13/07/2014 Sunday Politics West


Andrew Neil and David Garmston with the latest political news and debate. Andrew is joined by Scotland's deputy first minister Nicola Sturgeon to discuss Scotland's referendum.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 13/07/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Just two months to go until Scotland decides if it should stay


As the campaign heads for the final furlong,


what are the issues and arguments that will determine the result?


The SNP's deputy leader Nicola Sturgeon joins me live.


David Cameron's scheduled a major cabinet reshuffle on Tuesday.


Many of those tipped for promotion are women.


So have efforts to promote diversity in public life barely started or


And don't know whether to support Germany or


In the West, the return of the slave political guide to the World Cup.


In the West, the return of the slave trade.


It's World Cup final day and as usual the BBC's snagged the


Yes, eat your heart out, ITV, because for top football analysis


we've got Gary Lineker, Alan Hansen, and Alan Shearer.


And for top political analysis you may


as well tune in to them too because all we could come up with is Nick


David Cameron will reshuffle his cabinet on Tuesday.


The Sunday papers are full of stories telling us who'll be


in and who'll be out, though they don't really know.


The Mail on Sunday has one of the more eye-catching lines,


reporting that former defence secretary and right-winger Liam Fox


is in line for a return to the political front line.


But there's general agreement that women will do well and some


of the old men in suits guard will do badly.


Here's senior Tory backbencher David Davis speaking to this programme.


It's good to make parliament more representative.


But you've got to do it in a way that doesn't create


injustices, and you can't put people in a job who can't do the job.


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


accelerated too far too fast and they come to


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


I am not going to give an example. Is this not a bit cynical? He is


going to promote these women into cabinet positions, but they will not


be able to do anything. I am sceptical of Cabinet reshuffle. It


is an un-written pact in that the media and


is an un-written pact in that the that picture of the all-male bench


at Prime Minister's Questions because visibly it gave you the


problem that you have been talking about. I do not think he has allowed


it to be all-male since that embarrassing image. I can understand


the criticism made of this approach if it was the case that all the


women being promoted by talentless but you have to be very harsh to


look at them and say that they would have much less to offer than the


likes of Andrew Lansley. You can be pro-feminist. The tests for David


Cameron is that having raised expectations he has to give them


substantial jobs. They have to be given departments to run or big


portfolios to carry. If they are given media campaign positions in


the run-up to the election it looks perfunctorily. He is under some


trouble to perhaps suggest a female commissioner to the European Union


Commission. Jean-Claude Juncker has made clear that if he proposes a


woman candidate they will get a better job. Saying they would like


ten out of the 28 to be women. We are going to get the name of the


British candidate at the same time as the reshuffle. The first


face-to-face meeting, he will be able to put a name. There are other


names in the frame. People like Archie Norman. That come from? His


name is in the frame. There would be great scepticism of giving it to


Andrew Lansley. People would think he was the man who mucked up the


reform of the NHS. Who is it going to be? Either a woman or a man. I


would not be surprised if they go for someone believe dynamic. Someone


who would square the party. Would that not mean a by-election? It


might. She is a high profile Eurosceptic. She is a very competent


former banker. It would be the smart choice. I have no idea but my


favourite rumour is Michael Howard. That had some legs for a while.


The Mystic Megs of Fleet Street predict with confidence that the PM


is going to promote more women in his cabinet reshuffle.


The move can be seen as part of a move across British public life


to do more to make our institutions less male and less white.


But as the list of schemes to encourage diversity


grows ever-longer, have we abandoned the idea of appointment by merit?


Tunnelling. Hard hats, and all for new trains. It does not get more


macho than the Crossrail project. When Crossrail looked at the


construction industry they realise that less than 20% was made up


construction industry they realise women and they asked, can we fix it?


They are trying with a recruitment drive that has brought in female


engineers like this woman. She even has a tunnel named after her. Having


more female engineers and construction brings a bigger range


of opinions, a bigger range of ideas, more diversity, into the


industry, and makes it better as a whole. It is the issue being


grappled in another male dominated workplace, the Cabinet. There is


about to be a reach shuffle and the rumour is David Cameron is going to


promote a lot of female ministers. It was a lack of promotion that


annoyed Harriet Harman this week. She claimed Gordon Brown did not


make her Deputy Prime Minister because she was a woman. It was


strange that in a hard-fought highly contested election to be deputy


leader of the Labour Party, and having won against men in the


Cabinet, to succeed to be deputy leader of the Labour Party I


discovered that I was not to be appointed as Deputy Prime Minister.


For women in this country, no matter how able they are, the matter how


hard they might work, they are still not equal. There are initiatives to


make the world feel more equal. In the City the EU wants a quarter for


women in the boardroom but that goal of making 40% of the top floor


female. At the BBC the boss of the TV division says no panel show


should ever be all-male. In the ever glamorous movie business the British


film Institute announced their new thematic system to get lottery


funding projects improving diversity on screen and off and helping social


mobility. Employers like Crossrail are not allowed to positively


discriminate but under the quality act of 2010 if two candidate for a


job are just as good you are allowed to base your decision on


characteristics like race, sexuality and gender. Some worry it has


chipped away at the idea of hiring on merit. A woman and three men


going for a job, two of the men are really good and the woman is not


quite as good but she gets the job anyway. That will create injustice,


a feeling that she did not deserve the job, resentment. It does not


advance equality in society at all. On this project they want to leave a


concrete legacy of a more diverse construction industry. The question


is, what tools do you use when it comes to the rest of society?


I'm joined now by Yasmin Alibhai-Brown,


a columnist for the Independent, and by Munira Mirza, the deputy


mayor of London responsible for education and culture.


Cabinet wee shovel coming up punches though. Should David Cameron be


promoting women? He is going to do it anyway. He should have a long


time ago. It does not feel quite right that a few months before the


election it would do the party a lot of good to be seen as a party


properly reflective of the entire population. He should promote women


because they are women? I think he should think about lots of different


factors, whether the people he wants promote have proven themselves in


their current reefs, whether they are good performers in the media,


whether they represent different parts of the party, but the main


principle is to promote on basis of merit. There are many talented women


who fill that description. It should be that merit is the important thing


rather than what you were born with. The thing about positive


discrimination as it flies in the face of that kind of principle. You


are shaking your head. We have always had positive discrimination.


Men of a certain class have appointed in their own image because


they feel most comfortable with that. We have had unspoken positive


discrimination in this country and every other country throughout


history. We are asking as women, all minorities, let us get into the same


game. What do you say? You cannot solve the racism or the sexism of


the past by more racism and sexism. It is not the past. There are


complex reasons why a smaller number of women will appear in certain


industries. It has a lot to do with childcare, education, expected. You


cannot short cut that by setting a target. That is not how you achieve


equality. Things are changing and more women are appearing in


engineering and so on but it will take time. My worry is that these


kinds of measures are counter-productive and undermine the


perception that women can do it on their own merit rather


counter-productive and undermine the perception that women can do it than


because they need a helping hand. It is not a helping hand. It is to say,


we are as good as men and these hidden barriers. Dot. Either they


are not as good or they do not want it, which is just how we persuade


are not as good or they do not want it, which ourselves that it is not


happening, or there are barriers. How we judge meritocracy is at the


heart of it. Are lots of industries won there are not that many women,


such as engineering. We need more engineers generally. I think it is


fine to try to encourage more women to study that subject. By setting a


target you put pressure on an organisation. You tried to ignore


the complex reasons why women do not go into those sectors. I think an


all-female short list achieved miracle in Parliament. This is


following up from having an injection of women coming up because


the system was changed and a large percentage of women went into


Parliament under the all-female short list were brilliant, so why


not? So if the Prime Minister is mailed the Deputy Prime Minister has


to be female and vice versa? Yes, absolutely, 50-50. We need to


reflect the population. If we want to play this as a symbolic gesture,


ideally we should have one of each. Why should a man get the job if you


have a great female prime minister and a great female Deputy Prime


Minister? I personally wouldn't mind this. I hear the disgruntled man and


I want to come -- them to come with us. You're choosing people on the


basis of traits they were born with. Are there too many Indian


doctors in the NHS? I would argue not. Given that we tend to have male


prime ministers rather than female ones, and we don't see another


female one coming down the pipe very quickly... In the time before women


short lists by the way. If you had a male prime minister with a female


Deputy Prime Minister, wouldn't that give some balance? Why women? Why


not working class person, which group do you prioritise? I would go


with you that we need something fundamental to change. This idea


that what we have now is a reflection of a genuine meritocracy


is highly questionable. I would argue that when you look at the


statistics things are changing. argue that when you look at the


statistics things There are more women appearing in parts of public


life, that is a long-term trend, but if you are trying to appoint people


on what they were born with... That is not the only reason but it is an


additional reason. She has to be able to do the job, obviously. I am


saying the policy of hazard to discrimination explicitly state that


you should choose somebody who is female because they are female. At


the moment there is already enough suspicion about women who are


successful to get to the senior position and if you institutionalise


it you reinforce that suspicion. Harriet Harman is still complaining


women are not being treated fairly. I think the policy reinforces the


prejudice that women are not getting there because they are treated on


the same basis. Although you may not want to have the all-female short


list forever, wasn't it the kind of shock to the system that made a


visible change in female representation, which the Tory side


hasn't got? Of course it will work short-term but longer term it has a


very degrading effect on the principle of equality and the fact


Harriet Harman is saying she wasn't treated equally, whether it is true


or not, the perception is still there. A number of women find this


position must be reserved for a woman lying patronising, and


speaking of patronising women, you spoken your Independent column, she


presses all of the buttons for white people... Was that patronising and


offensive? Probably. I wrote it because I felt that at the time but


the point is that I was a token when I was appointed. The paper brought


me in because I was a woman and I was a muslin or whatever. You are


not writing about yourself. I was writing... It doesn't mean you don't


criticise other women. We absolutely have to be tough, Manira is tough


and so am I. Do you want to take back what you wrote? No. Do you


really think positive discrimination has gone too far? I think there is


already a suspicion out there that in certain sectors women are being


promoted for the wrong reasons or ethnic minorities are being promoted


for the wrong reasons. That is a shame and my worry is that by tying


funding to your ethnicity or your gender, by saying you will get a


promotion if you check that box, but you feel that resentment and


prejudice and undermine the case for inequality. I wanted to be treated


equally, because I am capable of doing that job. Only two months to


go before Scotland takes its biggest constitutional decision in 300 years


- should it quit or stay with the UK? For some in Scotland campaign


has been going on forever. What has been the impact on the campaign to


date? been the impact on the campaign to


George Osborne says there will be no monetary union. President Barroso


George Osborne says there will be no have any of it in an independent


Scotland, why take the risk? All of these things should be the case


because they are in the best interests of Scotland and the rest


of the UK but we want the powers to enable us to grow our economy


faster, to be productive, and overtime increased the prosperity of


people living in Scotland. We also want powers over our social security


system so that we can create a system that meets our needs, one


that also has a safety net for the most vulnerable people in our


society. Independence is about letting us decide our own


priorities. You didn't answer my question, you cannot guarantee you


would be able to keep the pound within a monetary union, stay in


NATO and the EU, you cannot guarantee you could produce any of


these things, correct? I would argue that we can because these things are


also in the interest of the rest of the UK. No country can be prevented


from using the pound, I suggest we use that within a formal monetary


union. We have had the UK minister quoted in the Guardian saying the


position of the UK Government right now is one based on campaign


rhetoric and following a yes vote, of course there would be a currency


union. Who is that minister? The Minister is unnamed, but


nevertheless that story in the Guardian was a solid one and not


substantially denied. So you are basing your monetary policy on one


on named minister in one story? Basing it on Common sense because


monetary union would be in the best interests for Scotland but also


overwhelmingly in the interests of the rest of the UK, given their


trading relationship with Scotland and the contribution Scotland's


exports make. We are having a very good debate and the UK Government


and the no campaign, and this is not a criticism, want to talk up in --


uncertainty to make people feel scared, but after independence there


will be constructed process of negotiation. Let's stick with the


monetary union because most economists agree it would be very


good for an independent Scotland to have a monetary union but George


Osborne, Ed Balls, Danny Alexander are unequivocal, they say you won't


get it. You claim they are bluffing but again you cannot guarantee that


so why the risk? I would say the benefits of independence are


substantial but I would also say to George Osborne and his counterparts


in the other parties that it would be a very brave Chancellor that says


to businesses in the rest of the UK that they have to incur unnecessary


additional transaction costs of half a very brave Chancellor that says to


businesses in the rest of the UK that they have to incur unnecessary


additional transaction costs of half. What we are doing is making a


case that is based on common sense and voters in Scotland will listen


to that case being put forward by the other side as well, and they


will come to a judgement of the common-sense position. Let's look at


EU membership because you haven't been able to guarantee the monetary


union. When President Barroso said that a seamless transition to EU


membership for an independent Scotland was anything but certain,


and one said it could even be impossible, you dismissed him


because he was standing down, but been -- venue EU president says the


same, do you dismissed him? What we are doing... I should say at the


outset of this, we have said repeatedly to the UK Government,


let's go jointly and ask for a formal opinion on the EU


commission. The EU commission have said they will only do that at this


stage if the UK Government ask for it, they are point blank refusing to


do that, you have to ask why? It is in their interests to talk up


uncertainty. Scotland is an integral part of the European Union, we have


been for 40 years, we comply with the rules and regulations... Mr


Juncker knows all of that but he still says it will be anything but a


seamless transition. He said you could not join the European Union by


sending a letter, that is not our proposal. We set down a robust


proposal and the timescale we think is reasonable under these


circumstances. There are many nationals of other states living in


Scotland right now, if we were to be outside of the European Union for


any period of time, something the current treaty doesn't even provide


for, they would lose their right to stay here. The interests of Scotland


and the interests of European Union are in favour of a seamless


transition. It comes down to common sense and people in Scotland will


make sense and people in Scotland will


their own judgement on who is talking the common-sense. What about


NATO, two years ago you told Newsnight the SNP's position is that


we wouldn't stay in NATO. We had a democratic debate, we looked at


whether it would be in the interests of an independent Scotland, which


forms a significant part of the territory of the North Atlantic and


the party changed its mind. It did so in a thoroughly democratic way.


That is the nature of democracy. Would you accept the protection of


the NATO nuclear umbrella? There is no doubt the SNP's position is that


we do not want nuclear weapons in Scotland. That is not what I asked.


The world rid themselves of nuclear weapons. One of the interesting


point is of the 28 member countries of Natal 25 do not have nuclear


weapons. An independent Scotland... I asked if you would accept the


nuclear umbrella. The key feature of NATO's military dog train is now


clear shrike. We would accept the basis of which NATO is founded but


we would argue two things. We want Trident removed from Scotland rather


than have a situation where might we are spending ?100 billion over the


next generation replacing Trident and we would argue within the


international community that the world should move much more quickly


to rid itself of nuclear weapons. That is the principal position and


won the SNP has held consistently for many years. You would get rid of


one of the key parts of the NATO deterrent based in Scotland. You


would kick that out. You would not accept all of the club rules because


you do not like the idea of nuclear. Why would they like a member like


you in? Because Scotland is a significant part of the territory of


the North Atlantic. You do not subscribe to the rules. 25 of the


member states of NATO are non-nuclear members. You are saying


you do not follow the doctrine. NATO has said it wants to move away from


reliance on nuclear weapons. An independent Scotland would be


entering the majority mainstream of NATO as a country that did not have


nuclear weapons. By leading by example our moral authority and


encouraging others to do likewise would be increased. Money and oil,


the finance minister has said that an independent Scotland would


increase public spending by 3% a year. He would pay for that by


borrowing. Your First Minister says he is going to stash money in an oil


fund. You're going to borrow and save. How does that work? There are


two points. Firstly in terms of the outlook for finances and what is one


of the central debates of this referendum campaign, austerity that


we know will continue if we stay as part of the Westminster system


versus prosperity. The economy can afford a higher level of increase in


public spending while we continue to have deficit levels at a sustainable


level. What is the point of borrowing and saving at the same


time? People who have a mortgage and the savings account would not


themselves what the wisdom of that is. This is based on recommendations


of our expert fiscal Commission that as borrowing reduces to sustainable


levels it makes sense to start saving a proportion of our oil


wealth. In Norway, which has many similarities to Scotland, they have


an oil fund worth ?500 billion. Scotland is part of the Westminster


system is sitting on a share of UK debt. We can continue to allow our


oil wealth, our vast oil wealth, to be mismanaged or we can decide we


are going to manage that resource better in the years to come. Your


figures do not add up unless you are about oil prices and revenue and you


have been consistently wrong in your predictions. Last year you forecast


that revenues would be the .7 billion more than they actually work


-- 3.7 billion. The cost of the Scottish school system gone. There


were particular reasons for that in terms of interruption to production


and bigger levels of investment. Used ill have to find the money. Let


me explain. They are based on robust assumptions, firstly a production


estimates that is in line with the estimates of the oil and gas


industry. Use of figures that are based on production of 10 billion


barrels of oil. Oil and gas has been wrong as well. It is 24 billion left


to be recovered. That is what is in the UK Government's oil and gas


strategy so production in line with industry estimates and an oil price


of $110 per barrel which is flat in cash terms would be a real terms


reduction. The Department of energy is estimating $128 per barrel so our


estimate compared to that is cautious. These are robust estimates


based on robust assumptions. Except they have been wrong. Finally, we


hear a lot from you and your fellow nationalists, you want a


Scandinavian style social democracy, you know how to spend the money but


you never tell us about social democratic levels of taxation. Also


should grizzlies have higher levels of tax in Scotland does at the


moment -- all social grizzlies. I want a Scottish style of social


democracy. Free education, free medicines and balancing the books


every single year. We want to get more people into work in Scotland,


raise the level of distribution in the Labour market and make the


economy more productive so we are raising the overall tax revenue.


Over the last 33 years we have generated more taxpayer head of


population than is the case and the rest of the UK. Those last 33 years,


some of those years oil prices would have been high and in others they


would have been law but we take different decisions. A report showed


that if we go as part of the Westminster system down the plate --


route of replacing Trident then the cost will be as high as ?4 billion


every year. Our share of that is the hundred million pounds a year. Let


us get access to our own resources so we can make different and better


decisions about how to spend the resources we have. You are promising


Scandinavian style social democratic levels of public spending but you


say you will not need a top rate of tax of 56% which is what Scandinavia


has, that all 25%, which is what Scandinavia has and VAT of 15%. You


are going to have the spending but none of the taxes that make it


possible in Scandinavia. For mischievous reasons you are met --


misrepresenting what I am saying. The Scottish economy can afford it


and we want to generate more wealth in our economy. We want to use the


existing resources Scotland has. We are the 14th richest country in the


world in terms of what we produce. We do not want to be wasting


resources. We want to be spending resources on the things that other


priority for the people of Scotland. These are the benefits and the


opportunities really get if we take the opportunity of voting yes and


becoming independent. is our last show for the summer.


Coming up, the council is getting into a pickle. Orders have been


issued over bins, car parks, is he stepping on people's toes? Guests


today will be speaking in a moment, but first, Westminster is reeling


from allegations of child sex abuse dating back to the 1980s. Two


enquiries were both welcomed by Tessa Munter, the MP for Wales. She


was something I did not speak about until I was in my early 30s when I


was expecting my first child. So I absolutely understand how difficult


it is to live with that kind of pressure. And it is pressure.


Immense pressure. You can't live with yourself because you feel


guilty, and that is not true. What do you make of her decision to come


out, you this week, tell us about that.


Well, I have a neurological illness which affects my muscle control on


my left side. Most journalists in Bristol and London know all about


it. I made a speech a year ago and the Daily Mail referred to me as


being stiff. I referred to this in an interview recently in a magazine


and then got a lot of comments on the back of it. He has written me a


None of us want to be treated as None of us want to be treated as


robots or boring creatures. We want some colour and personality to come


out of it. But there is a line that should not be crossed. People should


not poke fun if it is something physical. The House of Commons is a


theatre of cruelty. You are all trying to make each other look


silly. Often when I give talks to people about making speeches I say


the House of Commons is probably the most unforgiving stage in the entire


country on which to try and speak. I enjoy speaking but I'm more worried


about what I'm saying rather than how I'm looking. Yet people still


want to be an MP. Paul Maynard MP has cerebral palsy. Quite a few MPs


have funny voices and they get made fun of. But when he started


speaking, there was almost this quick reaction where people were


about to make fun of him and then suddenly thought, hang on, this is a


disability. But you could say, people cannot help the boys as they


were born with, whether it is a disability or just the way they are.


Now, you might have thought Bristol had long since cut its links with


the slave trade. Not so. A spate of arrests and prosecutions suggest


many adults and children are still being abused and exploited. The


government is suggesting more support for victims and harsher


penalties. It is a start, but some think the law should go further.


Documented on film, the harrowing and true story of a Vietnamese


teenager smuggled to Britain on the promise of work. This is where he


ended up. When a cannabis factory was raided, it was he who was


arrested and jailed. Latest figures show last year 1700 people were


referred as potential victims of trafficking. That is a 47% increase


from two years before. The real extent will be much higher than the


statistics. That is why films like this are important, to raise


awareness of a crime that raises profits that challenge the drug


trade. A Bristol charity is running a competition based on real`life


stories. The short film competition this year is looking particularly at


forced labour cases in the UK and overseas where the products from


those forced labour supply chains and up on UK high street. The


government 's new Modern Slavery Bill aims to tackle the problem. The


Home Office says it is the first of its kind in Europe. It would


increase the maximum jail term from 14 years to life. It would also


provide better support for victims, forcing their captors to pay out


compensation and giving them protection from prosecution. I think


businesses ought to care about whether there is slavery in their


supply chain. If that gives them an additional burden, that is something


they have a moral obligation to do. For charities, the bill cannot come


soon enough. This centre in Bath helps child victims of slavery,


offering therapy in the form of counselling or just play in a safe


place. Currently, there is only 45 days provision to support victims.


Ideally, we would like to see a longer`term look at how you can


restore lives. Another victim, another film telling the story.


Campaigners hope soon it will just be documenting history.


We are joined by Andrew Wallace from a Bristol charity offering support


for people who have survived slavery. There are five categories


of modern slavery. Forced labour, forced criminality, children, and


organ trafficking. As Sally said, year on year it went up 47%. In the


first six months of this year the number of victims found have gone up


40%. That is against a backdrop where most police officers don't


understand what they are coming across. As the film said, last


year, 1700 people accessed services the government provides as


identified victims of slavery, but across the political spectrum,


police forces, NGOs, they say that is the tip of the iceberg. We


welcome the Modern Slavery Bill. But we need to go further. The Home


Secretary said we want this to be a world`class bill and it isn't yet.


There are things they need to happen. The three main areas are, we


need to bring business into the space in terms of transparency in


supply chains. You are particularly keen on pushing this and you spoke


on the debate. Is it practical to expect a business to go right back


to scratch and find out who has done what with components? Well,


sometimes it can get complicated. If you look at the garment industry,


trying to source the cotton and the buttons and zips and all the


different components. But if you look at the report I cited in the


debate about Thai seafood, there aren't so many elements in that


chain. I just think if a supermarket is selling seafood, it ought to know


about the people catching the seafood at the beginning of the


process. Are you talking about big companies like Apple and Primark, or


small high street stores? Well, even a small shop, if they have tinned


goods, they are getting them from a bigger company down the line. The


government is doing something. Enormous progress has been made in


this Parliament. We have a contract with the salvation army to help


people who have been the victims of trafficking and modern`day slavery.


You don't sound terribly convinced that you are doing your utmost. This


is the danger, whenever a government legislates to do something


ground`breaking. Clearly, opposition parties and charities will say,


please, can you go a bit further? I fully understand that, but letters


at least recognise we are doing something. On the supply chain


issue, it is difficult to legislate for that. We can legislate for what


is going on in our own country. It is hard to legislate for what is


going on in a global supply chain, to a cotton picker in Bangladesh,


for instance. Some would say, slavery is illegal anyway. Why do we


need a commissioner and hold apartment for this? They are


criminals and there is criminal law existing at the moment. Yes, but the


law grew up piecemeal and there has never been any training for


front`line agencies to identify and understand it for what it is. It was


originally understood as an immigration issue. But it is a


criminal issue, with perpetrators and victims. So this bill is going


to help prosecute better. With supply chains, we are in a bizarre


position where big companies, the investment industry, Tesco,


Sainsbury's, they have publicly said we want legislation because it will


enable us to do the right thing. Yes, it has business support. We are


still talking to companies about it. There is an analogy from product


supplied from places of conflict. I would want all countries to say


whether they come from the occupied territories of Palestine. Thank you


for coming in. Now, it is rumoured Eric Pickles


once gathered all his staff together and got them to chant the word


localism over and over. What a fun place to work that must be. The


story shows how committed he is to giving control to our councils, but


after four years have they noticed a difference? We sent our reporter to


the biggest gathering of councillors to find out.


The British summer in full swing. Among the sun`worshippers taking it


easy in Bournemouth, an unlikely gathering. These are councillors at


play. They are not just here for the free ice cream. They were here for


this. The biggest local government get together in the land. The


keynote speaker had already said he wouldn't speak to us, so we brought


along our own. The question for delegates, had communities Secretary


Eric Pickles done enough for them? He has done a great deal for local


government. He is not popular with many people, but I think he has done


a great job. I do think any government is ever going to do


enough. Yes, please, give us what we want, which is a bit more freedom


and no interference from view in particular and the government in


general. That interference relates to the various directives from his


department. Whether it is telling councils to make their car parks


free, insisting on weekly bin collections or scrapping parking


enforcement cars he says are often used as cash cows. Then, the man


himself arrived. Hello. I lacked `` a lot of the council leaders from


the West are year. Have you done enough for these people here in


giving them local powers? I've done a lot and I will do a lot more and I


love them to bits. Will you give them powers to keep council tax in


Bristol? I will give him pretty much everything he wants, subject to


negotiation. Some say you should not be telling councils what to do when


it comes to weekly bin collections or camera cars going down the city


's. I'm here to offer helpful suggestions. Do you think you've got


the balance right? Yes, because I am a helpful guide. And off he went.


But I was puzzled by the Mayor of Bristol's warm greeting given that


he has said other things in the past. Some of the statement he makes


about wanting to micromanage local government are not helpful or


encouraging. But there are ministers absolutely up for transferring more


control. Do you mean his comments on those CCTV cars you mean his


comments on those CCTV cars using Bristol? Absolutely. I'm relaxed


about the reduction of those cameras. I don't love them. Nobody


loves them. But there is a principal bad ` we should make those decisions


locally rather than having them imposed on us. At a hard day, we


thought it was time to bring our Eric down to the beach. For some


councillors at least here in Bournemouth, they think this man's


promises have fallen a little flat. Eric Pickles is your boss, Stephen,


isn't he? Well, here's my coalition colleague. Nick Clegg my boss. Tell


us about your colleague. When he talks about localism, is it a sham?


Well, localism is one of my responsibilities, actually. This


government has given away more power to local areas than any previous


government to enable people to shape their own communities. For example,


neighbourhood plans. So why do local authorities feel there is less


control? Well, the localism act gives power to local people. There


are four neighbourhood plans in Bristol. But where is the money? The


government has given hundreds of millions of pounds to local areas.


This week, ministers around the country are announcing local growth


deals. Would you allow local authorities to have more control if


Labour get in? Stamp duty, more revenue raising powers? Well, Lord


Adonis has just done a report about devolving powers, particularly to


the city regions, economic powerhouses. As Stephen said, it is


about local people, not just the people in the council. But is it


as it wants to. But I want the Lib Dems to make the biggest and boldest


offered to local government. We need to solve the issue of Scotland and


Wales. English regions are not powerful enough and that is


something we need to correct. Does he make you say localism? No, he


doesn't, he makes you laugh. Now, a look at the week's events in 60


seconds. The drumbeat of unhappy workers was


once again to be heard on marches across the West. Schools, libraries


and job centres were all affected by the strike. The dispute over pay


between six public sector unions and the government rumbles on. The


suspended Chief Constable of a bin and Somerset police is to be


investigated over allegations he breached the data protection act.


He denies any wrongdoing. This robotics lab in Bristol was a


recipient of a ?200 million windfall for the West. The funding for local


enterprise partnerships is also being spent on flood defences,


building houses and training people to work in the nuclear industry.


And it was George at the George. The Chancellor popped into a Somerset


pub on Friday, raising a glass to firms who are hiring staff.


That was the week. The parliamentary holidays begin very soon. Do you


take too much time off, do you think? I live in Bristol so I will


be spending most of August at my home in Saint Andrews in Bristol. I


go to Devon over the bank holiday. That is it. And the election is


coming up. It is lovely to be able to stay in one place for a few days


at a time. I will make the most of being in the constituency. There is


so much that goes on in Bristol jarring the summer. `` during the


summer. That is it. I'm off to pack my sandals and sun cream but we will


be back refreshed and well for the start of September.


will keep a bit safer. That is all the time we have.


So, plenty happening in Parliament this coming week, including


a controversial bill to make so-called assisted dying legal and


Lord Carey has intervened in the assisted dying debate. Will it make


a difference? It will make a difference because we have


established in the House of Lords, I am not sure who they speak for and


why they should have a privileged position, but he was a big opponent


and has made a change of heart. The fact that the Daily Mail has printed


this shows this is a big intervention. The Bill being pushed


through, is it now on the agenda? I think it is. There are international


examples of assisted dying elsewhere. The state of Oregon


passed a Bill similar to this in the 1990s and things have not got out of


control. That has not been an expansion or abuse. It has settled


down and become part of the furniture. That makes it easier for


this Bill, to make the case for it. Religious people may still have a


principled objection but most other people have a practical objection,


which is how to put in place safeguards to deal with unscrupulous


relatives or anyone else who wants to abuse this right? Once a


controversial issue is only being opposed for practical reasons it is


on its way to getting its way. What is the division, is it the Church


against everybody else? Is it a right and left division? What is


stopping it? It is a very difficult moral issue and there are people who


can have genuinely held Christian beliefs or non-Christian beliefs who


can be on both sides. I think that the Lord Carey intervention is


potentially a game changer not just because he is a former Archbishop of


Canterbury but because he was on the Evan Jellicoe side of the Church of


England. That is quite a big move. The response was to say, please


withdraw your bell and let us have a royal Commission. The Supreme Court


kicked the ball back to Parliament when they rejected the cases of


three people who had been taking the case and said, we could say that


banning the right to life is against the European Court of Human Rights,


but it is a moral issue and an issue for Parliament. Parliament needs to


decide. The data act that is going to be pushed through Parliament. In


record time. To comply with a European court judgement. Tom Watson


and David Davis, some dissent. Are you so prized with how united the


establishment, left, right and centre is? No. There is a great


quote saying this has been enacted under the something must be done act


and that captures it exactly. Even Cameron says he does not want to


look people in the eye and say that he did not do everything he could.


There is no end to the power of surveillance. It is all was about


drawing a distinction. I am always suspicious when politicians look


something up and said, we have all agreed. Are there at the centre is


right or is the political establishment right? I think the


establishment is right. I think it is stronger than other issues. We


are in a unique position where all three political parties have


relatively recent experience of government so they now that security


threats are not made up by unscrupulous people. The legislation


being proposed is not dramatic, it is to fill a gap that was created. I


do not see the political controversy. All three political


parties support it. David Davis and Liberty are against that, and always


are. Would you not have expected... The Lib Dems are in government, but


a bit more rebellion on the Labour backbenches? There is no political


controversy put outside parliament there's quite a lot of controversy


about this. My paper has taken an interest in this. It is interesting,


it does not feel, it is not a 1950s, three public school boys


setting, let us have this deal. The Liberal Democrats and Labour have


serious questions. There's going to be a sunset clause that will run out


in 2016. The Liberal Democrats, who asked pretty tough questions, have


said there are assurances. Ed Miliband did not go to public


school. For many English football fans,


tonight's World Cup final presents How do you pick


between two traditional foes Well, if you're


a political obsessive, like these three, you could always back the


nation according to how it votes. The website LabourList has produced


a political guide to the tournament. At the beginning of the tournament,


it was a fairly balanced playing field politically with 15 left wing


and 17 right-wing countries. England found themselves isolated in a group


with three left-wing countries. That was the least of their problems.


There was a clear domination of democratic regimes over


authoritarian with only six of oratory and countries making it


through to the finals and the only all authoritarian tie was dubbed the


worst match of the World Cup. By the second round 16 teams remained. The


left had a clear advantage with nine, seven from the right and


authoritarian countries all but wiped out. Two representatives


remained. Both were beaten by European democracies. By the


semi-finals, all was even Stephen. A right-wing Protestant Europe taking


on Catholics South America. With one victory apiece, Germany knocking out


Brazil and Argentina beating the Dutch, tonight's final repeats that


pattern. Who will win? Angela Merkel's Germany or Argentina?


We're joined now by Britain's only Labour adviser


Should we read political significance in to the fact that the


only time England has won the World Cup was under a Labour government?


Of course. The problem is we did not qualify for Euro 2008 when it was a


Labour government. We have had some pretty shoddy results under a Labour


government. As someone under the left, are you backing Argentina?


Absolutely not. I do not think it has anything to do with politics. It


is a bit of fun. People should choose it is Don Hoop plays the best


football and the Germans have been fantastic. They were great in 2010


as well. They started this model in 2008 and that is the sort of thing


people should be supporting. Who should a Eurosceptic support? I


would not say Argentina because that is the country that has tried to


seize British sovereign territory within my lifetime. You were not


around for the Blitz. Believe it or not, I was not. There is a strong


political case to support Germany. They are probably going to win the


World Cup with a clear of -- with players of Polish origin. That sort


of cultural change they have forced themselves to go through... You talk


about them being right wing, but in fact the way that the German league


is structured, and I am an expert, is based on ownership. It is very


different from the Premier League. It is about football as a usual


good. The ticket prices are lower. The fans are involved in running the


club. It is a model that all English football clubs should emulate.


Germany had a strong football team under centre right governments and


centre left governments and a coalition. A strong football team


and a strong economy. The Conservative MP who is the arch


Eurosceptic wanted to get us out of the European Union and was for a few


weeks ago when people were making jokes about Jean-Claude Juncker, he


was outraged and said you should not do that, so he could happily support


Germany. What was interesting about the authoritarian and democratic


regimes, what is great is that the World Cup is run by this open and


democratic organisation Fifa. It is similar to the EU in many regards.


Two countries led by women. Maybe gender is the thing. We did not win


under Margaret Thatcher. There's one big difference with the EU, you


cannot flog six Dom Acta gets to go to a European summit. Did you know


that Italy won two world cups under Mussolini? Can we draw any


conclusions between a political system and the performance of the


football team? You can draw certain parallels between maybe national


cliches, so the Germans are efficient and effective, which might


reflect and the English are very polite so we let everyone score


first and go into the second round. We put ourselves at the back of the


queue. Is England going to qualify for the European? We are going to


win the European Championship. The first country Scotland have to play


is Germany. What could possibly go wrong? Who is going to win? Germany.


Germany. I am going to put a few bob on Argentina. Are you going to be


watching? Absolutely. Thank you. This is the last Sunday Politics


for the summer. But we'll be back in early autumn


and our first programme will be live from Scotland,


the weekend before the referendum The Daily Politics is back tomorrow


at noon and we'll bring you the last PMQs before the summer


on Wednesday morning from 11:30am. Remember, if it's Sunday,


it's the Sunday Politics, unless


Download Subtitles