Skip to main content

tv   Key Capitol Hill Hearings  CSPAN  January 2, 2014 6:00am-8:01am EST

6:00 am
6:01 am
6:02 am
6:03 am
6:04 am
6:05 am
6:06 am
6:07 am
6:08 am
6:09 am
6:10 am
6:11 am
6:12 am
6:13 am
6:14 am
6:15 am
6:16 am
6:17 am
6:18 am
6:19 am
6:20 am
6:21 am
6:22 am
6:23 am
6:24 am
6:25 am
6:26 am
6:27 am
6:28 am
6:29 am
6:30 am
6:31 am
6:32 am
6:33 am
6:34 am
6:35 am
6:36 am
6:37 am
6:38 am
6:39 am
6:40 am
6:41 am
6:42 am
6:43 am
6:44 am
6:45 am
6:46 am
6:47 am
6:48 am
6:49 am
6:50 am
6:51 am
6:52 am
6:53 am
6:54 am
6:55 am
6:56 am
6:57 am
6:58 am
6:59 am
>> i mentioned this earlier, all the training that we've undertaken a. so we've really made an effort to highlight about how important it is. but no question. ideas come anybody was great ideas about how we can be better, be better about what we are doing and be more effective, by all means i'm all in years. even discussing and thinking about today's event, so what
7:00 am
more do we need to be doing? i'm always open to hearing good ideas from whatever source, whether it's private sector, those in the room. i'm happy to hear them. >> we only just have a couple minutes left, and i got one question from the audience. i don't know if you -- we've been talking a lot about sort of this is an issue but there's a very human side to this as well, right? that's always important to remember. we can talk about big numbers, and that gives us a scope of the problem but it boils down to the end of the day to the individual. somebody asked, is there an individual story that you've heard about that really resonates with you? maybe that's a nice way to end sort of on the personal side. >> you know, we often hear on consumers and we're able to provide, have a direct impact,
7:01 am
in terms of the outreach we've made available. i think having a hotline being able to talk to someone who can provide guidance i think that is very, very helpful. also, on the enforcement side we often hear stories about how folks are appreciative, that we have taken action. so something that brings pleasure when we really, when we hear that human element. because as you said, you know, this is a problem that really is very, very harmful. in reading the statistics that came out just today, i mean, the numbers are just outstanding. i absolutely understand that the our individual stories behind those staggering numbers, 16.6 million americans affected by id theft.
7:02 am
frankly, that's really what drives me to look for better and better ways of tackling the issues and the problems. >> like you, i never want to get too far away from -- it so easy to talk about consumers as they grew. and one time my sister who was running a local chamber of commerce in a tiny town in india asked if i was going to be in chicago or come and speak. i talked about this issue with them. afterwards, every single person who was there from all these different counties lined up to come talk to me. and it was absolutely, i mean, anybody who knows me knows i get really hungry and instead of getting rich bass but i listen to every single one of them. the one guy was so cute. he told me about a story about how his identity had been stolen, and they think it manifested into credit card
7:03 am
fraud for him. he kept saying, but perhaps you've heard about my case. and i said, sir, we get 20,000 contacts a week on identity theft. but i know about cases like yours. in the other little funny story i remember is when president bush was announcing the formation of the task force, and then attorney general gonzales and i went to some other law enforcement folks to meet with him on it, we thought it would be a great idea to bring some identity theft victims with us so he could hear. because he was definitely somebody wanted to know the effect on the people. so we bring these people and, naturally what do you think lex we will bring like some of the worst cases, and there were cases, for example, somebody got detained at the border and then thrown into jail for a night over a stolen identity. really sad stuff. and so people are telling their
7:04 am
stories, but, unfortunately, it backfired on me. i'm sitting to his left and he keeps saying i thought you were taking care of this. what are you doing over there? so i walked out of the white house that day like -- anyway. whoever asked the question, it's a great question. >> so, thank you so much. a terrific conversation. i really appreciate it. >> thank you. [applause] >> coming up on c-span2, a review of the top issues in the british parliament. the event was assembled by bbc's version of c-span. then, conversation with the cofounder of global voices online. we will be live with charlie cook. is going to give his thoughts on the 2014 congressional races.
7:05 am
>> i've been involved in politics for 40 years in one way or another. i've worked on reagan 76 and 80 campaigns. i worked in music ministry for eight years. the fact of the matter is i've never seen so many people quoting and waving around the declaration of independence and constitution. many of you 10 years ago you never gave it a second thought. now i bet is at the front of their minds. and it is with tens of millions of us. the fact of the matter is, tens of millions of us love this country. we don't want it fundamentally transformed. so we have to get to as many of the people as again. wake them up, educate them. i'm not trying to pat myself on the back. that's the purpose of liberty and tyranny. i consider it part of the purpose of my radio program as to a number of my brothers and sisters in broadcast which is why we're under attack over time, these utopian status.
7:06 am
>> sunday, mark levin will take your calls and questions on in depth live for three hours starting at noon eastern. booktv's "in depth," the first sunday of every month on c-spa c-span2. >> the british parliament is in recess for the holidays. members return to the house of commons on january 5. next, bbc parliament's westminster review takes a look at the major events in the british parliament since september. this is about one hour. ♪ ♪ ♪ >> hello and welcome to our look at the autumn term in parliament. is a term when the field was set by shots fired at the labour september conference.
7:07 am
spent they will freeze gas and electricity prices until the start of 2817. >> and not to be outdone the first minister of scotland was setting the agenda north of the border. >> independence is not at its heart -- it's about fundamental democratic choice for scotland. the people's right to choose a government of their own. [applause] >> the politicians were not backwards about coming forward. even the security services made a brief fallout out of the shadows to tell us their reactions to recent security leaks. >> our adversaries are rubbing their hands with glee. al qaeda is laughing it up. >> a summer due to close prospects to the uk economy was trying to look better. the first healthy green shoots of recovery were coming into sight. et al. showed its austerity program was working.
7:08 am
labour politicians had to change tack and concentrate on the cost of living. on household energy bills. labour leader ed miliband made a pledge that came to dominate much of the next few weeks. >> the system is broken. we've got to fix it. if we win that election in 2015, the next labour government will freeze gas and electricity prices until the start of 2017 of. [applause] >> the first of what turned out to be a series of price rises but gas and electricity companies came coincidentally at the very time the energy sector was answering questions in the comments. >> during the course of these questions, british gas have announced november 23 to increase gas prices by 8.4%. their electricity prices i can .4%. this is the company that has passed on highchair of profits to shareholders but at the same
7:09 am
time making the least amount of investment. >> first, trying to its extreme of disappointing news for bridget gas customers. british gas will need to justify their decisions openly and transparently to bill payers. >> week after week at prime minister's questions the labour leader just kept talking about energy. >> on monday the tragedies and ago there's a certain amount you can do freezing energy prices, while the chancellor said in his conference speech, it was something out of gas capital. can he tell us is freezing energy prices a good idea or a communist plot? >> month after month he stood at this dispatch boxes into secretary and produce policy after all to come regulation after regulation, target after target, all of which butch energy prices out. can he confirm that opposing the freeze he has on his side the
7:10 am
big six energy companies? and supporting a freeze we have consumer bodies like which and small energy produces like co-op energy and the vast majority of the british people. >> anything energy price freeze was such a great idea, why didn't he introduce it when he stood at this platform? the fact is, it is not a price freeze. it is a price gone. >> defense at this point took an unexpected twist after retirement in the former conservative prime minister sir john major. >> i think they're certain is a crisis in energy and many people are worried about it. the price increases we've seen are beyond anything that i personally think is acceptable. >> he said he feared people this what you might have to choose between eating and eating. >> mr. speaker, the prime minister said that anyone who wanted to intervene directly in energy market was living in a marxist the universe last night
7:11 am
can he tell the house, how does he feel now that the red peril has played sir john major? >> we are intervening. we are. i want more companies, i want more and better regulation. i want better deals for consumers. but yes, we also need to roll back the green charges that he put in place as energy secretary. >> high time they heard from the big six sure enough, the energy companies stepped up at the energy committee. >> i believe this market is competitive. as has been said several times, and i acknowledge, we are not trusted. and, therefore, i believe we need to have a very thorough competitive -- competition commission investigation. supported i believe it would be really helpful to depoliticize this debate, get experts into it
7:12 am
spent is it not just about saying you look at the biggest problem and that is, consumers can no longer afford to pay their energy bills. nevermind politicizing things. whawhat you going to do for the consumers? >> let's try to answer it simple. >> that would be helpful. >> that are too key things to talk about the are those profits there? and let me -- >> how can these profits be there when people cannot afford energy? >> it is the second part of the question is what do you do with the profits. the reason it's there because if i did make a 5% profit in my business, i can't afford to continue employing my 20,000 people. i can actually fort hood operate the company. it's less than supermarkets make. i did except to point it is a big number. >> realizing that to produce a
7:13 am
policy to counter labour's challenge, coalition ministers finally came up with a 50-pound reduction of energy bills spent the cost profile of social environmental policies, and i can today announced proposal that would reduce the average household bill next year i 50 pounds on average. >> here, here. >> spent as a major energy companies have now confirmed there will be no need for price rises in 2014 unless of course there is a major change on wholesale cost. some have gone from to hold prices down longer. >> just to be clear, can he confirm that if the average increase in energy bills this winter is 120 pounds, and even if they companies to pass on the reduction from the levees, the average household bill will ask libbey 70 pounds higher than last year speak with want of economy in general? the chancellor delivered a many
7:14 am
budget better known as the autumn statement on december 5 to attack house of commons. as he left the treasury there was a spring in the chance to step. >> mr. speaker, britain's economic plan is working. [cheers and applause] but the job -- but the job is not done. we need to secure the economy for the long-term. and the biggest risk to that comes from those who would abandon the plan. we have held our nerves while those who predicted there would be no growth until we turn a spending cap back on have been proved comprehensively wrong.
7:15 am
thanks to the sacrifice and the endeavor of the british people, i can today report the hard evidence that shows our economic plan is working. >> the shadow chancellor had the noisiest of reception from the government ventures in the comment. he struggled to make himself heard. >> the chancellor is incomplete denial about the central -- [shouting] >> in office. but under the chancellor, under this prime minister, under this chancellor and this prime minister for most people in our country, living standards are rising, mr. speaker. they are falling year on year on year. for all the smoke and mirrors he is borrowing 198 billion pounds more than he planned in 2010. more borrowing to pay for three years of economic failure.
7:16 am
more borrowing in just three years under this chancellor than other less government 13 years, mr. speaker,. [shouting] >> you do wonder what he's been up to with his time but he gave a clue in a newspaper interview this week. he said this, i've had to cancel my great 3 p.m. the exam. [laughter] because it was exactly the time when george osborne and staying up to do his autumn statement but i think he should'v should e ahead with the chopsticks ringed asian. [laughter] >> george osborne clashing with ed balls on the day of the autumn statement. i'm joined in the studio i know in smith. welcome to the program. that energy price pledge by ed miliband, how big an impact did that have politically? >> it was probably the defining moment of the year in that it changed the terms of trade over the economy because suddenly it gave labour a compelling
7:17 am
narrative at a time when we all know the economy was beginning to pick up. and it seemed labour talks about planning, networking, simply beginning to fail. then they shifted the ground to say it's all about the cost of living. and focus particularly on energy prices. that did two things. one is it was very much in sync with the public opinion, and it enabled ed miliband to ride the crest of public outrage at these colossal increases in energy prices. it also i think through the government on the back foot. they had to scrabble around to find some sort of -- >> ministers came up with his 50-pound, everyone's average energy bill. you think ministers were quick in a? >> they were clawing and scrabbling and stumbling their way to some sort of repast and at the end they came up with a 50-pound cut by lopping off the so-called green levees. let's be honest, 50 pounds on
7:18 am
average energy bill of maybe 1400 pounds is not going to make many households feel much better off. it was a very limited riposte to my difficulty is the difficulty the government has is a genuinely intellectually the only way to tackle the cost of living is to get the economy growing because that is the only way you create jobs. people get paid better wages. businesses grow. everything else as a short-term fix. they were sort of pushed into coming up with the 50 pounds off. that is not how they believe he really address the cost of an argument. it was a defensive move but they were limited because they don't really believe those short-term measures is the way to address the cost of living. >> we saw ed balls struggling against a wall of noise. was that because he is ed balls or because he wasn't challenging george osborne's point? >> i think it reflects two things. one is, there is not a serious sort of weakness in the labour
7:19 am
stance on the economy because with a reviving economy it's very hard not to simply get up and say, plan a is not working. that argument begins to look increasingly thin and i think that showed in ed balls response. he was looking for some sort of argument to put and he didn't have it. the second thing which i am third at a personal level, you remember i think it was in the budget where again he got into difficulties and was put down to stammer. and i just wonder, these big occasions when he is faced with huge backing from the tory benches and they do have a personal dislike, that he is actually thrown off quite a lot by the. so it is partly i think a personal difficult he is coping with that sort of noise, but i think it reflects if you like the weakness in labour's argument on the economy. >> we will be coming back to you later in the program. the global financial crash of
7:20 am
five years ago may be slipping into history but bad news stories about banks have kept on coming. this year we learned the cooperative bank was facing a huge financial shortfall i was doing hands of american hedge funds. the co-op group no longer controlled its own thing. the former boss told him piece its loss of majority control was a tragedy. >> i don't believe i could have changed the whole governments of the cost of that which was established in 1860. i mean, it's a democratic organization. is whole ethos is democracy in. >> you could have flagged up to them. this is an unsustainable business model. we have to do something about it. we can't have this organization run by a farmer, a telecoms engineer, a computer technician, a nurse, a methodist minister who also chairs a thing.
7:21 am
>> that was the nature of the beast, mr. chairman. as chief executive, of course i could comment on the way that the co-op was being developed and its history and so on. but there is no way i could've had the power to say, you need to stop electing members, democratically to the board. >> the working of banks in general was in the house of lords where the, was suffering defeats on its legislation to change the banking system. alterations to the financial services bill were aimed at improving bankers professional standards. a member of the commission on banking standards is the archbishop of canterbury who called for more separation between high street banking and investment banking. >> the second reserve power is a vital component in the structural reform of our banking
7:22 am
sector. i arched the noble lords and ministers to look again at this recommendation. the possible a full separation in the review is only a further small step and the very reasonable one. recognizing that we're trying to build a banking system for the next half-century, not for the next five years. >> the culture of retail banking and the culture in investment banking, these are two quite different cultures. quite separate. one is, is or should be, a culture of caution and prudence. the other is a culture of creativeness, which is very desirable. and risk-taking. of a totally different order. >> as well as putting pressures on credit, the downturn meant
7:23 am
cutbacks on welfare. the government introduced a change to housing benefit but it called the spare room subsidy reduction. opponents called it a bedroom tax. whatever it was a came in in april. debate raged in the comments. >> it was the labour party and government that introduced the bedroom tax in the private sector. now, on the 19th of january, 2004 thomas labour minister said they hope to ever let a flat rate housing benefit system in the social sector similar to that anticipated in the private rented sector. and the question for the sector -- shadow chacha is wanted to change a policy? >> it will be interesting to see which way the member voted when his own party conference has said that this is an unfair tax. so will he vote with the conservatives or will he vote with his own party? let me be very clear.
7:24 am
this will be the first thing i will do. the reverse is unfair and pernicious attacks. >> people in scotland didn't vote for the bedroom tax. it is a nested problem from a nasty partner people didn't elected and it has been propped up by liberals who frankly should know better. i commend them for their efforts not to mitigate this policy of the other aspects as welfare reform. >> i think it is outrageous that so many young men in our society feel they can go out, get women pregnant, allow them to have children, make them bring out by themselves on benefits and then just disappear. it is utterly shocking and i hope that the ministers will take note of this and get hold of some of these fathers, dragged him off, make them work put make them work and make them pay back society for the cost of bringing up their children they chose to bring into this world. i also met a young couple, a
7:25 am
teenage couple, 17 years old, neither of them had ever worked in their life, they were being expected to suffer some inconvenience, perhaps move into a studio and again i say to the ministers, you are being far too generous in many instances. why should the state be paying for two people to set up in a teenage love nest? when i was 16, if i want to see my girlfriend again, i would go see her on a park bench in newport. why does the government pay for them to have a flat all by themselves at all? >> one of the coalition's most ambitious changes to the welfare system has been the introduction of universal credit which replaces the existing benefits with a single monthly payment. the inspiration of iain duncan smith. when the rollout of universal credit began to fall behind schedule, nearly all the criticism came this way. he admitted it wouldn't be fully ready by 20 something and claims
7:26 am
40 million pounds of spending on i.t. software the project had been wasted. the minister attempted an explanation. >> when you're dealing with software for issues and policy problems, it's not an exact science in the sense you try and resolve something through a series of code changes. and get go down the road and then it doesn't complete resolve the issue. in other words, what you're trying to do becomes a dead-end. it doesn't actually work. have to go back and say okay, we'll have to look at another way to do that. there's a lot of work that goes into resolving and sometimes simply doesn't come to the conclusion. that has gone on long before i.t. was run in building all sorts of things. people reach a point where the process doesn't work speak the next day, later stepped up the pressure. >> the secretary of state is in denial. he would deny he is in denial.
7:27 am
[laughter] but we all know that until he faces up, no one with any confidence in his management of this program. it's no surprise, mr. speaker, that the source closest to the chacha says, there are some ministers improve in office, and others like iain duncan smith who shows that they are just not up to it. >> i said all along and i repeat, this program essentially is going to be on time. by 2017, some 6.5 million people will be on the program receiving the benefits. >> he promised universal credit by may 2017. even promised it would be accessing the simplest claims by the end of october. they aren't. so why should anyone believe him when he says the delivery of universal credit is now on
7:28 am
track? >> we intervene early when there were problems. we did not let this program were out so that anybody was damaged. >> the people of somerset think that it is a mark of a statesman to take a deliberative and intelligent approach to these problems, and not, not to rush it in a typical socialist fashion. i wonder if he agrees with me that his critics have forgotten to read their bible and remember the line, for there may be the tiniest specks in his proposals, they have a veritable forest in their i.t. suggestions. >> norman smith is with me was again. universe not coming out with a scratch and a target date has slipped back. how big a setback is this? >> potentialpotential ly a massive setback but perhaps not in time for the german election. massive setback because this is a linchpin basically of the a
7:29 am
government welfare reform and it falls apart, that whole agenda falls apart. you have to say there is mounting nervousness not just in the treasury but in other parts of government about what on earth is going on with universal credit. the deadline has slipped and slipped and slid. the only person who seems competent that it will be delivered on time is iain duncan smith but you have to say the track record of successive governments with these massive computer schemes is pretty catastrophic. you think of the child support agency, passport and they all ended in tears. universal credit is the mother of all i.t. schemes but it will involve around 19 million different claims bringing them down to 8 million claims and its allied system. the potential for it to go wrong is colossal. i think that day of reckoning though will not find them until after the election. >> thanks a lot. when history comes to be written, 2014 just couldn't come to be viewed as a landmark you.
7:30 am
a year when one party of the united kingdom voted to make its way to the exit door. the scots are having a referendum in september, and a yes vote means a shrunken uk. it was on the 26 november that the leaders of the scottish national party, the party in charge of the scottish parliament unveiled their blueprint or white paper for independence. the 670 page document is designed to answer all questions about how an independent scotland would operate. >> the treasury has vowed to fight for the united kingdom with its head, heart and soul. [inaudible] you now have the blueprint for independence. [inaudible] will he now stop it? >> i'm enjoying the debate we are having a. that's where the debate should take place. of course, there should be a debate, including televised
7:31 am
debates, but this is a debate between people in scotland. this is not a debate between the leader of the conservative party or even the uk prime minister and the scottish first minister. it's a debate, rightly, between the leader of the no campaign and the leader of the yes campaign spent talking of debating the issues is exactly what they're doing at the scottish parliament. straight after the blueprint was launched. >> within an hour of this publication, they described it as being totally ridiculous, which amazed me a to do that because i must congratulate that man on speed reading. by my estimation that is 3000 words a minute that he managed to assimilate before he gave his carefully set up a reaction to the white paper of scotland's future. >> his speech, entirely in tune with his worldview, rooted entirely in negativities and
7:32 am
grievance. >> in the white paper there was not one single example, not one single ex-apple of anything that even might be slightly difficult under independence. spent no longer with the people of scotland be ruled by government in westminster and we did not elect. never has the future of our country been so well set up and carefully planned. but there is one certainty, not a certain which gets much attention. [inaudible] i'm referring to job losses and defense whether directly or in a naval shipyards. >> they add nothing. i think it's unlikely that we'll ever see that document. because in my opinion, that document would be the agenda for
7:33 am
austerity and decimation of the welfare state that we all know and love. >> as the white paper sets out so starkly for 34 of the 68 years since 1945, we have been ruled by governments that had no majority in scotland. >> i challenge any speaker on the government to tell us what they would do in the result of the rest of the united kingdom he cited not to enter into a currency union spent on the 18th of september next are scotland has the opportunity to gain the stewardship of the oil and gas assets for the benefit of the nation. and on eu, nicholas sargent said yesterday that she didn't want special arrangements to apply to scotland. just the arrangements that apply to us now. it may have escaped her attention but uk has special arrangements within the eu. it has the opt out, the rebate. leave that country and you leave
7:34 am
the special arrangements behind. >> independence is a natural choice for scotland and they cannot for the life of me -- one and fortune going up in poverty, or the bedroom text of the rising food banks as a positive case to remain within the union. the benefits of in defense are clear for all to see, the speculation of what the post-referendum landscape might look like an intensified. the thinking in the house of lords was becoming theoretical. >> no, resort come in the event of scotland votes to secede from united kingdom in september of next year, will the general election still take place in scotland in may of the following year? [laughter] and if so, at what point will those scottish mps who were elected to the house of commons be asked to leave? and if it is before the german election, would it not result in an overall majority for the conservative party? [laughter]
7:35 am
[inaudible] my lord, those have been elected to this parliament have received the summons, i don't think to be any cause that tells them to go. clearly in the event, unhappy event scotland deciding to leave the united kingdom, there is no legislation in place which would stop united kingdom general election 2015 applying throughout. >> would scottish peers of foreign nationals be able to retain their seats? or would it be my noble friends here -- [inaudible] >> my noble friend asked a very interesting question. [laughter] can i tell her that question five under 64 on page five and 58 of the document says arranges for the house of lords will be for united kingdom to decide. the house of lords will no longer be involved in legislating for scotland.
7:36 am
>> that independence campaign is certainly raging north of the border debate, but precious little bit in the rest of the uk. don't you think this whole question was hit westminster? >> my sense is it may not because there is a real concern, if you like, in the unionist parties across the board that they should not be seen as interfering in a debate that should be held in scotland. when they had the white paper, it was very noticeable david cameron kept his head right below the parapet. one thing which i think the coalition and labour fear could kick things off examines way, is if this becomes a fight between scotland and tory england. and for that reason the one thing which alex wants and the one thing which david cameron is actually not going to give him is a debate. because of that i think they believed would be a game changer. that actually could change the
7:37 am
dynamic and potentially give alex the momentum, which so far, so far he has lacked. speed of the no campaign which i think led by alastair has been accused being very quiet, very low profile. is that fair criticism students i don't think it's a criticism but i think that is a positive because a lot of people i think you it is rather a rather of a counterpoint to alex in the sense that alex salmon is a pugilistic smart quickwitted fast talking politician. alastair darlings would've like much more so are -- sober, much more levelheaded adventures of you that plays to the argument which the no campaign with a better to get the campaign is why break up something which is working so well?
7:38 am
bikini to do this? i think those of you if they were to try to engage alex salmond for a much more abrasive character, that would play to alex simas event. in a funny sort of way although there have been slight grumbles about it, i think most people involved in the better together after think he is rather clever. there isn't that much joy in a moment in the opinion polls. is not much support for independence much about 30, 33%. >> that's true. the big caveat is that alex salmond has been here before in elections to the scottish parliament were basic of all system was rigged to try and ensure that you could never have a majority and he defeat the system and he defied the polls. they would say we are not in the independence campaign is no worse than what we were in
7:39 am
elections, so just been here before. the second thing to say is i think they are trying to kind of diffuse many of the crunchy issues. we've had alex salmond to say don't worry, don't worry we will stay in european gini. over, we can keep stores but don't worry, we'll stick at the same television programs. in other words, to try to play down the enormously of the events. that may reassure voters but there's no getting away from. he's got an awful lot of ground to make up a not a vast amount of time to do it. >> we will come back in a moment. talking of referendums, a conservative backbenchers to what he can to bring us closer to the date with all have a vote on the european union, or at least britain's membership of the. you my thoughts on the concord would be steered through the cover. in fact, in reality, it has been lefleft to this that have left o this that have introduced his own bill bring in a referendum by 2070. his bill cleared the commons at
7:40 am
the end of november. >> it is a right or the people to be given their say. it is right for a british government to seek a new settlement in europe. it's right for us to put that on the statute book now. it's been outstanding of my honorable friend to put this before the house, and this bill deserves the support of the house on its third reading today. >> this bill is not about giving the british people a choice. it is about managing the internal divisions within the conservative party. as has already been said it is not possible in this parliament to commit a parliament which will be elected in 2015 to what it will do. >> it is clear this house believes it is the right thing to do to go back to europe to try to get the best possible deal that we can but whatever the deal looks like, to put it to the british people in an in out the vote. >> that's not the end of it. is referendum bill still has to be scrutinized in the house of
7:41 am
lords. europe is bound to be a big subject in 2014 for two other reasons but at the end of may elections the european parliament are taking place and before that, what are known as the accession rules means for the first time the free movement of bulgarians and romanians across eu member states. the uk independence party, the party that wants britain to say goodbye to the eu, has predicted a mass influx and there have been warnings in parliament. >> i do think it is a dereliction of duty of her majesty's government do not even attempt an estimate of the numbers who make amends from romania and bulgaria on the first of january. i can understand politically why they decided not to publish an estimate, because they don't want to make a register state of the previous labour government which said that the numbers from eastern european countries would only be 13,000 a year.
7:42 am
i understand the population has come in is 1.1 million. >> and ended the growing nervousness of the mass influx, suggestions the home secretary might be favoring a cap on migrants. >> the opportunity that is ahead of us, i think we should take that opportunity to look at free movement. there are concerns across europe from a number of other countries about free movement, i think it is right for us to say we should look at the accession treaties of new country can into europe and within that we could look at the question of whether we should have greater flexibility rather than this period of time for transitional control. maybe control should be in place until the national income of the country has reached a certain percentage of the main country national income or indeed migration reaches a certain level. >> that is extremely helpful. >> join his us once again,
7:43 am
norman smith. with a conservative backbenchers in the government had no idea about the numbers that could be coming from romania and bulgaria. you think that's right? >> what is certain is that given no one any good as to whether they have an idea. they've refused to engage in that whole argument. about numbers but i think the bulgarians and romanians have put down tens of thousands. sorting out and scare we had had under the previous labour government, but what we have seen i think is an attempt by the government to show that it is aware of just how much anxiety there is over the issue regardless of whether these fears actually materialize. and, therefore, we've seen a plethora of suggestions and ideas and briefings to indicate the government is actually doing something. we have all these proposals on tightening up on benefits, tightening up on access to the health service, limiting access to social housing to try and minimize things like the drawback are bringing people to
7:44 am
britain. and then with the david cameron kind of floating this idea of maybe even a cap on the number of migrants. it seems to me that this is going to happen to stop bulgarians and romanians coming on january 1. the point of it is to put down a rhetorical marker to say to the great british public, we understand your concerns, we are doing something about it, we are addressing the issue. it is like a rhetorical ploy to show we understand, we are listening. >> a highlight of 2014 politically will be the european elections. uk -- you think the mainstream parties have written in these elections off the uk victor? >> i think there is inventory ranks almost of fatalism that they're going to take a hammering from ukip just because of what they saw for example, at the sleep, a target the seed for the conservatives weather pushed by ukip a no doubt the europe
7:45 am
issue that actually plays to the ukip narrative. the one thing that make up them up is the candidates. because because they've had repeated difficulties with the candidates coming out and saying things that they shouldn't. you think of slot gate, you think of bongo bongo land. the list goes on. and the problem nigel has is a watered his part to be given. we are not like the others. were more relaxed. we don't have this obsession with control and discipline. the consequence of that is sometimes some of your candidates go a little walkabout and back and let you in all sorts of difficulty. you would have to save ukip look extraordinary well-positioned in the run up to the european election but you can't take with and affected to have the potential to implode if some of the candidates go awol. >> thanks to much for joining us on the program. when a building project cost an estimate of 50 billion pounds
7:46 am
you might expect some details of its environmental impact. that's what the government delivered when it published a high-speed rail build complete with an environmental dossier are running the 50,000 pages. a printout of all the documents weight about one and a half tons are stretched around 21 feet in length. so instead it was all put on a memory stick. when the formal consultation ends, the campaign complaints the only 56 days to wait for the information, roughly the equivalent of getting through 40 copies of war and piece. depending of course on how fast you read. the transfer secretary told the transport committee was fully up to speed on the high-speed rail bill. >> yesterday, everyone will know that we did publish the hybrid bill defined almost 50,000 pages of detailed description were and the first time i believe, madam chairman, the whole hybrid bill
7:47 am
was put on the computer stick. so this represents the entire workings of the 50,000 page document. i would say though i believe that hs2 is vital to our economy and the future prosperity of the united kingdom. >> now, do we really know who is out there? once we scour the internet and send electronic messages, the specter of big brother was raised in 2013 by former u.s. intelligence worker edward snowden to his maskmaking of details of how service is carried out on both sides of the atlantic sparked a string of questions. our mi5 and mi6 overstepping the mark in their efforts to keep the country safe? does this building, the top secret gchq surveillance center know too much about our daily lives?
7:48 am
members have so far been telling you not have the chance to discuss it thoroughly. for technology changes in the capacity of states and covers to collect and analyze data grows massively, we are in danger of sleepwalking into a surveillance scale of which peacetime britain has never seen before. >> we're in a situation today where "the guardian" would have every right to report on this issue which has raised important topics of debate which has done so in a digital, a global way, an interesting way with good journalism, has threatened the security of our country. and which today stand guilty, potentially, of mischievous behavior. >> the focus on "the guardian" is really quite extraordinary if you compare with the fact that he we're talking about "the guardian." in the u.s. their talk about the really important issues like mass surveillance and
7:49 am
applications. shouldn't we get onto talking about that and worry less about what's to be -- stomach. >> this is the secret state, the government acted without the knowledge or permission of its citizens, a flagrant breach of individuals more and probable probably legal rights for what he believes is the common good. >> who is judge and jury? i would venture a state with some form of oversight is the better judge and jury in this process than whole lot of journalists locking themselves in a room deciding that they are judge and jury. >> the agency's recruitment and training procedures are all designed to ensure that is operating within the ring of secrecy can be trusted to do so lawfully and ethically, a culture of compliance for both the letter and the spirit of all debates everything that they do. >> britain's spy chiefs have been pretty invisible. their public appearances have been few and far between, which meant there was intense interest
7:50 am
when heads of mi5, mi6 and gchq came to parliament for the first ever public questioning by the bodies of martyrs the work of the nation's spying organizations, the intelligence and security committee. that spy chiefs were keen to get some things on the record. >> just to flare -- just to clarify we do not spend our time listening to the telephone calls are reading the e-mails of the majority. that would not be proportioned but it would not be legal but we do not do it. my duty as modified by saving lives on british forces on the battlefield, finding terrorists, says criminals by needing that foreign intelligence mission as well. if they're asked to snoop i wouldn't have to leave the building spent although we appreciate you may be limited in some detail you may be up to go into today, i think the public are entitled to know more about this enormous damage that you say has been caused by the publication of classified
7:51 am
material. can either you or others give examples to this example of how this has into words but i get to the terrorists? >> we have seen terrorist groups in middle east, in afghanistan and elsewhere in south asia discussing the revelations in specific terms in terms of the communications director just that they use, the communication actions that they would be moved to. >> you mean this is online or are you saying have other ways of knowing? >> we have intelligence on the. we've seen chatter around specific terrorist groups, including close to home, discussing how to avoid what they now perceived to be vulnerable communication methods, or how to select communications which they now perceived not to be exploitable. i'm not compounding damage by being specific in public but have to be very specific and private. >> it is sometimes argued that the people responsible for these
7:52 am
publications have not mentioned any names, have not mentioned any detail, they have some refer to general capabilities. is there any validity? because it seems on the face of it, that is bound to be much less damaging if it is damaging at all. how would you comment? >> perhaps i could make a comment on the. i'm not sure that the journalists who are managing this very sensitive information are particularly well-placed actually to make those judgments. what i can tell you is that the leaks from snowden have been very damaging. they've put our operations at risk. it is clear that our adversaries are rubbing their hands with glee. al qaeda is laughing it up. there is a consequence. >> you made that remark. i think we need to hear what you feel you're entitled to say the. that is what you are assuming, but can you say more about why
7:53 am
you believe that to be to? >> i will repeat what my colleagues have said. they have very clear set out just how a looting of targets and adversaries to our capabilities means that it becomes more difficult to acquire the intelligence that this country needs. >> so with "the guardian" cast as irresponsible, the papers and it was called upon to defend his papers records when he came before the home affairs committee. >> now, all heads of the secret services were very clear in their evidence to the intelligence and security committee, that you have damaged this country as a result of what you have done. do you recognize what you have done? you accept that this has damaged the country? because this is severe criticism that i haven't seen before from the head of our security services, a senior administration official -- >> a senior administration official of the obama administration told us last week. last week, he said i've been
7:54 am
incredibly impressed by the judgment and care that you would expect from a great news organization. and, finally, a senior whitehall official a part of the stores on september 9, i have not seen anything yet published to date which is rested lives. >> you and i were both born outside this country but i love this country. do you love this country? spent how do you answer that question? >> we live in a democracy, most of the people working o on this story are bridge people who have families in this country, who love this country. i'm surprised to be asked the question but yes, we are patriots. and one of the things we are patriotic about is the nature of the democracy and the nature of a free press and the fact that one can in this country discussed the report these things. >> so nothing to guardian published that is endangering people in the way that you -- >> it isn't only about what
7:55 am
you've published. it's about what you -- that can amount to a criminal offense to give cause the kidney patient of secret documents. reclassify things a secret and top secret in this country for a reason. not to hide them from "the guardian" but to hide them from those are out to harm them. you have communicated those documents. if you had known about the enigma code or in world war ii which have provided the information to the nazis? spent that is a red herring. don't -- i think most journals can make a distinction. the truth is this is very well-worn mantra that has been dealt with by the supreme court and that you learn when you deal in ncpj courts. >> there were lighter moments as well and the spying saga, saying the phone of the german chancellor angela markle has been monitored for 10 years by
7:56 am
u.s. intelligence prompted the question to the prime minister. >> did he discuss with chancellor merkel the target by the american intel services offer phone antennae tell the house whether his own has been targeted and if not, why not? [laughter] >> there was a very good moment at dinner when one eu commission said how disappointed was that clearly no one was interested in his conversations. i won't reveal who it was, but -- but the point is this, that we do not comment on these issues. >> the british are nothing if not a nation of animal lovers when the government embarked on a mass shooting of badgers in two parts of the country, ministers knew they would be in for a backlash from badger loving middle england. the furry creatures have friends in high places. politicians were on their side, and the badgers proved hard to find.
7:57 am
members shot by the marksmen fell well behind expected levels and then came the television moment that would haunt the environment secretary. >> you are moving the goalposts on all fronts. >> no. that's not right at all. the badgers have moved the goalposts spent a remark and avidly picked up in the comments spent last year the secretary of state canceled because there were too many badgers did yesterday, it would extend because he couldn't find enough of them. can he explain what blocks to sure has also played for extension even though the trial hasn't even finished? is that because the badgers have moved the goalpost there as will? >> or government tried to sort the problem by on addressing the disease in cattle. that was a terrible mistake. >> it is morally reprehensible what has been done in the west country to badgers. ineffective, inefficient, just ignoring scientific opinion. why doesn't he resign? [laughter]
7:58 am
>> well, mr. speaker, he support a government that did nothing on this disease. thanks to the policies of the government he supported, 305,000 otherwise healthy cattle were hauled off to slaughter. >> the call was called off. only 40% of the badger population eliminated well below the target figure. >> it doesn't matter what the evidence says. he will just simply argued that this has been a success. when even by the governments own terms it's been a catastrophic failure. shots have been fired. shots have been fired in the united kingdom over people going about their lawful business monitoring the activities of a call set up by this government, and they were shots fired over
7:59 am
this. this is appalling, disgraceful, and certainly should be condemned and we haven't heard any condemnation from the government. >> this call has been proved to be a success on two counts, in terms of humaneness and effectiveness. and 50 on november who oppose the debate, if he is as his accusation that shot shots wered up of people said, he should report that to the police. they will investigate and people have done that they would have committed a criminal act and they should be prosecuted for it. let him produce the evidence before he makes these statements. >> istatements. >> in light of the shambles around the current policy there's a real danger the government -- the real answer, the effective answer is but not sitting badgers. that is what we should do. ..
8:00 am
>> without also dealing with the disease in the wildlife population. >> and just as badgers were proving to be rather thin on the ground in the weeks of autumn, new peers were, by contrast, plentiful. thirty new ones taking membership of the house of lords, upwards towards 800. several notable new peers appointed such as lady

80 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on