13/07/2014 Sunday Politics Yorkshire and Lincolnshire

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

We unearth the archive footage that political guide to the World Cup.

We unearth the archive footage that rebuilds whistle`blowing MP

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 the government have a

great interest in talking it up. The government says, haven't we

refreshed ourselves? Generally it doesn't refresh the government.

David Cameron wants to send out a new signal. You're going to see the

old guard getting a P 45 and you will see a lot of women come in and

a lot of younger men. We will find there will be a lot of resignations.

A lot of, dear Prime Minister, as I told you 18 months ago, I want to

move on. Because the Conservatives have this perception of not being

very good with women and not being good with black and ethnic minority

voters, they are going to want to do something about that. Why did he not

do it before? This reshuffle might be the triumph of the a list. A lot

of the women coming through the ranks have been from the a list

which was a half measure because they knew they could not bring all

of them in. You are going to see more women but that is a result of a

long-term strategy. David Cameron is not the world's most raging

feminist. He is doing this for practical reasons. He knows he has

an image problem for the party and he has to solve it. He was stung by

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. make her Deputy Prime Minister

contested election to be deputy make her Deputy Prime Minister

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 of making 40% of the top floor

TV division says no panel show should ever be all-male.

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? Alex Salmond says Scotland would

remain part of the European Union with sterling as its currency in a

monetary union with the rest of the UK, but he has also promised more

public spending, increased child care provision and free personal

care for the elderly. The SNP claims it would leave people better off by

?1000 though that partly depends on the price of oil. With the Better

Together arguing against independence, it has naturally been

attacking the SNP on all fronts. George Osborne says there will be no

monetary union. President Barroso told the BBC it would be extremely

difficult for Scotland to join the EU after a yes vote. His successor

this week said he agreed. Unions claim Scotland benefit by ?1400 by

being part of the UK. A poll this morning shows a significant lead of

57% for the no campaign, leaving the SNP to claim it will go their way in

the last ten weeks. Nicola Sturgeon, the Deputy First Minister of

Scotland, joins me now. You want an independent Scotland to keep the

pound, stay in NATO, stay in the EU, Scotland already has all of that

but you cannot guarantee it would 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 Would you accept the protection of

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 basis of which NATO is founded but

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.

Hello, you are watching the Sunday Politics

Coming up today, we unearth the archive footage which reveals

that whistle`blowing MP Geoffrey Dickens tried to uncover child

And why there is anger from some at the increasing use

of police stop and search powers on the streets of Yorkshire's cities.

Our guests today are Julian Sturdy, the Conservative MP for York Outer,

and Diana Johnson, Labour MP for Hull North.

It has been a busy week in the world of politics.

What has caught your eye, Diana Johnson?

Well, unfortunately, it was a misrepresentation of my home city of

Hull this week on Benefits Britain on Channel 5, where they portrayed

the city in a very negative way about people on benefits.

They did not make any mention of the fact that we have major investment

coming in from Siemens or that we have got the City of Culture.

I think they mentioned that for just five seconds.

It was a really distorted piece of shoddy journalism and I am

hoping the BBC might be able to help us to actually correct that view

Standards are always higher at Auntie Beeb, Diana, you know that.

Julian, what has caught your eye this week?

Well, for me Tim, it has to be the Tour de France.

As a York MP, I think it surpassed all expectations in Yorkshire.

It was an amazing event and I think a lot

of credit has to go to Gary Verity at Welcome to Yorkshire for the

fantastic job they did in bringing the Tour to our great county.

The fans were amazing, the weather was fantastic.

All in all, it showed Yorkshire in its true glory.

I got saddle sore just watching them go round Buttertubs Pass and

On to serious matters now, and despite passing away almost 20

years ago, a former Yorkshire MP has been making national headlines.

Geoffrey Dickens, who represented Huddersfield West

in parliament, claimed to have evidence of a high profile network

of paedophiles operating at the heart of Westminster.

Sean Stowell has been looking into the archives to find out more

The Reverend Jan Knos was found dead in his cell at Hull

The top story on BBC Look North one evening in 1986.

He was on remand facing 28 charges of sexual offences against children.

Geoffrey Dickens had accused the Church of England

of failing to take action over a vicar abusing children in Hull.

The local social workers, the police, the school childwatch

organisation, all these people knew what was going on, particularly

the parents and the poor little children, and yet somehow the Church

Well, he does not understand the constraints in

You don't think it's grounds for resignation or apology now,

The shadow of former Huddersfield West MP, Geoffrey Dickens, who died

in 1995, is extending deep into the heart of the Westminster village.

Rarely in its history has the gossip in the corridors been

For it was back in 1983 that Dickens claimed there was a paedophile

network in and around Westminster involving, in his words, big names,

people in positions of power, influence and responsibility.

Dickens gave the then Home Secretary, Leon Brittan, who at the

time was MP for Richmond in North Yorkshire, a dossier containing

Lord Brittan said last year he had no recollection of the document.

But last week he said he had been handed a substantial bundle

A Home Office review last year concluded

Bassetlaw MP John Mann, meanwhile, says copies were, in fact,

There were multiple copes made and distributed beyond the

Home Office and, therefore, looking just for a file in the Home

This file was sent elsewhere, to other government departments,

and the reason people are not coming forward, I believe, is that

everyone who saw it was required to sign the Official Secrets Act.

They need the gagging clause relating to this document removing.

It was Geoffrey Dickens' belief that those in authority were repeatedly

and knowing exposing children to horrific and deeply damaging abuse.

It is all part of a national campaign to stop child abuse.

The government can be in no doubt that what he initiated back

in the 1980s will prompt many more questions and enquiries to come.

Julian Sturdy, many people reading the papers this weekend will still

be under the assumption, won't they, that there was this huge cover up

The protection of children has to be one of our highest priorities

and these are really serious allegations out there.

No excuses any more, we have to get to the bottom of it.

I am actually quite pleased that it is going to come in front of the

Keith Vaz has come out and said that the Home Secretary is going to be up

in front of the Select Committee on Monday and I think that is going

Diana Johnson, do you have faith in the inquiry that was announced

Well, of course, there are two inquiries.

There is one into exactly what has happened in

the Home Office and these 114 files that seem to have gone missing.

I am pleased they are going to have that inquiry.

Then, there is this broader inquiry into historic child abuse.

I am pleased that we are now finally getting somewhere because

Yvette Cooper has been calling for a wide ranging inquiry.

About 18 months ago she first called for this, so I am pleased

I am very keen to see the terms of reference for this wider inquiry

and also to make sure that we have child protection experts on

Julian Sturdy, John Mann, who some would say is a modern day

maverick MP, wants the Official Secrets Act lifted for those who

I think that is going to have to come out.

I do think we have to get to the bottom of this.

I don't think we can hide behind the Official Secrets Act on this.

It is potentially too serious a thing to be brushed under

That is why, as I say, the inquiries are really important, but the Select

Committee, next week, is going to be the starting point for that.

We have got to get public confidence back on this.

Diana Johnson, are people at Westminster openly speculating

about the names, the alleged names in the Dickens dossier?

Well, yes, there is a little bit of that,

but I think most MPs are actually shocked, who have heard about these

allegations and the potential that there might have been a cover up.

I think MPs are really rather taken aback by this and that is

why we are very pleased that there is going to be this full inquiry.

And, particularly, this inquiry about what the

Home Office did or didn't do and the broader Whitehall departments

We need to get to the bottom of what has happened there.

Whether these files have been destroyed or misplaced.

Let's move on now, because the use of police stop and search powers

Senior offices argue they are a vital tool in the fight

But some are questioning why, if you are young and

if you are black, you are still far more likely to be stopped

Everyone has a story about stop and search

I am just a citizen who is walking past and just been stopped

You know that people are looking at you.

If I can see at least one or two white people

being stopped as well, and then they stop me, then I'll understand.

But if I just see myself, I really get annoyed and angry.

So why do you think they are stopping you in particular?

It could be they don't trust a black person.

If you are black you are six times more likely to be stopped

I was listening to my music and they stopped me, and

the way that they started, it was like I had done something wrong.

Asking me what did I have in my bag, where did I work.

You can see people passing, going up and down, looking at you.

You feel like you have done something.

They make you feel like a drug dealer or something like that.

They just stopped me and they were, like, we are going to have to take

I asked, why would you take a picture of me?

There were four of them and they had to grab me, put me against

I don't think that is the right way to deal with any civilian.

The Brixton riots, 1981, and this power was brought to

Officers could use stop and search if they merely suspected a crime.

Police would need reasonable suspicion before acting.

Some of these people get stopped on a regular basis.

Just through who the family connection might be.

Or because of historical thoughts about the family connections.

Sometimes it is just about the dress codes.

Police use the stop and search powers, at times,

as a form of abuse because that control element, to know they can at

any time, makes young people feel vulnerable and susceptible to always

On 15`year`old I spoke to said he had been stopped

and searched eight times in the past 18 months but has never

The government now says the system must change.

I want to make myself absolutely clear.

If the numbers do not come down, if stop and search does not become

more targeted, if those stopped to arrest ratios do not improve

considerably, the government will return with primary legislation to

Across Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire the number

of stop and searches in increasing, from 69,000 to nearly 82,000.

That is a 15% rise, bucking the national trend.

Amongst those forces, West Yorkshire is the most diverse.

No one was available for interview but they issued this statement.

West Yorkshire's Police and Crime Commissioner, Mark Burns`Williamson,

He admits there are issues and says changes will be made.

I am aware of the disproportionality issue.

Where stop and search is misapplied it is clearly a waste

of the public's time and, in fact, the police's time as well.

We need to make sure that our officers are trained up to

the right standards, that if someone is stopped there is a clear

To help explain why, a new scheme is being launched

It involves the immediate electronic recording

of the reasons for stop and search, the use of bodycams on police and,

when there is a large number of complaints, officers must explain

It's a matter of a time bomb because there are times when young

They talk about a lot of pilot schemes.

if a pilot can't fly, he crashes in an area and he always

Julian Sturdy, do you accept those concerns?

We are told amongst Yorkshire police forces, the number of stop

and search operations has gone up by 15% when it is has gone down

Yes, I think when you are talking about stop and search you have got

If police forces are saying they need stop

and search in certain areas, for stop and search to actually

work properly, you have got to have the trust of that local community.

In how the police are operating it and how they are using it.

Obviously, what we are just hearing means that that is not happening

So there obviously is an issue that we have to address here.

The Home Secretary has come out and said, quite rightly,

that she wants to see the number of stop and searches fall and also

very much talking about how that can be better monitored to make sure it

Diana Johnson, Theresa May the Home Secretary has

said she wants to reform the way stop and search powers are used.

Would you support the government's legislation?

Well, of course, what she's said so far is she wants

to have some voluntary schemes introduced for dealing with this.

What Yvette Cooper was calling for in that statement you played

a little bit of with Theresa May was actually to say we need to take

We need to stop this racial profiling and we need to make sure

that any targets around stop and search are removed as well.

But I also just wanted to say that the key thing in all of this, for

As I understand it, only 10% of these stop and searches results

in an arrest so it seems to me there is a real issue there about police

Lutel, Chapeltown in Leeds, whichever way you look at it,

And, actually, young black people are more likely, statistically,

Do you not think there is an argument for stop and search

We are talking about a 30`year cycle of criminality, where

institutionally and systematically a lot of young, black people

What we are saying is stop using stop and search as a tool to destroy

the opportunities of young, black males within the area.

This has been going on for a number of years but we keep hearing the old

Give them opportunities to breathe and opportunities to move forward

I wouldn't say that is where the right things are,

What would you say to elderly people who might live in your area who are

genuinely frightened to walk the streets because they could

It is a view that people are frightened

There is a lot of people in our community who don't feel like that.

What happens is, if you give young people

an opportunity to move forward in life, you will start seeing the

What they haven't done, they've been suppressed over

a number of year where they haven't had any real opportunities because

taht stereotype model of Chapeltown, as an area, has perceived itself

Julian Sturdy, do you think there is still a place for stop and search

Yes, I think they have to be used properly, as I say.

That is what the Home Secretary is talking about.

And actually, what Diana said, the Home Secretary has been very clear,

But, actually, if that doesn't work and they don't

fall then she has said she will legislate, and rightly so.

But, I would just say one point here, that we've got to

be careful over how different police authorities us it.

We are talking about, potentially, more bureaucracy coming in

for certain police authorities with these new changes.

And for areas like my patch in North Yorkshire, where we don't see very

much stop and search, then that will mean less police on the street.

Ultimately, that is what we want, to reassure people,

Diana Johnson, the proposed changes include things

like electronic readings, more body cameras in use to record stop

and searches when they happen, and a more robust complaints procedure.

Isn't that more red tape for police officers who say they are

No, I think we do have to accept that those measures are welcome.

That's good, but I do think the Home Secretary could more.

And I have to say to Julian, we are not exactly overworked in

We haven't got that many Bills that are coming forward

It seems to me there is ample time for parliament to look at this issue

and legislate and actually make sure that this is dealt with properly,

We have know about these problems for years.

This has been around for some time and we need to get a grip of it.

Briefly, do you have faith in the government

I have faith in the government to fight the right balance.

I don't have faith in anybody to find the right balance

as I think, systematically, some areas, what they get is what

Let's get some more of the week's political news now.

James Vincent has our round`up in 60 Seconds.

A strike by six trade unions disrupted services

Teachers, fire fighters and council staff walked out.

Unions day there members are angry because they have had to accept

The transfer of Trans`Pennine trains to the Chilterns has been branded

The trains currently used between Manchester and Hull will move from

The current train operator has no contractual rights to the trains.

On a visit to Hull, the Shadow Minister for Policing, Jack

Dromey, said Labour would look again at the creation of police and crime

commissioners if the party got into power at the next general election.

There is an experiment that has failed.

Therefore, we are looking at a range of alternatives for the future.

It has been revealed that the United Lincolnshire Hospitals Trust

has not improved enough to be taken out of special measures.

An action plan will now be drawn up by the Care Quality Commission

and the hospital to help improve its performance.

So, Julian Sturdy, who won the propaganda war following

Well, I would argue that the government won.

The government has had to make some very difficult decisions over

the last four years and public sector pay has been restrained.

That is because of the mess we inherited from the

previous government and the great recession we have gone through.

There have been some very difficult decision we have had to take,

They have been difficult decisions but, ultimately, for

the long term future of the economy and job security I think they were

Diana Johnson, do you think we need new legislation

to ensure that strikes can't go ahead unless more union members take

I mean, in some cases 20% of union members took part in the ballot.

That's only a fraction of those union card`carrying members

I made the point in the House of Commons this week that the

turnout for the Police and Crime Commissioner elections in November

2012 were actually 15.9% and that was a flagship Conservative policy.

I ask the Minister whether he was saying that the PCCs

who were elected on that basis were no longer legitimate.

I think that is not an argument that the government really ought to put

forward because these are properly, legally`called strikes.

This was legislation introduced by a Tory government about the way

Just listening to what Julian said about hard decisions having to be

taken, well I am sure deciding to give a tax cut to millionaires when

you are leaving some of our lowest paid workers in the public sector at

risk of being paid below the minimum wage, I think there is little those

public sector workers would take comfort from what Julian is saying.

As I say, the government had to make these difficult decisions

because we inherited such a mess from the previous government.

It was one of the greatest recessions this

country has seen and it really did put a lot of jobs at risk.

What we have done and what the government has done by taking these

difficult decisions and getting the economy back on track ` you look at

what else is happening in Europe ? the UK economy is starting to grow

again and move forward and that is bringing job security,

Well, it is our last programme of the run and I am sure we will

still be talking about this when we come back in September.

Thank you both for your time today, Julian Sturdy and Diana Johnson.

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.

is structured, and I am an expert, 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