13/07/2014 Sunday Politics West

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