29/06/2014 Sunday Politics Yorkshire and Lincolnshire

No surprise that Mr Cameron didn't get his way at the European summit.

But does it mean Britain has just moved closer to the EU exit?

Doctors want to ban smoking outright.

A sensible health measure or the health lobby's secret plan all

On the Sunday politics in Yorkshire and Lincolnshire. Why these

anti`fracking protesters have set up camp even though there are

And with me, as always, the best and the brightest political

panel in the business Nick Watt Helen Lewis and Janan Ganesh.

They've had their usual cognac, or Juncker as it's known in

Luxembourg, for breakfast and will be tweeting under the influence

He's a boozing, chain-smoking, millionaire bon viveur who's made

it big in the world of European politic.

I speak of Jean-Claude Juncker, the former Prime Minister of Luxembourg

He'll soon be President of the European Commission,

He wasn't David Cameron's choice of course.

But those the PM thought were his allies deserted him and he ended up

on the wrong end of a 26-2 vote in favour of Arch-Fedrealist Juncker.

-- on the wrong end of a 26-2 vote in favour of Arch-Federalist

So where does this leave Mr Cameron's hopes

of major reform and repatriation of EU powers back to the UK?

Let's speak to his Europe Minister David Lidington

Welcome to the programme. The Prime Minister says that now with Mr

Juncker at the helm, the battle to keep Britain in the EU has got

harder. In what way has it got harder? For two reasons. The

majority of the leaders have accepted the process that shifts

power, it will not careful, from the elected heads of government right

cross Europe to the party bosses, the faction leaders in the European

Parliament and and the disaffection was made clear in many European

countries. Mr Juncker had a distinguished period as head of

Luxembourg, and was not a known reformer, but we have to judge on

how he leads the commission and there were some elements in the

mandate that the heads of government gave this week to the new incoming

European Commission that I think are cautiously encouraging for us. The

Prime Minister talked about those that not everybody wants to

integrate and to the same extent and speed. Let me just interrupt you.

What is new about saying that Europe can go closer to closer union at

different speeds? That has always been the case. It's nothing new

Indeed there are precedents, and they are good examples of the

approach as part of the course and one of the elements that the Prime

Minister is taking forward in the strategy is to get general

acceptance that while we agree that most of the partners have agreed to

the single currency will want to press forward with closer

integration of their economic and tax policies, but not every country

in the EU is going to want to do that. We have to see the pattern

that has grown up enough to recognise there is a diverse EU with

28 member states and more in the future. We won't all integrate the

extent. It is a matter of a pattern that is differentiation and

integration. I understand that. John Major used to call it variable

geometry, and other phrases nobody used to understand, but the point is

that you're back benches don't want any union at any speed, even in the

slow lane. They want to go in the other direction. It depends which

backbencher you talk to. There's a diverse range of views. I think that

there is acceptance that the core of the Prime Minister's approaches to

seek reform of the European Union, for renegotiation after the

election, then put it to the British people to decide. It won't be the

British government or ministers that take the final decision, it's the

British people, provided they are a Conservative government, who will

take the decision on the basis of the reforms that David Cameron

secures whether they want to stay in or not. Is there more of a chance,

not a certainty or probability, but at least more of a chance that with

Mr Juncker in that position of Britain leaving the EU? I don't

think we can say that at the moment. I think we can say that the task of

reform looks harder than it did a couple of weeks ago. But we have do

put Mr Juncker to the test. I do think he would want his commission

to be marked and I think that there is, and I find this in numbers

around Europe, and there is a growing recognition that things

cannot go on as they have been. Europe, economically, is in danger

of losing a lot of ground will stop millions of youngsters are out of

work already that reform. There is real anxiety and a number of

countries now about the extent to which opinion polls and election

results are showing a shift of support to both left and right wing

parties, sometimes outright neofascist movements, expressing

real content and resentment at Howard in touch -- how out of touch

decisions have become. You say you are sensing anxiety about the

condition of Europe, so why did they choose Mr Juncker then? You would

have to put that question to some of the heads of European government.

Clearly there were a number for whom domestic politics played a big role

in the eventual decision that they took. There were some who had signed

up to the lead candidate process and felt they could not back away from

that, whatever their private feelings might have been, but I

think the PM was right to say that this was a matter of principle and

it shouldn't just be left as a stitch up by the European Parliament

to tell us what they do. He said, I can't agree to pretend to acquiesce.

They have to make the opposition clear that go on with reform. Are

the current terms of membership for us unacceptable? The current terms

of the membership are very far from perfect. Are they unacceptable? The

current terms are certainly not ones that I feel comfortable with. The

Prime Minister described them as unacceptable. Do you think they are?

We look at the views of the British people at the moment. If you look at

the polling at the moment, the evidence is that people are split on

whether they think membership is a good thing. I'm asking what you

think. David Cameron wants to in -- endorse changes in our interest but

also because the biggest market is going to suffer if they don't

challenge -- grasp the challenge of political and economic reform.

Newsnight, Friday night, Malcolm Rifkind the former Secretary of

State said to me that even if the choice was to stay in on the

existing terms, he would vote to stay in on the existing terms. He

doesn't necessarily like them, but he would vote to stay in. That is

the authentic voice of the Foreign Office, isn't it? That is the

position of your department. Is it your position? Malcolm Rifkind is a

distinguished and independent minded backbencher. He's not in government

now. But that is your position. No, the position of the government and

the Conservative Party in the government is that we believe that

important changes, both economic and political reforms, are necessary and

that they are attainable in our interest and those of Europe as a

whole. Would you vote to stay in on the existing terms? That's not going

to be a question that the referendum. Really? I know that in

2017 Europe is going to look rather different to how it looks today For

one thing our colleagues in the Eurozone will want and need to press

ahead with closer integration. That, in our view, needs to be done

in a way that fully respects the rights of those of us who remain

outside. Variable geometry, tackling things like the abuse of freedom of

migration. Those are all in the conclusions from the leader this

week and we should welcome that Very briefly, finally, when will

you, as a government, give us the negotiating position of the

government? Will you give us what you hope to achieve before the

election or not? David Cameron set out very clearly in his Bloomberg

speech that he wanted a Europe that was more democratically accountable,

more flexible, more at it -- economically competitive. That is

all very general. When will you lay out the negotiating position? It's

not general. It is very far from general. We have seen evidence in

the successful cut of the European budget, the reform of fisheries

those reforms have started to take effect. We have won some victories

and I'm sure the Prime Minister as we get towards the general election,

will want to make clear what the Conservative Party position is, and

perhaps other political leaders will do the same for their party. Thank

you for joining us this morning The harsh reality of this is that there

is a yawning gap between what the Prime Minister can hope to bring

back and what will satisfy his Conservative backbenchers. Yes, I

think the Parliamentary Conservative Party is divided into three parts,

those who would vote to leave the EU regardless, those who would stay

regardless, and a huge middle ground of people who want to stay in on

renegotiated terms. These are not three equal parts. Those who would

vote to stay in regardless are smaller and smaller. Compared to 20

years ago, tiny. But the people in the middle, generally, would only

stay in if you secure a renegotiation that will not be

re-secured. In other words, they are de facto, out by 2017 and the

referendum. This whole saga of the recent weeks has been the single

biggest economy in foreign policy under this government. That's not

what the voters think. -- single biggest ignominy. I mean the failure

to secure the target. The opinion polls show that standing up against

Mr Juncker has proved rather popular. I suggest that is not Mr

Cameron's problem. His problem is that, if in the end he gets only

because Medic changes, and if he says he still thinks that with these

changes -- cosmetic changes. And he says that they should stay in, that

would split the Tory party wide open. Eurosceptics say would be the

biggest split since the corn laws. He wants to protect the position of

coming out, and you might get that. He wants to crack down on abuse of

benefits, and he might get that He wants to restrict freedom of

movement for future member states, and that's difficult, because it is

a treaty change. And he wants to deal with closer union, but that is

also treaty change. In the Council conclusions, David Cameron was

encouraged because it said, let s look at closer union, but it did not

say it would reform. All it said was ever closer union can be interpreted

in different ways. In other words, we're not going to change it. The

fundamental problem the David Cameron was that two years ago, when

he vetoed the fiscal compact, that showed Angela Merkel was unwilling

to help them and what happened in the last two weeks was that Angela

Merkel was unable to help him. There is not a single leader of the

European Union that once Juncker as president, and he doesn't want it,

he wants the note take a job at the European Council. But there was this

basic stitch up by the European Parliament that meant he was

presented, and when Angela Merkel put the question over his head there

was a huge backlash in Germany and she was unable to deliver. I

understand that, but I'm looking forward to Mr Cameron's predicament.

I don't know how he squares the circle. It seems inconceivable that

he can bring back enough from Brussels to satisfy his

backbenchers. No, you can't. Most of them fundamentally want out. They

don't want to be persuaded by renegotiations. Where it's hard to

draw conclusions from the polling is that if you ask people question that

sounds like, do you like the fact that our Prime Minister has gone to

Brussels and stuck it to the man, they say yes, but how many people

will go to the voting booths and put their cross in the box based on

Europe? We know mostly voters care about Europe as a proxy for

immigration fears. In ten people in this country could not tell you who

John Claude Juncker is Angela Weir is replacing. -- and who he is

replacing. And I'm joined in the studio now by

arch-Eurosceptic Conservative MEP, Daniel Hannan and from Strasbourg by

staunch European and former Liberal war? His declared objectives would

leave Britain still in the common agricultural policy, the common

foreign policy, the European arrest warrant, so the negotiating aims

which we just heard Nick setting out wouldn't fundamentally change

anything. It would be easy for the Government to declare war on any of

these things. The danger from your point of view as someone who wants

to stay in is that if David Cameron only gets cosmetic changes, the

chance of getting the vote to leave the European Union increases,

doesn't it? Hypothetically it probably does but we have two big

things to get through first in domestic politics before we even

reach a negotiation. One is are we going to have the United Kingdom

this time next year following the referendum in Scotland? Secondly,

are the Conservatives after the general election next year going to

be in a position to pursue a negotiation? In other words are they

going to be a majority government or even a minority government? For the

sake of this morning let's assume the answer to both is yes, the UK

stays intact and against the polls they were saying this morning, David

Cameron forms an overall majority after the election. There is a

danger, if he doesn't bring much back, that people will vote yes

correct? There is that danger and I see a lot of the British press

comment this morning saying this could be a rerun of the Harold

Wilson like negotiation of the 1970s, a bit cosmetic but enough to

say we have got new terms and you should go with it. I think what is

different however, and this is really an appeal if you like, it

cannot just be left to the Liberal Democrats and coalition government

to make this case on our Rome. A lot of interest groups across the land

will have to start being prepared to put their head above the parapet on

the fundamental - do you want Britain to remain in the European

Union? Yes or no? Are you willing to put your public reputations on the

line? We are not getting enough of that at the moment and it is getting

dangerously close to closing time. Daniel Hannan, David Cameron will

not get away with this, will he It will be an acceptable to his party.

If it is an acceptable to Tory backbenchers it is because it is

working and they are reflecting what their constituents say. A majority

of people in the country are unhappy with the present terms. They can see

there is a huge wide world beyond the oceans and we have confined

ourselves to this small trade bloc. There is a huge debate to be had

about whether we could be doing better outside. It is not danger, it

is democracy, trusting people. If the only person offering a

referendum at the moment is the Prime Minister, it has serious

consequences for his party, your party, that's what I'm talking

about. I am very proud of being part of the party that is trusting people

to offer this. If he only gets cosmetic changes he cannot carry his

party. But ultimately it will not be his party, it is the electorate as a

whole that has to decide whether the changes are substantive. Everything

we have been hearing just now is about staying out of future

integration, protecting the role of the non-euro countries. People are

upset about what is going on today with the EU. They can see laws being

passed by people they cannot vote for, friendships overseas are

prejudiced, and they conceive that the European Union has just put in

charge in the top slot somebody who wants a United States of Europe into

which we will eventually be dragged into as some kind of Providence

Jean-Claude Juncker is a Federalist, you are Federalist, why did the Lib

Dems oppose him? We shared the view that whilst you take account of what

the members of the European Parliament say, ultimately the

choice of the presidency in the commission should be the political

leaders, the governmental leaders at a national level, and that's why we

went down the route we did. It was more to do with the system than the

individual. Although I would say that you need to bear in mind, I

mean Daniel, I respect him personally and the integrity of his

views, as I think he does mine, but to dismiss the European Union as a

small trading block globally, when you have got the United States of

America, China and other countries acknowledging its importance, it is

really Walter Mitty land. Are we closer than... Daniel Hannan, are we

closer to an exit after what happened last week? Yes, because the

idea that we could get substantive reforms, gets a mythic and powers

back and be within a looser, more flexible European Union has plainly

been closed off. We have to face up to the actual European Union that

has taken shape on our doorstep Are we going to be part of that or are

we going to have a much more semidetached, looser relationship

with it which we can either achieve via a unilateral system of power or

another way. This debate is never-ending, it is going on and on

and has bedevilled British prime ministers for as long as I can

remember. Shouldn't the Lib Dems change their stance on the

referendum yet again let's just have this in-out referendum and have it

sided one way or another? Our position remains clear. If there is

a constitutional issue put before us in terms of treaty changes then we

will have a referendum. Why not now? I am probably the wrong person to

ask because I argued and voted for a referendum on Maastricht because I

thought that was a constitutional treaty. Anything that makes the

Queen a citizen of the European Union surely has constitutional

implications. Anyway, 20 years on we are where we are and we need to

established common vocabulary. You talk about federalism. What do we

mean? Most of the people operating in the European Parliament and the

institution across the road, the Council of Europe, they mean by

federalism decentralisation of powers, not a Brussels superstate

but actually the kind of decentralisation that maintains

national characteristics and pools resources and sovereignty where it

makes sense. Mr Juncker, who is now going to be in charge of the

Brussels commission, he believes in a single EU reform policy, an EU

wide minimum wage and EU wide taxes. You said this week that you

liked the sound of Juncker federalism. Does that sound good to

you? No, and I think the new president of the commission will be

disappointed if he puts forward these views because although we only

had Hungary voting with us, I think if you go to other countries,

France, Poland, Scandinavia, they are not going to buy that kind of

menu. What they mean by federalism is the continental concept, also the

North American concept, that we can sit very happily... They have an

army, a federal police force, federal taxation. Yes, but in terms

of the political institutions which is what we are discussing here, you

can have the supranational, the European level, whilst still having

the very vibrant national, and indeed as we are practising in the

United Kingdom the subnational. A very brief final word from you,

Daniel. That is ultimately going to be the choice. The European Union is

an evolving dynamic, we can see the direction it is going in. Do we want

to be part of that? I suspect Charles Kennedy would have loved a

referendum. I cannot help but notice his party is going downhill since he

was running it. It is illegal to light up in the workplace, pubs and

restaurants. Now the British Medical Association has voted to outlaw

everywhere but not everybody at once. It would apply to anyone born

after the year 2000. In a moment we will debate the merits of those

plans but first he is Adam. There was a time when to be British

was to be a smoker. 1948 was the year off peak fag with 82% of men

smoking mainly cigarettes but it was a pipe that Harold Wilson used as a

political prop to help with the hard-hitting interviews they did in

those days. The advertisements make out pipe smokers to be more virile,

more fascinating men than anybody else. Do you thought -- have that

thought anywhere in your mind? No. It changed in 2006 when smoking in

enclosed places was banned. I would rather be inside but unfortunately

we have got to do what this Government tells us to do. I think

it is good, it is calm and you can breathe. Research suggests it has

improved the health of bar workers no end and reduced childhood asthma.

Now just one in five adults is a smoker. Coming next, crackdowns on

those newfangled e-cigarettes, smoking in cars and possibly the

introduction of plain packaging There is still those who take pride

in smoking and see it as a war on freedom.

We're joined now by Dr Vivienne Nathanson

from the British Medical Association who voted for a graduated ban

on smoking at their conference last week, and Simon Clark

They're here to go head-to-head There are plenty of things which are

bad for our health, why single out cigarettes? We need some sugar in

our diets but the fact is that we need to stop people smoking as

children because if we can do that, the likelihood that they will start

smoking is very small. In no circumstances is smoking good for

you. There are lots of smokers who live long, healthy lives but we

totally accept smoking is a risk to your health and adults have to make

that decision, just as you make the decision about drinking alcohol

eating fatty foods and drinking sugary drinks. This proposal is

totally impractical. It will create a huge black market in cigarettes

which will get bigger every year. They say this is about stopping

children smoking but there is already a law in place that stops

shopkeepers from selling cigarettes to children. This target adults so

you could have the bizarre situation in the year 3035 for example where a

36-year-old can go into shops to buy cigarettes but if you are 35 you

will be denied that, which is ludicrous. The point is that the

younger you start smoking the more likely you will become heavily

addicted. I take the point, but the point he is saying is that if this

becomes law, down the road, if you go into shops to buy cigarettes you

would have to take your birth certificate, wouldn't you? We have

no idea how the legislation would be written but the key point is that if

we can stop young people from starting to smoke, we will in 2

years have a whole group of people who have never smoked so you won't

have that problem of people who are smokers and they are now in their

20s and 30s. Or you will have a lot of younger people who get cigarettes

the way they currently get illegal drugs now. They are already getting

cigarettes illegally and we have to deal with that. We have got to get

better. The Government has not been able to stop it. We know this is

going to kill 50%... When you are 15 you think you will live for ever.

Indeed but they also do it as rebellion and because they see

adults and it is remarkably easy to buy cigarettes. Whatever the case is

for individual choice, won't most people agree that if you could stop

young people smoking, so that through the rest of their lives they

never smoked, that would be worth doing? You get 16 or 17-year-olds

who already do that. Is it worth trying? When the government

increased the age at which shopkeepers could sell from 16 to

18, we supported it. We don't support a ban on proxy purchasing,

we support reasonable measures, but this is unreasonable. This proposal

says a lot about the BMA, because this week the BMA also passed a

motion to ban the use of E cigarettes in public places. There

is no evidence that they are dangerous to health, so why are they

doing that? They are becoming a temperance society. This is not

about public health, it's an old-fashioned temperance society and

they have to get their act together because they are bringing the

medical profession into disrepute. We were having argument is about

things that people buy large accept, smoking in bars or public places,

but the real aim of the BMA was the total banning of cigarettes

altogether. This would suggest that that was true to claim that. It s

not about a ban, it's about a move to a country where nobody wants to

smoke and no one is a smoker. But it would be illegal to smoke. It would

be illegal to buy, not smoke, and there's a difference between two. So

even if I am born in the year 2 00, it would still be illegal to smoke,

just illegal to buy the cigarettes? Indeed. The point being that the

habit of smoking is very strongly linked to your ability to buy, so

that is why things like Price and availability and marketing are so

important. People will flood across the Channel with the cigarettes One

thing you will find is that throughout the world people is

looking at -- people are looking at the same kind of measures, and

different countries like Australia, they were the first with a

standardised packaging. Other countries will follow, because all

of us are facing the fact that we can't afford to pay for the

tragedy. There will be people waiting to flood the market with

cigarettes. This is nonsense. Thanks for both coming and going

head-to-head. "Unless we have more equal

representation, our politics won't be half as good as it should be "

So said David Cameron back in 2 09. So how's it going?

Well, you can judge the quality of the politics for yourself,

but we've been crunching the numbers to find out what

parliament might look like after the next year's general election.

Here's Giles. Politicians are elected to

Parliament to represent their constituents, but the make-up of

Parliament does not reflect society well at all the parties it. In 010

more women and ethnic minority candidates entered Westminster but

not significantly more inner chamber still dominated by white males.

Looking at the current make-up of the Commons, Labour has 83 female

MPs, the Conservative have 47 women MPs, which is just over 47% -- and

the Lib Dems have 12% of the parties. All of the parties have

selected parliaments in those seats where existing MPs are retiring and

to fight seats at the next election, and they've all been

trying to up the number of women and ethnic minorities because discounts

and can be capitalised on. A picture tells a thousand words. Look at the

all-male front bench before us. And he says he wants to represent the

whole country. Despite the jibe the Labour Party know they have a long

way to go on the issue of being representative. So we

way to go on the issue of being look at this particular area of lack

of women and ethnic minorities. Women first.

In the most marginal, 40 have women candidates, that would mean if they

got just enough to win power, they would have 133 women, which is 1%

The Conservatives currently have 305 MPs and their strategy

at the next election is to concentrate on their 40 most

marginal seats, and the 40 seats most mathematically likely to turn

In those 40, 29 candidates have been selected

If they kept hold of their existing seats and won those 29 new ones

they would have 56 women MPs, around 17%, and up 2% from last time.

The Liberal Democrats are fighting to hold on to the 57 seats they won

at the last election, if they manage that, they would have

However all the indications are it could be

a bad night for the Lib Dems, if they lost 20 seats, on a uniform

swing it would leave them with just four women, 11% of the party.

One Conservative peer who thinks the party needs to look at all

options if it's female numbers go down in 2015, says Parliament is

The bottom line is, if 50% of our population is not being looked at

evenly, are we really using the best of our talent? And yes, women's life

experiences are different. They are not superior, they are not inferior.

They are different. But surely those life experiences need to be

represented here at Westminster So that's the Parliamentary

projection for gender, According to the last census

in 2011, 13% of people in the UK Labour currently has 16 MPs from

black, Asian or minority ethnic backgrounds or just over 6%, if they

get their extra 68 seats that figure would go up to 26, 8% of their party

were from BAME backgrounds. The Tories currently have 11 BAME

candidates, or 4% of the party. If they get an extra 29 seats,

that would mean 14 BAME MPs, The Liberal Democrats

don't have any BAME MPs. If they manage to cling

on to their current number of seats they would have two,

giving them a proportion of 4%. If they lost

their 20 most vulnerable seats, But even if you changed the mix

of gender and ethnicity in Parliament would that solve

the problem? Probably not. Only 10% of us have gone to

a private fee paid school. A Quarter of all Mps went to Oxford

or Cambridge. Only a fifth

of us went to any university. There is a huge disillusionment with

the political elite due to the fact that these people don't look like

us. They don't speak like us, they don't have our experiences and they

cannot communicate in a way we relate to. If you look at the

turnout, at the moment, if you are an unskilled worker, you are 20

points less likely to turn and vote than a middle-class professional and

that is getting worse with single election.

And that's the key, evidence does suggest that if a

Party reflects the society it exists within, it is more likely to get

It's just gone 11.35pm, you're watching the Sunday Politics.

We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland who leave us now

Coming up here in 20 minutes, we'll have more from the panel.

First though, the Sunday Politics where you are.

Yes, hello you are watching Sunday Politics for Yorkshire, Lincolnshire

Today you're going to be he`ring of the F word.

Find out why these protesters have set up camp although we havd been

told there are no plans to drill for shale gas at this particular site.

And later, we will find out why some voters will soon be getting

the chance to elect the people who run our National Parks.

Let's say hello to our guests today is Julian Smith Conservativd MP

And Toby Perkins, Labour MP for Chesterfield.

Let's get your initial thoughts 1st on fracking, Julian Smith.

I think it is great this government has got behind fracking.

Part of a package of measurds to lower your viewers energy bhlls

the energy bills of businesses And to make sure along with cutting

the green taxes, there is more competition in the energy sdctor and

a whole host of measures ensuring that pdople pay

So it is all about cutting energy bills, Toby Perkins?

I think the government's policy is all about focusing on anythhng other

than asking the big energy companies to cut their profits of course.

I think that there is a rold for fracking to be investig`ted

but I think the first thing we have to do is create

a long`term confidence in fracking, we need to get people onsidd.

The rush to do this from an economic perspective without convinchng

people on the environmental aspects is why I think there is a lot

The government need to get the policy right because it does have

So is fracking the magic solution to our ftture

energy needs or a high risk gamble with our fragile environment?

Paul Murphy has been speaking with those on both sides of the debate.

This protest camp on a country lane in East Yorkshire

This protest group are drawn from all over the UK.

A determined group determindd to highlights what they say is

People moved here because of it s rural character, if they find shale

gas and that, there means what will be left is an industrial wasteland.

We are losing complete control of land sovereignty in this cotntry.

We are losing all of our rights and we're here to make a st`nd

This industry has no social license here.

This is the process they're worried about.

Fracking involves drlling down and creating tiny explosions to

shatter and crack harder sh`le rock to release the gas inside.

Water, sand and chemicals are injected into the rock at hhgh

pressure which allows the rock gas to flow out to the head of the well.

But there are concerns that harmful chemicals can sometimes esc`pe

and find their way into drinking water sources.

Crucially though, there is no fracking at this site and the

drilling company which oper`tes here said it does not intend to frack.

It is more interested in conventional gas exploration

If people repeat the same mis`information often

enough there is a risk that people might start to believe it.

The added fact here is this is an explanation of an explicit condition

of a planning application that will not carry out fracking at this site.

There is no fracking taking place in the UK at present but thd

A visit to Lincolnshire earlier in the year, the Prime Minister

Shale is important for our country, it could bring 74,000 jobs,

over ?3 billion of investment, give us cheaper energy for the ftture

Large parts of the UK have already been opened

The government is considering expanding this to

According to a recent Parli`mentary select committee report, thdre is

a real danger that after thd next election, the lights will go off.

We rely on importing gas from Russia, Qatar in the

Middle East and because of the events in the Crimea, Syria and Iraq

Therefore the government is desperate to find

And for these campaigners, that is a worry.

Oil and gas is inherently a risky business and hydraulic fracturing is

What the protectors are doing here is about protecting the watdr,

At the heart of the debate about what is really going

on there is a small paragraph in the drilling companies lhcensed

to operate, it has permission for something for a mini falloff test.

Essentially this is a way for establishing whether

the rock beneath my feet is capable of being hydraulically fractured.

The company insist that test is only to gather information,

We are an exploration company, explorers explore.

We spent a great deal of tile, resource

and thought to design these woells and take them to the depths that we

think will give us the maxilum possible amount of informathon.

It would be perverse in a way to walk away from part

of this untested this because of some semantic terming that we use.

There is no fracking here and the company says there will nevdr be.

The protesters are staying put, they see this camp as the front line

of a national campaign to r`ise serious questions about this

Joining us now is Simon Boehngs Yorkshire and Humber campaigner

Is the environmental lobby guilty of over egging

What we've seen in the US where fracking has taken place is real

kind of evidence of environlental problems occurring to the industry.

Things like ground water contamination, peoples drinking

water being contaminated with methane, benzamin and others.

Really dangerous chemicals `ffecting the nervous system

There is that real risk that fracking will not bring us cheaper

energy bills but will bring us more problems

There is no fracking currently in the UK

and the sites you saw there, the company says they have no plans to

frack so why are those camp`igners campaigning targeting these sites?

The tests themselves bring significant environmental rhsks

but the company specificallx say in their documents that thex are

looking to a viability to frack at a later date.

After hearing that, is fracking really worth thd risk?

I am shocked by Simon's scaremongering.

This whole process will go through environmental assessments,

planning assessments and will be overseen at each proposal

Britain has a long track record of looking at oil and gas projdcts we

are one of the leading nations in the world but it is just not true to

say that these proposals will not be looked at at the highest level and

scrutinised to make sure thdy reach the higher levels of protection

Why is labour trying to prop so many of the government's proposals in

offering incentives to comp`nies on shale gas and we are told it will

What we have seen in America has led to lower bills

but to have a policy where xou have not dealt with the environmdntal

concerns, two years ago we were calling for the government to only

use chemicals, that had alrdady been proven to be safe.

We had to drag them kicking and screaming on the environmental

concerns because the governlents were looking at the economical side

of it rather than overlay pdople's concerns and giving them confidence

that they are recognising those environmental reservations. That is

why you're seeing protesters around the countryside.

I think it is being mishandled and potentially an important

What is the alternative, we carry on paying a ridiculously

high price for gas and we rdly on Putin and his regime in Russia?

Let's knock this idea about cheap energy up bills

All the evidence points tow`rds that the American market is completely

It will not deliver that kind of scale of energy price cuts

The regulation regime which are talking about,

we already seeing significant weaknesses in that regime.

Things falling between the cracks between the regulation authorities.

Impact assessment is not behng done thoroughly enough.

Conditions which are attachdd to licenses and planning

Again this is presenting a false picture.

This is a mixed part of a mix of measures, nuclear, more gas,

fracking to actually ensure that Britain is more self`suffichent in

energy and that we get lower prices for the viewers of this programme

which is at the priority of this government at the moment to make

The truth is that you say you want to bring energy prices down,

we said nine months ago you ought to be freezing prices and autuln look

You guys said we can't do that and in six months they were doing it.

Surely there has to be some pressures.

What is seen is with price proposals is that will lead to a distortion

in prices which will lead to higher prices before and

We want to trust the market and ensure there's high competition

But it is interesting you c`n see it is not working for consulers

Only because Ed Miliband put pressure on them.

Top`down Marxist style price`fixing is not going to work.

Julian, you mentioned green taxes in Europe.

What is significant is the best way to provide energy is to become more

energy efficient so I will be questioning why you cannot label

green taxes in looking at the energy company obligation which was the

only measure working and why was it cuts before Christmas

As you know we are committed to renewable energy and all

of the targets that are being committed to make.

What are you saying high endrgy costs have to be the priority.

Just briefly, if it is provdd shale gas does reduce bills

and fracking is by and largd safe, Will you and your environmentalist

We are a well away from insuring fracking is s`fe.

The United Nations itsself has said even if you have the toughest

regulatory regime in the world you will still have significant

That has got to be factored into people's concern

You're saying the Health and Safety Executive is dodgy,

are Friends of the Earth saxing that?

I'm saying there are weaknesses in the regulatory system for fracking

I'm sure we'll come back to this, we have to leave this

One of the lesser reported announcdments in

the Queens speech was a proposal to hold direct elections for the people

who run our national parks such as the Yorkshire Dales, the North

So will this move better protect our cherished beauty spots or

bring unnecessary politics where it is not needed?

rebuild the economy after the war, when it realised it needed to ensure

national assets like this wdre not lost in the scramble to moddrnise.

A change in the law that ye`r and a board the creation

The first, the Peak Districtin 1951.

Then the North York Moors, then the Dales.

Over 60 years later that is still in place.

On the surface the landscape has hardly ch`nged

at all, although now they h`ve over 30 million visitors every ydar.

Each part is still run by its own governing authorhty made

In a surprise addition to the Queens speech that could be

Draft legislation will be ptblished for direct elections for a national

This legislation means they'll have to put themselves up

for election effectively evdry four or five years they will havd to come

back to local people and say have I been doing a good

If you live in an area, over a short period of time you begin to realise

housing planning which would normally be made by your local

councillor is made by an eldcted national park and when you see some

of the decisions are dreadftl and when you see an explosion

in second home ownership and no affordable homes for local people,

farmers being restricted, pdople realise this is a real problem.

There is a different view hdre at the North York Moors park

Most of its members say it hs already elected to the local

We should not be complacent in the way we have our democracy but

when we did have the consultation in the North York Moors,

the general public did seem happy with the current demographic system.

A network of voluntary watchdog organisations made up of those

who live and use the nation`l parks seem to take up a similar vhew.

It is possible that by having direct elections, unless there is something

which appears in writing to say you do not canvas under a polithcal

banner, that is essential bdcause otherwise we introduce partx

politics into national parks which is not a good thing.

A veteran member of the North York Dales says that is not the hssue.

Those making decisions involving their economic future

For too long we had members appointed from way beyond the

They have had little or no hdea of what it is like to live

But of course the implication of their decision,

particularly the planning c`n have huge and serious consequencds

There has been little inforlation since the Queens speech

for when voting schemes are planned but so far no timetable for when the

ballot box will be brought hnto our national parks for the first time.

Do you support direct electhons in national parks Toby?

You are right to say it is not the major thing people are talking

But you represent a constittency at the edge of the Peak District.

I do and the Liberal Democr`ts would be going around saying we h`ve

increased VAT, tripled tuithon fees and seen a rise in food bank but, we

I think an important point `bout this is that similar to what was

being said in your films is that the representatives of local authorities

are not immediately in the local park are having a say about this.

This brings in question who the parks belong to.

It is a national park it is important as in Chesterfield.

Lots of people, tourists, stay in Chesterfield.

Even though we do not live in it we are influenced by ht

I would say bring these elections on, the national parks are

key parts of the area I represent and we want them to be much more

We need them to be accountable to business, to young people,

to older people and these elections will make this happen.

Look at the police and crime commission elections, they

There are elections every two years in all sorts of things.

It is good for democracy, we need to stand up and be dlected.

The national parks are a kex part of Britain's rural economy `nd it

is great we are having some fresh air and fresh democracy unddrneath.

I'm sure when this elections happen will be covering them in depth

Lets get more of the weeks political news.

The Chancellor and Prime Minister leaves this week bringing whth them

The new high`speed rail across the Pennines.

Is it a practical proposition or a political promise aimed

This is a vision for the future of saying look we

have strong economic cities and let's link them together.

Why are many newly qualified doctors not becoming GPs, and issue debated

I work long hours as a GP, why should put myself through that

Should all of our junior schools become self`governing acadelies

As others they work together in groups then they can cre`te

the kind of scale that makes sense of being an academy.

An Academy means you are responsible for more things.

The local authorities take care of that for you.

Toby Perkins do welcome the Chancellor's announcements for

We need greater connectivitx not just up and down the countrx

Interesting nine months before the election, they announce it now.

HS3, when is it are going to happen, there is no date given,

I spoke at this in the Commons there recently when I was supporthng HS3.

We have to look at how the world is changing and need to get the

We do need to bring our northern cities closer together.

We need skills, communication to be easier.

This idea is exactly the right thing.

Why is the Department for Transport not signing it off now?

?7 billion we can reap the benefits now rather than later?

We have only set this up as a proposal, it is ?7 billion

I and other northern MPs will be making the case that this h`s to

Earlier this week we heard there was a chronic GP shortage

A number of factors.

The changes to GP pensions that brought in the 2000's,

also there is a retention crisis in terms of recruitment.

There are a lot of disaffection and demoralisation in the

National Health Service bro`dly and GPs are a part of that.

It is a problem in my constituency in Chestdrfield.

We are told in some areas one in four GPs are vacant at the loment.

It is not the case in my constituency at the moment.

In this government there a more front`line staff in the NHS

We have cut the number of bureaucrats and protected the NHS

budget and will continue to fight to make sure the NHS is given `ll of

And Labour reduced GPs hours and then paid them more?

We support people in health service but the truth of what happens here

is what you heard about the management cuts, what's you re

seeing is managerial catastrophes all around the health service.

We're not cutting the budget but waiting times are going up

and waiting times the GP ard at a seven time high.

Next week, our programme will be coming in life

from the root of the Tour dd France, are you excited Julian Smith?

I'm ecstatic, it is coming through a largd amount

of my constituency and I led to an effort to get the ?10 million

for the Conservative governlent funding towards the Tour de France.

I'm looking for to seeing you and the whole team

You had a brush with a cyclist this week did you not

He was not an entrance of the Tour de France but perhaps he should be.

I was knocked off my feet by cyclist.

Seriously, it is fantastic news in the hope

might come back at you. There have been problems elsewhere in Europe,

but I take your point. Thanks to both of you today. Back to you,

Andrew. Now, there have been some

less-than-helpful remarks about the way the Labour party makes

policy, and they've come from the man who is heading Labour's

Policy Review, Jon Cruddas. In a speech to party activists he

was recorded saying that, "instrumentalised, cynical nuggets

of policy to chime with our focus groups and our press strategies and

our desire for a topline in terms of the 24 hour media cycle,

dominate and crowd out any He added that Labour's election

strategy was being hampered by a The shadow chancellor, Ed Balls

was asked about what Mr Cruddas had I talked to him a couple of days

ago, and he's not frustrated, he is excited about his policy agenda He

is frustrated that one report of 250 pages gets reduced down. So it's our

fault? That is the way we live in the world in which we live, but we

have big ideas about devolution long term infrastructure spending

and new manufacturing policy, new investment in skills, big changes

which, let's be honest, I'm really on George Osborne's agenda. How

serious is this? It is Wimbledon, so let's call it an unforced error You

go to the party speeches, and you don't know who is in the audience.

There is no need for something as serious as this to happen. It's

hugely serious because it speaks about something people have felt for

a long time, that they have doled out little nuggets of policy but no

overarching story. There was a quite saying the Ed Miliband has given as

a shopping list, not a narrative. When people in the party say things

that are true, it's very difficult for people to explain it away. Not

sure Mr Miliband can win here. He was recently criticised for not

having policies. Now he's being criticised for having too many. I

think this line of attack is particularly wounding because he

prides himself on being a politician of ideas. That is his unique selling

point, and the weight that David Cameron's prime ministerial nature

is his selling point. So it is wounding. If I was the Labour Party,

before announcing any policy, I would ask can help fix us on the

economy? It might be radicalised immolating on its own terms, but

it's politically useless. -- radical and innovative on its own terms I

don't think any member of the public does not think they are not radical

enough or creative enough. If anything, it's the opposite. They

are a bit nervous about what a Labour government could do and

nervous about the economic reputation. Reassurance, caution,

maybe a bit of timidity might be the notions that inform their policies

or should inform their policies in night -- my view, not the opposite.

I am worried for Jon Cruddas, because anyone who questions the

Labour Party are part of the nexus of the banking industry who are

terrified of a Labour victory. It's interesting that this goes to the

heart of the debate in the Labour Party, at the highest levels, do

they put a big offer to the British people, or a little off, John

Cruddas offer, or Douglas Alexander offer? Ed Miliband says that his

ideas about freezing energy prices and rent controls are a big offer,

but his policy chief clearly has real concerns that they don't go far

enough. How important a figure is John Cruddas in the project? He is

hell of the -- head of the policy review and has a huge amount of

power, and so him slagging off the policy review is a bad moment. He is

trusted in that inner circle and the problem for Ed Miliband from the odd

is that he has people with strong opinions, Maurice clasping is

another, big thinkers, but they maybe don't have a precaution that a

professional politician might have in terms of giving bland answers.

So, David Cameron had to apologise after his former director

of communications was convicted of phone hacking.

David Cameron's other former friend, Rebekah Brooks, had a better day.

At the same trial, she was cleared of all the charges against her.

I take full responsibility for employing Andy Coulson. I did some

on the basis of undertakings I was given by him about phone hacking and

those turned out not to be the case. I always said that if they turned

out to be wrong, I would make a full and frank apology, and I do that

today. I am extremely sorry that I employed him. It was the wrong

decision. I'm clear about that. When I was arrested it was in the middle

of a maelstrom of controversy, politics and of comment. Some of

that was there, but much of it was not, so I'm grateful to the jury for

coming to that decision. Not been a great week for David Cameron. Andy

Coulson found guilty, and another person who had worked in Downing

Street is also charged on an unrelated issue. And he was 26- on

the wrong end in Brussels, and there is a poll this morning which no one

seems to be talking about which puts Labour nine points ahead. Before all

that there was Dominic Cummings criticising the Downing Street

operation is being shambolic. Is Mr Cameron's judgement becoming an

issue? Yes, what often happens when one leader is under pressure for

long enough, as Ed Miliband has been the six months, we get bored. We

then switch the Gatling gun to the other guy. So David Cameron going

into the Conference season might be the man under pressure. The whole

Andy Coulson saga has raised questions about his judgement and

those around him, but any political damage she was going to sustain over

Andy Coulson and phone hacking was sustained years ago -- he was

going. It was Brother beyond the date the News of the World was

closed down three summers ago - it was probably on the date. As the

hacking trial cut through to the general public? Or is it just as

media and political obsessives? I am sure it has cut through in some way

but it didn't necessarily happen in recent days, more likely in recent

years. It was some time ago that Andy Coulson resigned in high

profile circumstances. It has had a slow burning effect over a few

years, and the Prime Minister fears the Big Bang. But there is one theme

and words that unites this week with Juncker and Andy Coulson, and that

is that the Prime Minister can be lackadaisical. He was lackadaisical

in not asking big question is when there was a lot in the public domain

about what had happened that the News of the World. And he was

lackadaisical with Juncker. He made a calculation that Angela Merkel

would support him and it turned out she couldn't. Maybe he needs to

change. He was late in understanding what was happening in Germany when

both the Christian Democrats, her party, wanted Juncker, and when the

actual Murdoch press of Germany said that they wanted him as well. He

never saw that. He only looks at one person in Germany, Angela Merkel,

and it is a grand coalition, and the SDP felt strongly about it. He is,

in a sense, an essay crisis Prime Minister. He is, in a sense, an

essay crisis Prime Minister. He s very good in an essay, and the SA

gets a double first the essay. Is Ed Miliband right to be angry? He has

John Cruddas attacking him, and that is the news leading in the Sunday

Times, and has not been a good week the Prime Minister and in which Mr

Miliband has a bigger lead in the polls than he has had some time so

he must be wondering why they are having a go at him. He made a

tactical error in Prime Minister's Questions by asking all the

questions about Andy Coulson. The one at the end about what Gus

O'Donnell said was rather hopeful in the extreme. Politicians can be out

of touch on all sides of the house. The problem is, and there is a great

quote by William Hague, is that the Tory party has two modes, panic and

complacency. At the moment they are complacent. They think Ed Miliband

will lose Labour election but I don't know if they have a positive

plan about how to win it. -- lose Labour the election.

Now, we knew Prince Charles had trouble keeping his views

about the environment and the countryside to himself,

but that's not the only thing he's passionate about according to

a radio four documentary to be broadcast this lunchtime.

Here's former Education Secretary, David Blunkett on how the Prince

had once attempted to influence his policy on schools.

I would explain that our policy was not to expand grammar schools, and

he didn't like that. He was very keen that we should go back to a

different era where youngsters had what he would've seen as the

opportunity to escape from their background, where as I wanted to

change their background. And you can hear that documentary -

it's called The Royal Activist Does it matter that Prince Charles

is getting involved in this kind of policy, released behind closed doors

question mark on the issue of grammar schools is not clear anybody

listened to him. I think it is a principal problem. I've spoken to

form a government members, and judging by what they say, if

anything we underestimate how much contacting makes with ministers And

how many representations he makes on the issue that interest him. There

has been an attempt to keep it hidden. It's almost a theological

question about whether the future monarch should be involved in the

public realm. If he wants to influence policy, shouldn't we know

what policy he's trying to influence and what position he is taking?

Sewer speech is better than private one-on-one lobbying. Possibly - so

a speech. Prince Charles's views are interesting. He's not a straight

down the light reactionary. He makes a left-wing case for rammer schools.

There is an interview with him in the Financial Times in which his

argument in favour for architectural development takes into account

affordable housing in the wake which no one would have suspected. He has

interesting views, but I'm not convinced on the point of principle

whether someone is dashing his position should be speaking. Your

former employer 's famously described him as the SDP king. You

slightly feel sorry for him. He s 66 and still an apprentice. He's in a

difficult position. We know what the powers of the monarch are. They are

to advise in courage and warned the Prime Minister of the day. These in

the difficult position where the problem for him is that there is a

line that isn't really defined, but you slightly feel he just gets a bit

too close to it and possibly crosses that line with the lobbying that

goes on. I think the worrying thing is that at some point he will become

King and will he know that he has got to work within that framework?

He is somebody that cannot win either. If he doesn't take an

interest in public policy, he will be thought to be a bit of a waster,

going round opening town halls, and when he does have an interest we

think, hey, you are in the monarchy, stay out. There's an interesting

parallel with first ladies who are encouraged to find a controversial

charitable project. Michelle Obama has bought childhood obesity, and

that is the standard thing. Everybody knows that that is a bad

thing, but you are not offering solutions that are party political.

I feel there must be a middle way with what he should be able to do

about finding big causes he can complain about without getting stuck

into lobbying ministers. Which can become a party political issue. He

has had some influence on architecture, because the buildings

we are putting up to date are better than the ones we used to put up

The Daily Politics is on BBC 2 at 11:00am

We'll be back here at the same time next week.

Remember if it's Sunday, it's the Sunday Politics.