They are


entitled to argue this case with passion, they want a break, but the


two things are worlds apart. Gordon Brown said that the no campaign was


too negative, have you adjusted to take that criticism into account?


Ever since I launched this campaign over two years ago I said we would


make a strong powerful case for remaining part of the UK. Look at


our research, where we have had warnings from people to say that if


we do well with research in Scotland we get more than our population


share of the grand and we gain from that. There is a positive case but


equally nobody will stop me from saying to the Nationalists, look at


the assertions you make which are collapsing like skittles at the


moment. Their assertions don't stand up. They assert that somehow milk


and honey will be flowing. It is perfectly healthy within a


referendum campaign to say that what you are saying simply isn't true.


You have been negative, we all know about the so-called Cyber Nats book


you compared Alex Salmond to the leader of North Korea. On! The


context was that Alex Salmond was being asked why it was that UKIP had


additional seat and he appeared to blame television being been doing


from another country, from BBC South of the border. If you cannot have


humour in a debate, heaven help us. I think it is important in this


debate that people from outside politics should be allowed to have


their say whatever side they are on because that will make for a far


better, healthier debate. Nobody should be put in a state of fear and


alarm by worrying about what will happen if they stand up. Despite the


nastiness, more and more people are making a stand. We have run out of


time. Thank you. I will be talking to the SNP's


hippity leader, Nicola Sturgeon, next week on Sunday Politics.


Scotland: For Richer or Poorer will be on BBC Two at 9pm tomorrow.


Disastrous results in the European elections, it is fair to say the Lib


Dems are down in the doldrums. In a moment I will be speaking to Nick


Clegg, but first Emily has been asking what Lib Dems would say to


Clegg, but first Emily has been blocks of our success. The


councillors who gets the case work done are also the people who go


councillors who gets the case work always a danger of appearing to be a


party that merely dilutes Labour or dilutes the Conservatives. We have a


of is serious, positive messages and we need to get those across in the


next election because if we don't people will vote for the Tories.


Nick, what do you think of the party's message at the moment? I


have had a look at early draft of our manifesto and there is some good


stuff in there but the authors are probably too interested in what may


think we have achieved in the last five years and not really focusing


on what the voters will want to be hearing about the next five years.


Perhaps they should get out more and test some of these messages on the


doorstep. So you want to see the top ranks of the party on the doorstep.


Gareth online one also wants to make a point about the manifesto. There


is clearly a problem somewhere near the top and there are some people


who seem to be obsessed with power for power's sake, and happy with a


timid offer but the Liberal Democrats want to change things. We


are running out of time so let's try to squeeze one more call in. What


are your thoughts on the long-term future of the party? I think serious


long-term danger is that the party could be relegated to the fringes of


the UK and no longer being a national party. We have gone back


decades if that happens because for many years we have been represented


in every part of the country at some level and we have got to rescue


ourselves from that. Some interesting views but we are going


to have to wait until the general election next year to find out how


well the Lib Dems face up to these challenges. Thanks for listening, we


are going to finish with an old classic now.


# I'm sorry, I'm sorry... #. Nick Clegg, welcome to the


programme. I want to come onto your situation in a minute but as you


will have seen in the papers, there is mounting concern over and


historic Westminster paedophile ring, and files relating to it


mysteriously disappearing. Why are you against a full public enquiry


into this? I wouldn't rule anything out. I think we should do anything


it takes to uncover this and achieve justice.


delivered, even all these many years later. How do you do it? There is an


inquiry in the Home Office about what's happened to these documents,


serious questions need to be asked about what happened in the Home


Office and those questions need to be answered. There are inquiries in


the BBC, in the NHS and most importantly of all the police are


looking into the places where this abuse was alleged to have taken


place. All I would say is, let's make sure that justice is delivered,


truth is uncovered and I think that the way to do that, as we have seen,


is by allowing the police to get on with their work. You say that, but


there are only seven police involved in this inquiry. There are 195


involved in the hacking investigations. We can both agree


that child abuse is more important and serious than hacking. The Home


Office, there are reports that Home Office officials may have been


mentioned in the dossier, people don't trust people to investigate


themselves, Mr Clegg? No, I accept that we need to make sure that - and


the police need to make sure that the police investigations are


thorough, well resourced. I can't think of anything more horrendous, I


can't, than powerful people organising themselves and worse


still, this is what is alleged, covering up for each other to abuse


the most vulnerable people in society's care - children. But at


the end of the day, the only way you can get people in the dock, the only


way you can get people charged, is by allowing the prosecuting


authorities and the police to do their job. I have an open mind about


what other inquiries take place. A number of other inquiries are taking


place. I assume any additional inquiries wouldn't be able to second


guess or look into the matters which the police are looking into already.


All I would say is that people who have information, who want to


provide information which they think is relevant to this, please get in


touch with the police. Alright. Let's come on to our own inquiry


into the state of the Lib Dems. You have attempted to distance yourself


and the party from the Tories, but still stay in Government - it is


called aggressive differentiation. Why isn't it working? It's not


called aggressive differentiation. It is called "coalition". It is two


parties who retain different identities, different values, have


different aspirations for the future. But during this Parliament


have come together because we were facing a unique national emergency


back in 2010, the economy was teetering on the edge of a


precipice. I'm immensely proud, notwithstanding our political


challenges, which are real, I'm immensely proud that the Liberal


Democrats, we stepped up to the plate, held our nerve and without


the Liberal Democrats, there wouldn't now be that economic


recovery which is helping many people across the country. Why


aren't you getting any credit for it? Well, we won't get credit if we


spend all our time staring at our navals. If it wasn't for the Liberal


Democrats, there wouldn't be more jobs now available to people. They


don't believe you, they are giving the Tories the credit for the


recovery? Well, you might assert that, we will assert and I will


shout it from the rooftops that if we had not created the stability by


forming this Coalition Government and then hard-wired into the


Government's plans, not only the gory job of fixing the public


finances, but doing so much more fairly than would have been the


case, if the Conservatives had been in Government on their own, they


wouldn't have delivered these tax cuts. They wouldn't have delivered


the triple lock guarantee for pensions or the pupil premium. OK.


Why are you 8% in the polls? Well, because I think where we get our


message across - and I am here in my own constituency - this is a


constituency where I am a campaigning MP - we can dispel a lot


of the information and say we have done a decent thing by going into


Government and we have delivered big changes, big reforms which you can


touch and see in your school, in your pensions, in your taxes and


then people do support us and, in our areas of strength, we were


winning against both the Conservative and Labour parties. It


is a big effort. Of course, there are lots of people from both left


and right who want to shout us down and want to vilify our role in


Government. What we also need to do - and Nick Harvey was quite right -


having been proud of our record of delivery, we also need to set out in


our manifesto as we are and as we will our promise of more, of more


support in schools. So why is it then... Why is it then that a Lib


Dem MP in our own film says you are in danger of no longer becoming a


National Party. That could be the Clegg legacy, you cease to be a


National Party? I'm a practical man. I believe passionately in what we


have done in politics. I am so proud of my party. I don't spend that much


time speculating that the end might be nigh. There is no point in doing


that. Let's get out there, which is what I do in my own constituency, in


challenges circumstances and say we are proud of what we have done, we


have done a good thing for the country, we have delivered more


Liberal Democrat policies than the party has ever dreamed delivering


before. We have a programme of change, of reform, of liberal


reform, which is very exciting. Just over the last few weeks, I have been


setting out our plans to provide more help to carers, to make sure


teachers in every classroom are properly qualified, that all kids in


school are being taught a proper core curriculum. That parts company


from the ideological rigidities with which the Conservatives deal with


education policy. Those are thing which speak to many of the values


that people who support us... Alright. When Mike Storey gets out


and about, he told this programme two weeks' ago that he finds that


you "are toxic on the doorstep". Look, as everybody knows, being the


leader of a party, which for the first time in its history goes into


Government, which is already a controversial thing to do because


you are governing with our enemies, the Conservatives, and on top of


that, doing all the difficult and unpopular things to fix the broken


economy which was left to us by Labour, of course as leader of that


party I get a lot of incoming fire from right and left. The right say


that I'm stopping the Conservatives doing what they want. There is a


good reason for that. They didn't win the election. The left say that


somehow we have lost our soul when we haven't. That happens day in, day


out. Of course that will have some effect. My answer to that is not to


buckle to those criticisms, those misplaced Chris -- criticisms from


left and right, but to stand up proudly. Is it your intention to


fight the next election against an in-out referendum on Europe? Yes.


Unless there is major treaty change? Our position hasn't waivered, it


won't waiver, we are not going to flip-flop on the issue of the


referendum like the Conservatives did. We want an in-out referendum.


With ve legislated for the trigger when that will happen, when in u


powers are transferred to the European Union. That is what we have


said for years. We legislated for that... So no change? No change.


Alright. We are expecting a reshuffle shortly. Will you keep


Vince Cable as Business Secretary to the election? I'm immensely proud of


what Vince has done. Yes, I intend to make sure that Vince continues to


serve in the Government in his present capacity Look what he has


done on apprenticeships, he's done more than many people for many years


to make sure we build-up manufacturing, the north here, not


just the south. I'm proud of what he's done. We have talked about some


heavy things. We know you have got into kickboxing. Is there any danger


of you becoming a mammal - you know what I mean - a middle-aged man in


Lycra! Will the Tour de France influence you? Absolutely no risk of


that whatsoever having seen the Tour de France start yesterday near


Leeds. I have the yellow Yorkshire sign on my pullover. I will see them


later whisk through my constituency. I will not try to emulate them. I'm


sure that is to the relief of a grateful nation. Thank you.


It's just gone 11.35, 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 20 minutes,


the Week Ahead. And here to play a spot of political


tennis are our two guess. Robert Buckland, Conservative MP in


Wiltshire and Todd Foreman who is standing as a Labour candidate in


Somerset. We will be chatting to them in a minute. But first,


wash`out Alex Salmond. It is not just some folk in Scotland wanting


independence. The West Country is getting more control over its


destiny. Spending power is being handed over to local authorities. Ed


Miliband is joining in. This is about giving local people power to


make decisions that matter to them. It is about saying that we cannot


have all the jobs created in London and the south`east. We have to make


sure that we have to create the high skilled jobs in this region and


right across the country and we will make it happen.


Let's pick up on that. Is this another way of Ed Miliband stealing


the coalition's thunder? He is later the party. Radical proposals about


devolving spending control have already been adopted. We have seen


here in the West Country that localism and devolution happening.


So welcome statements but we were here first. What does he mean when


we were `` when he says we will get more control over spending? Were


saying that regional areas, like the Bristol area, would get more control


over money that could be spent by LEPs. What are they? Partnerships.


It would help me in North East Somerset where I'm standing, part of


the area has a huge need for local development and more economic


development. Traditional industries like coal`mining and print works


have gone and had never been replaced. If we can work with local


government, with central government, distillate business wealth in that


area, `` to stimulate business wealth in that area, that would be


good for Somerset. One problem is that these local enterprise


partnerships meet in secret? No, they are open bodies and a welcome


representatives like me and my fellow MPs. They never invited me!


Well, if I was there, I would open the doors. It is important that they


explain their role. They have the `` they have significant powers. There


is growth fund money which is allocated and city deals that are


coming down the track. Devolution of real spending power to local


business leaders, local politicians. It is happening. I have to jump in,


we have seen that that money is not all been claimed. Money has been


allocated and it is not being claimed. There are funds available


Everybody knows we short of homes in this county but should we build new


ones on the patches of land that separate one town from another?


Some local MPs say never and want the rules about preserving the green


70 years after its creation, Britain's green belt seems imprinted


on our national psyche. When development is threatened, protest


can be passionate. Why are people pressing


Leading a protest in his local constituency is local MP. This has


been put up a sale with a development opportunity. My point is


that there is no development opportunity. The green belt is


protected. As the local MP, I was elected on a mandate to protect the


green belt. This week, a group of MPs will demand a financial penalty


for building on the green belt and more powerful local green belt full


`` for local people. I would actually


like to see green belt protection to go down to local level


and ward level and parish level. So that local people can say,


this is our land and we want to I have been working with MPs to come


up with something on this issue. Parish councillors would not be


swayed by talk of a housing need. I am told there is a shortage, but I


don't believe it. We need to make it very obvious and very well known


that local people, the residents of this parish, value the open spaces


almost with their life. An Englishman's home may be his castle


but he feels that surrounded are also passionately defended.


A professor who believes the green belt is strangling development.


Professor, we have heard from people who want to protect the green belt.


Put your case for building on it. We always say, don't build on my bit of


green belt but the problem is that the green belt is a vast area of


land. It covers more than seven times the area of the city of


Bristol, even within the boundaries of the city you have got 610 eggs ``


610 hectares of green belt land which is 6% of the area of Bristol.


So people have a mistaken idea of the green belt, that it is English


tourist board heritage countryside, which they have access to. It is a


very large area, more than twice as large in total across England as all


the build`up areas in the whole of England. `` the built up areas. We


need land to build houses. But do we want to build houses between Bristol


and Bath and Portishead? We do not need houses all the way? We do need


to protect beautiful countryside and high amenity land. But much of the


green belt is not like that. The argument seems to be a magical


mantra that we must average villages from cities. I live in London, I


don't think London would be a better place if there were three green


fields between Hammersmith and Chelsea or between Chelsea and


Westminster. That is the logic of what we are doing. Our cities have


historically grown by an accretion. Let's bring our other guests in. Is


he right, Todd? I disagree with Somerset. The vast majority of


north`east Somerset is green belt and it is the land between Bath and


Bristol. It is important to communities and quality of life.


What about people who, if you are elected as MP, will knock on your


door and say I want a house. What we need to do is fire at as building on


Brownfield site. We have done that. `` we need to prioritise a building


on Brownfield sites. If people want land, why should people not have it


if there is a scrappy bit greenfield land to build a house on? I live in


a house that was built last year which has enhanced the village I


live in. If we are going to build on green belt, it should be reserved


for exceptional circumstances. Robert? I think there is an essence


of a case which is that the green belt does not cover many large towns


and cities. In Swindon, we do not have a green belt, but we have


greenfield sites which are under pressure. I worry that in the debate


about green belt, a loss of greenfield sites, under more


pressure, unfairly, because other parts of the country will not take


their fair share. There is a local protest about development on the


green belt, and the local MP will be jammed there like a shot to curry


favour? It is not like that. We need to maintain the integrity of towns


and villages. Conurbations are one thing but the traditional towns and


villages of wherever sent and where I'm from, Wales, is important. If we


do not listen to people, democracy is failing. Have they convinced you,


Professor? Not in the least! We do need houses, but we need such a tiny


fraction of the green belt and preserving it 100% intact when it is


such a huge part of the servers of England, but pressure on other


places including greenfield sites and Brownfield sites which have high


amenity value. There is a case I know of in a site near London which


is the most important site for nesting for nightingales which is


under pressure for housing because it legally it is Brownfield land. We


should be protecting land because of its value, not because of its


designation. There is the idea that England is a built`up country. In


fact, 90% of it is not built on. If you drive from hit as wind and, you


will hardly the house. On the motorway, `` if you drive from here


to Swindon, you will hardly see a house. It does need to be a living


thing, like development. Because of the pressures that come on


non`greenbelt greenfield sites are disproportionate and unfair. We have


to leave it there. Professor, thank you for joining us.


Information about you and me may soon be stored


in a giant Cold War bunker deep beneath the Wiltshire countryside.


The government think that our private data is useful for all


sorts of reasons and it wants to gather it all up and keep it safe.


So it is setting up an institute to do just that, named after


Alan Turing, the genius who broke the Nazi codes during the war.


But why should we give them our secrets?


Every tweet, every set, every picture creates a digital picture.


We are producing data at a race unprecedented in human existence.


About what you like, what you might like. It is piling up and being


poured over. Every time you research on Google, they collect data on you.


Then you go to your tube, and they put all that data together to find


out about you to get inside your head and to give you adverts. Our


data is now routinely exchanged for goods and services. It is a digital


deal the government wants in on. This is 26 million square feet. We


are about 110 feet down now. Geoff Thomas wants to expand down here


into this mind. This is the emergency exit or


the back door to cite three. This would have been this


government backing the Cold War. And now the government could be


back. This physical space down here


lends itself perfectly to creating Jeff wants masses of data


from across government We can be `` we can bring datasets


from government and defence. That could then be mined and analysed for


the public good. We will have more information about what everybody is


doing or what things are doing so we can analyse things to get benefit


for society as a whole. This would all be part of the Alan Turing


Institute. The government promised to collect and crack big data in


honour of the man who cracked the Enigma code. The godfather of modern


computing. It is a continuation of the work Alan Turing was doing. The


Alan Turing Institute celebrates the genius that was Alan Turing and the


work that he did at Bletchley Park. So far, so good. But the public may


need some convincing that this is not just Big Brother. After the


revelations of people like Edward Snowden about what is being


collected, and how. This data that governments have, we should be


concerned. Their ability issues. In the corporate world, there is


informed consent. Personal judgement about whether giving of your privacy


is worth the value of the services you are getting. That is the


question for us all, particularly the digital generation. I found them


at this event is to find the Alan Turing peers `` Alan Turings of the


future. They are growing up with everything that entails. Daphne


Pritchett is a business lawyer who specialises in data protection. `` a


Bristol lawyer. Why is a government want all this information? There


were huge financial advances by people collecting information. For


research purposes and also a lot of good that can be done. Give me an


example? We had a recent example with the government trying to


collect information through a project which has caused controversy


into the health and social information care to research for the


better good of us all. Is there any harm in it? The harm is where it is


not done properly. We are at risk of that. The European Commission has


analysed this and highlighted the fact that there is innovation that


can be made through collecting innovation but also use potential


for breach of privacy. It is all about trying to do it in the right


way and making sure that individuals have the rights that they are


entitled to. You are a lawyer, do you trust the government to gather


information about all of us? I think it has to be beyond a question of


trust. It has to be underpinned by statute. We need to codify our laws


on privacy. We have a right to privacy, a qualified right which can


be qualified by national`security interests. But we have data


protection laws as well which I think need to be codified in a more


clear way so that we can balance our rights to privacy against the


interests of the national government. At times of national


emergency. How can the government abuses? `` abuse it. My worry is


that it is difficult to unpick the contest of the data and the fact


that you and I may have had a telephone call. `` the context of


the data. It may sound trivial but it is important. The government


could have access to all sorts of details about our private life which


could affect our insurance policies and aspects of our life and work. I


think we have to maintain a balance carefully. If the rights to be


concerned? I think Robert makes some good points. This is new technology,


new ways of using data which could have important applications but it


may be that the existing data protection law that we do not have,


had not been imagined for this. But we know that GCHQ is listening in,


that the American secret services are taking it in by the tonne. It is


too late, is the gene not already out of the bottle? Dashes the genie


not already out of the bottle? The United States is ahead of us and


there is concern among the poor relation `` the population that


their secret are out. We lock up our homes against burglars and yet the


most valuable aspects of our lives, our personal data, we often cavalier


about. I absolutely agree. You are quite right that the law that we


have at the moment is out of date. There is a new European regulation


being debated upon at the moment which is going through the European


Parliament. We are set to see very big changes which will hopefully


anticipate some of the problems, the challenges we are facing. How can


the perfect ourselves from having our databases to? Part of the


protection will come by insisting that organisations and the public


sector are collecting information fairly and getting informed consent


and sharing it properly and keeping it secure. Some of those things that


have not happened in the past because the Levels of fine have not


been fit for purpose. That is an important of point. The Levels of


the fines are really low. But why should the government not do it when


Google are already doing and they are a private company? I think that


any organisation should be within the law. We have a rule of law so


the data detection act applies to private and public. `` the Data


Protection Act. So we can trust government, but perhaps not the


private sector? I think it is right that every organisation should be


subject to challenge for the information they are collecting.


Google has been challenged for the use of information and will continue


to the `` to be so. This new European regulation brings in fines


which are a huge step up from the current level. It will keep it will


keep yours very busy. I certainly hope so! Every cloud. Mac thank you


for coming in. Now, time to condense every week ``


the week and a one minute. Here's our 62nd round up.


The chronic lack of family doctors came to the fore this week


when a surgery serving 6000 people warned of possible closure.


Two doctors at Saint Martin's surgery in Bristol resigned


because they said their workload was too much.


A Bristol teenager is behind this film to bring an end to


Applauded in a report by the Home Affairs Select Committee.


The MPs concluded that the authorities have failed over 100,000


A judge ruled that the controversial cull in Gloucestershire and Somerset


The case is likely to be heard before shooting badgers resumes


And some West Country teachers mutated into zombies after school


They claimed increased workloads have left them brain dead.


as the row over their pay and pensions continues.


We will start with the strikes, Matt Hancock was hardline in the


head-to-head that he did with the TUC. I guess that the Tory internal


polling and focus groups must be telling them that there are votes in


taking a tough line? There is that and there is the fact that they are


now much more confident on any economic policy two or three years


ago. They shied away from it because the economy was shrinking, there was


still a danger that public sector job losses would lead to higher


unemployment overall. Now, the economy is growing, they have a good


story to sell about employment so they are much more bolshy and brazen


than they were two or three years ago. They know that it always causes


problems for Labour. Labour is naturally sympathetic to the public


sector workers, pay being squeezed, they are striking to make an issue


of it. And yet they can't quite come out and give the unions 100% Labour


support? Exactly. You saw Tristram Hunt on the Marr Show this morning


squirming to support the idea of strikes, but not this particular


strike. It was always the question that gets asked to Labour - who


funds you? That is a real problem. The bit that gets me is they trail


this ef are I time there is a -- every time there is a strike, this


idea of cutting it to ballots and local election turnout was a third.


Boris Johnson was elected Mayor of London with 38% turnout. We need to


talk about-turnout across our democracy. That is an easy rebuttal


for Labour to make. Matt Hancock was hardline about changing the strike


law. When you asked him the question, if you are not going to


stabilise the public finances till 2018, does this mean the pay freeze


or no real term pay increase in the public sector will increase till


2018, h e was inner vous on that one. -- he was nervous on that one.


This strike is different to those strikes that took place in 2010. At


that time, the TUC and the Labour Leadership thought there was going


to be a great movement out there, not a kind of 1926 movement, but a


great movement out there. This time round, I think the climate is


different. Ed Miliband talking about wage increases being outstripped by


inflation and people not seeing the recovery coming through into their


pay packets. Slightly more tricky territory for the Tories. If The


Labour machine cannot make something out of Matt Hancock telling this


programme there will be no increase in pay for workers in the public


sector till 2018, they have a problem? They do have a problem.


They have to say always that they would not just turn the money taps


on. That is the dance that you are locked in all the time. Can we all


agree that Alan Johnson is not going to stand against Ed Miliband this


side of the election? Some politicians are cynical enough. I


don't think Alan Johnson is one. Do we agree? There is nothing in it for


Labour and certainly not for Alan Johnson. No way. It is the last


thing he would want to do. There are some desperate members going around


trying to find a stalking horse. Alan Johnson will not be their man.


He has more important things to do on a Thursday night on BBC One!


Isn't it something about the febrile state of the Labour Party that


Labour, some Labour backbenchers or in the Shadow Cabinet, can float the


idea of this nonsense? If there was a time to do it, maybe it was in the


middle of the Parliament. With ten months left, you are stuck with the


leader you chose in 2010. I remember them failing to understand this in


January of 2010 when there was that last push against Gordon Brown. Five


months before an election, they were trying to do something. The deputy


Leader of the Labour Party had something to do with it. There is


deep unease about Ed Miliband. There are problems but Alan Johnson is not


the man. I think there is no chance of it!


If the most recent polls are to be believed, David Cameron appears to


have enjoyed a 'Juncker bounce' - clawing back some support from UKIP


after he very publicly opposed the appointment of Jean-Claude Juncker


to the post of EU Commission president. Last week Nigel Farage


took his newly enlarged UKIP contingent to Strasbourg


for the first session of the new European Parliament.


These two gentlemen have nothing to say today. It was the usual dull,


looking back to a model invented 50 years ago and we are the ones that


want democracy, we are the ones that want nation state, we are the ones


that want a global future for our countries, not to be trapped inside


this museum. Thank you. I can see we will be covering more of the


European Parliament at last! It's rumoured he's likely to stand


in the next general election in the Kent constituency of Thanet South,


currently held by the Conservatives. Last week the Conservatives selected


their candidate for the seat - Craig McKinlay -


a former deputy leader of UKIP. Did you get the short straw, you


have got a seat that Nigel Farage is probably going to fight? Not in the


slightest. It is a seat that I know well. It is a seat that there's


obvious euro scepticism there and my qualities are right for that seat.


UKIP got some very good... What are your qualities? Deep-seated


conservatism, I was a founder of UKIP, I wrote the script back in


1992. My heart is Conservative values. They are best put out to the


public by me in South Thanet. It would be ridiculous if Nigel chose


that seat. We need a building block of people like myself to form a


Government if we are going to have that referendum that is long


overdue. I don't think he's got the luxury of losing somebody who is


very similar in views to him. He would be best look looking


elsewhere. You wouldn't like him to stand in your seat, would you? It


would seem to make very little sense. People would say what is UKIP


all about if it's fighting people who have got a similar view to them?


We do need to build a majority Government for the Conservatives


next year because only us are offering that clear in-out


referendum. I want to be one of those building blocks that is part


of that renegotiation that we will put to public in a referendum.


Sounds to me like if the choice is between you and Nigel Farage next


May in Thanet South, it is Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee? Not at all. The


danger to this country is another Labour Government. That is one of


the main reasons that I left UKIP in 2005 because that last five years of


the Labour Government was the most dangerous to the fundamentals of


Britain that we have ever seen. I'm happy with the Conservatives. I have


full Conservative values. I am a Euro-sceptic. Thank you for joining


us. The Westminster bubble yet again, which has a herd mentality, a


bubble with a herd mentality, it got it wrong yet again. Mr Cameron's


isolated, he is useless at diplomacy, all of which may be true,


but the British people liked it and his backbenchers liked it? True.


Although some of us would say it is possible... You are speaking for the


bubble? I'm speaking for my segment of the bubble. Some of us argued


that he got it wrong diplomatically and it would be wrong politically.


It will be the passage of time. We saw UKIP decline between the 2004


European elections and the 2005 General. You would expect something


similar to happen this time round. The question is how far low do they


fall? They are still registering 12-15% in the opinion polls. They


are. When Mr Cameron wielded his veto which again the Westminster


bubble said it's terrible, it is embarrassing, he overtook Labour in


the polls for a while doing that. He's had a Juncker bounce. If you


were a strategist, would you not conclude the more Euro-sceptic I am,


the better it is for me in the polls? In the short-term, yes. This


is the short-term thinking we are supposed to despise. The electricion


is very clever for a different -- the selection is very clever for a


different reason. It is this anti-London feeling in Thanet South.


He is a councillor, he grew up in the constituency. He is a chartered


accountant. He is somebody who can be seen to be a champion of local


people. If they had parachuted in a special adviser, they would be in


real trouble. He wants to get out... This is the third representative of


the bubble? He wants to get out of the European Union which David


Cameron doesn't want to do. It was interesting for that statement to


MPs on Monday, there were mild Euro-sceptics who said, "I can't


take this." The Speaker said can the baying mob, the Conservative MPs,


quieten down, please. Ben Bradshaw, the former Minister made it, he


said, "I'm reminded when the leader of the Labour Party before Harold


Wilson made that famous Euro-sceptic speech and Mrs Gaitskell said


darling, the wrong people are cheering." That is the challenge.


Thank you, bubbles! The Daily Politics is back


at its usual Noon time every day And I'll be back here on BBC One


next Sunday at 11pm for the last Sunday Politics of the summer - I'll


be talking to Scotland's Deputy Remember, if it's Sunday,


it's the Sunday Politics.


Andrew Neil and David Garmston with the latest political news, interviews and debate including interviews with the deputy prime Minister, Nick Clegg, former chancellor Alistair Darling, Frances O'Grady of the TUC, and skills minister Matthew Hancock.

Download Subtitles