06/07/2014 Sunday Politics West

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.