some of the highlights of what happened in the british parliament this year. from the bbc. first 80s, from our series, the life and influence of pat nixon, wife of richard nixon. and later, a conversation on the future of television news. on the next "washington ginsbergmarc discusses foreign-policy changes. goldmacher onane 2014 political stories. lus, your e-mails, phone calls, and treats -- tweets. >> now a review of the last few

months of british parliament. u.k. security and surveillance program, and the future of the european union. and tributes to nelson mandela. this program is courtesy of the bbc. ♪ >> hello and welcome to our look at the autumn term in parliament. it was a term when the field was set by a shot fired at the september conference. >> we will freeze gas and electricity prices until the start of 202017. >> not to be outdone, the first minister of scotland was setting the agenda north of the border. >> it is 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 foray out of the shadows with the reactions to recent security leaks. >> our adversaries are rubbing their hands with glee. >> al qaeda is lacking it up. >> some opposed -- the first healthy green shoots of recovery were coming into sight according to figures. as the coalition claimed, it also showed its austerity program was working. labor politicians had to change tack. they concentrated on the cost of living. in particular, household energy bills. labor leader ed miliband a pledge that came to dominate much of the next few weeks. >> the system is broken. we are going to fix it. if we win that election in 2015, the next labor government will freeze gas and electricity prices until the start of 2017.

>> the first of what turned out to be a series of price rises by the gas and electricity companies came to winsett and lake behind the energy secretary answering questions in the commons. >> during the course of these questions, they have announced that they will increase gas prices by 8.4%. and electricity prices by 10.4%. this is a company that has passed on the highest share of its profits to its shareholders while making the least amount of investment. >> that is extremely disappointing news for british gas customers. british gas will need to justify the decision openly and transparently. >> week after week at prime minister's questions, the labor leader just kept talking about energy.

>> the prime minister said there is a certain amount you can do, freezing energy prices, while the chancellor said in his conference speech, it was something out of "das kapital." is freezing energy prices a good idea or a communist plot? [laughter] >> he stood at this -- and produced policy after policy, regulation after regulation, target after target, all of which put energy prices up. he confirmed that opposing the freeze, he has on his side the big six energy companies. supporting a freeze, we have consumer bodies and small energy producers and the vast majority of the british people. >> if an 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 con.

>> events at this point took an unexpected twist. after retirement came sir john major. >> there certainly is a crisis in energy. many people are worried about it. the price increases we have seen are beyond anything that i think is acceptable. >> he said he feared people this winter might have to choose between heating and eating. >> mr. speaker, the prime minister said that anyone who wanted to intervene directly in the market was living in a marxist universe. [laughter] can he tell the house, how does he feel now that the red peril has claimed sir john major? [laughter] >> we are intervening. i want more companies. i want better regulation. i want better deals for consumers. yes, we also need to roll back the green charges that he put in

place as energy secretary. >> high time that mps heard from the big six. the energy companies stepped out at the energy committee. >> this market is competitive. i acknowledge we are not trusted. we need to have a very thorough competition commission investigation. i believe it would be really helpful to depoliticize this debate, get experts in to look at it. >> this is not just about -- consumers can no longer afford their energy bills. never mind politicizing things. what are you going to do for the consumers? >> let's try to answer. >> that would be helpful. >> first, are those profits there?

>> how can these profits be fair when people cannot afford? >> the second part is what you do with the profits. the reason it is fair is because if i don't make a 5% profit in my business, i can't afford to keep employing my 20,000 people. i can't afford -- it is less than supermarkets make. it is a fraction of what mobile phone companies make. it is a big number. >> realizing they had to produce a policy, coalition ministers finally came up with a 50 pound reduction of average energy bills. >> the government has reviewed the cost profile and i can today announced proposals that would reduce the average household bill next year by 50 pounds on average. as a major energy companies have not confirmed, there will be no

need for price rises in 2014 unless there is a major change in wholesale network costs. some have gone further to hold prices down for longer. >> just to be clear, can he confirm that if the average increase in energy bills this winter is 120 pounds, that even if the companies do pass on the reductions, the average household bill will actually be 70 pounds higher than last winter? >> what of the economy in general? the chancellor delivered a mini budget, better known as the autumn statement to attack house of commons. there was a spring in the chancellor's step. it set an upbeat tone. five years on from the global financial collapse that sent the u.k. economy into a downward spiral, things were on the way back up. still, some way to go. >> mr. speaker, britain's economic plan is working. it is not done.

we need to secure the economy for the long-term. the biggest risk to that comes from those who would abandon the plan. >> we have held our nerve while those who predicted that there would be no growth until we turn the spending tax back on have been proved comprehensively wrong. 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 struggled to make himself heard. >> the chancellor is in complete denial about the [indiscernible]

under this chancellor and this prime minister, for most people in our country, living standards are rising. they are falling here year-over- year. he is borrowing 198 billion pounds more than he planned in 2010. more borrowing to pay for three years of economic failure. more borrowing in just three years under this chancellor than under the last government in 13 years. >> you do wonder what he has been up to with his time. he gave a clue in the newspaper interview this week. he said this, i have had to cancel my grade three piano exam because it is exactly the time when george osborne is standing

up to do is autumn statement. i think he should have gone ahead with the chopsticks rendition. [laughter] >> george osborne clashing on the day of the autumn statement. i am joined in the studio by norman 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. suddenly, it gave labour a compelling narrative at a time when we all know the economy was beginning to pick up. it seemed labor talk about plan a not working. then they shifted to say it is all about the cost of living. they focused on energy prices. that did two things. one is it was very much in sync with public opinion and it

enabled ed miliband to ride the crest of public outrage at his colossal increases in energy prices. it also through the government on the back foot. i had to scrabble around and find some sort of repast. >> do you think ministers were quick enough? >> there were clawing and scrabbling and stumbling their way to some sort of repast and came up with a 50 pound cut by lopping off the so-called green levies. it be honest, 50 pounds on an average energy bill of maybe 1400 pounds is not going to make many households feel much better off. it was a very limited repose. they genuinely intellectually believe the only way to tackle the cost of living is to get the economy growing. that is the only way you create jobs. people get paid better wages.

businesses grow. everything else is a short-term fix. they were sort of pushed into coming up with the 50 pounds off. that is not how they view the cost of living argument. it was a defensive move but they were limited because they don't really believe those short-term measures are the way to address the cost of living. >> onto the autumn statement, we saw the shadow chancellor struggling against a wall of noise. was that because he wasn't challenging george osborne? >> i think it reflects two things. one is, there is now a serious weakness in the labor stance on the economy. it is very hard now to get up and say, plan a is not working. that argument begins to look increasingly thin. that is shown in ed balls' response. he was looking for some sort of argument to put and he didn't have it. the second thing, you remember

i think it was in the budget, again, he got into difficulties that it was put down to a stamina. i wonder, both these big occasions when he is faced with huge backing from the tory benches, he is actually thrown off quite a lot by that. it is partly i think a personal difficulty he has coping with that sort of noise. it reflects a weakness in labor's argument on the economy. >> we will be coming back to you later in the program. the global financial crash five years ago may be slipping into history but bad news stories about banks have kept on coming. this year we learned a cooperative bank was facing a huge financial shortfall. they no longer control their own bank. the former boss told mps the loss of majority control was a tragedy. >> i don't believe that i could have changed the whole

governance of the cooperative movement which was established in 1860. it is a democratic organization. its whole ethos is democracy. >> you could have flagged up to them. this is an unsustainable business model. we have to do something about it. we can have this organization run by a farmer, a telecoms engineer, computer technician, a nurse, a minister, and culturalist. >> that was the nature of the beast. 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 have had the power to say, you need to stop electing members, chronically to the board.

>> the working of banks in general -- the government 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. he 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 sector. i urge the noble lords and ministers to look again at this recommendation. at the possibility of full separation in the review. it is only a further small step at a reasonable one. recognize that we are 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 separate cultures. quite separate. one 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 pressure on credit, the downturn and cut backs, the government introduced a change to housing benefit that it called the spare room subsidy reduction. opponents called it the bedroom tax. it came in in april. debate raged in the commons. >> it was the labour party and government that introduced the bedroom tax and the private sector. on the 19th of january, 2004, labour ministers said they hoped

to implement a flat rate housing benefit system in the social sector similar to that anticipated in the private rented sector. when did you change your policy? >> it will be interesting to say. his own party conference has said that this is an unfair tax. will he vote with the conservatives or with his own party? let me be very clear. this will be the first thing i will do -- reverse this unfair and pernicious tax. >> people in scotland didn't vote for the bedroom tax. it is a nasty problem from a nasty party. people didn't elect it and it is imposed by liberals who should frankly know better. i commend them for their efforts not to mitigate this policy --

>> i think it is outrageous that so many young men in our society feel they can go out, get when pregnant, allow them to have children, and then just disappear. it is utterly shocking. i hope that the ministers will take note of this. get hold of some of the specters. drag them off. make them work. put them in chains if necessary. make them pay back society for the cost of bringing up the children they chose to bring into this world. i met a young couple, 17 years old, neither of whom had ever worked in their lives. they were being expected to suffer some inconvenience by moving into a studio flat. i think the minister -- you have been 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 17 years old, if i wanted to see my girlfriend, i would go see her on a park bench in newport. [laughter] why does the government pay for them to have a flat all by themselves? >> one of the coalition's most ambitious changes to the welfare system has been the introduction of universal credit which replaces six 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 his way. he admitted uc wouldn't be ready by 2017. 40 million pounds of spending on i.t. software for the project had been wasted. the minister attempted an explanation. >> when you are dealing with software for issues and policy problems, it is not an exact science. you try and resolve something through a series of code

changes. you go down the road and then it doesn't completely resolve the issue. what you were trying to do becomes a dead end. we have to look at another way to do that. sometimes it just doesn't simply come to the conclusion. that has gone on long before i.t. was around in building all sorts of things. people reach a point where it doesn't work. >> the next day and commons, labor stepped up the pressure. >> the secretary of state is in denial. he would deny that he is in denial. [laughter] we all know that until he fesses up, no one will have any confidence in his management of this program. it is no surprise that the chancellor says, there are some ministers who improve in office and others like iain duncan smith who show that they are just not up to it. >> i said all along and i

repeat, this program 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 i may 2014. he then promised that they would be assessing the simplest claims by the end of october. they aren't. why should anyone believe him when he says universal credit is now on track? >> we intervened early when there were problems. we did not let this program rollout so that anybody was damaged. >> the people of somerset put it as a mark of a statesman to take a collaborative and intelligent approach to these problems. 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 on beams. they have a veritable forest in their i.t. suggestions. >> norman smith is with me once again. universal credit not coming up to scratch. how big of a setback for the government is this? >> potentially a massive setback. perhaps not in time for the general election. massive because this is the linchpin of the government's welfare reforms. if it falls apart, that whole agenda falls apart. 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 slipped. the only person we have seen relatively confident is iain duncan smith.

the track record of success with these massive computer schemes is pretty catastrophic. you think of -- they have all ended in tears. universal credit is the mother of all i.t. schemes. it will involve around 19 million different claims. it is a live system. the potential for it to go wrong is colossal. i think that day of reckoning will not finally come until after the election. >> thanks a lot. when history comes to be written, 2014 just could come to be viewed as a landmark year, the year when one part of the u.k. voted to make its way to the exit door. the scots are having a referendum in september. a yes vote will undoubtedly mean a shrunken u.k. it was on the 26th of november that the leaders of the scottish national party unveiled their blueprint for independence. the 670 page document was designed around questions about how an independent scotland would operate.

>> the prime minister has vowed to fight for the united kingdom with his heart and soul. [indiscernible] you now have the blueprint for independence. [indiscernible] >> i am enjoying the debate we are having now. that is where the debate should take place. there should be a debate, including televised debates. this is a debate between people in scotland. this is not a debate between the leader of the conservative party or even the u.k. prime minister and the scottish first minister. it is a debate between the leader of the no campaign and the leader of the yes campaign. >> talking of debating the issues, that is what they were doing at the scottish

parliament. straight after the blueprint was launched -- >> within an hour of this publication, they described it as being -- which amazed me. i must congratulate that man on speed rating. -- speed reading. by my estimation, that is 3000 words per minute. a managed to assimilate before he gave his reaction of scotland's future. >> his speech, entirely in tune with his worldview, rooted in negativity -- >> in the white paper, there was not one single example, not one single example of anything that even might be slightly difficult under independence. >> no longer will the people of scotland be ruled by government in westminster whom we did not elect. never has the future of our

country been so carefully planned. there is one certainty -- not a certainty which gets much attention. it is there. i am referring to job losses and defense. there are many excellent scottish companies who support defense technology. >> i have nothing -- i think it is unlikely that we will ever see that document. in my opinion, that document would be the agenda -- austerity, decline and decimation of the welfare state that we all know and love. >> as the white paper sets out, for 34 of the 68 years since 1945, we have been ruled by government that had no majority in scotland. i challenge any speaker on the government to tell us what they would do in the result that the rest of the u.k. decided not to

enter into a union. >> on the 18th of september next year, scotland has the opportunity to gain the stewardship of the oil and gas assets for the benefit of the nation. on the eu, nicholas said yesterday that she didn't want special arrangements applying to scotland. just the arrangements that apply to us now. it may have a skate her intentions but the u.k. has special arrangements within the eu. it has the opt out. leave that country and you leave those special arrangements behind. >> independence is the natural choice of scotland. one in four children is growing up in poverty. it is not a positive case to remain within the union. >> the speculation on what the

referendum might look like intensified. thinking in the house of lords is becoming seriously theoretical. >> in the event that scotland votes to secede from the u.k. in september of next year, with the general election still take place in scotland in may of the following year? [laughter] if so, at what point will the scottish mps elected to the house of commons be asked to leave? if it is before the general election, would it not result in the disintegration of the coalition? [laughter] those who have been elected, i do not think it has told them to go. they are deciding to leave the

u.k., there's nothing that would stop them. would they be able to retain their [indiscernible] well my friends here answer the question? you ask ae friend, very interesting question. arrangements for the house of lords will be for the kingdom to decide. >> norman smith is with me once again. border.ng north of the to there's a precious debate. do you think this will scottish independence question will hit what's mr. -- hit westminster? >> but will not. there is a real question across

the board that they shouldn't need to. in the debate being held in scotland. when we have examined it, it was noticeable that david cameron kept his head below the parapet. the one thing that i think the coalition and the labor feared that the tip things in a certain way is if it becomes a fight between scotland and tory england. david cameronthat is not going to give him is a d ebate. that would be a game changer. that could change the dynamic and potentially give alex the momentum which so far he has lacked. campaign -- has been accused of being quiet and low profile.

>> i think that is a positive. a lot of people i think the view clever rather a counterpart in the sense that witted a smart and quick , fast talking politician. sort of like the earnest uncle and much more levelheaded. i think there is a view that place to the argument of which they are trying to put. why break up something that is working so well? why do you need to do this? andhey were to try to gauge have a much more abrasive character, that would play to his advantage. there have been slight grumbles. actuallyost people

think he is rather clever. there isn't that much joy in the opinion polls. >> that is absolutely true. that ye hasat is been here before in elections to the scottish parliament. it is designed and rigged to try to ensure you can never have a majority snp administration. , where talk to people are we now in the independent campaign? before.een here the second thing is that i think they are trying to diffuse many of the issues. don't worry. we will stay in the european union. don't worry. you can keep sterling. in other words, they're trying

to lay down the enormity of the event. that may reassure voters. there is no getting away from it. he's got an awful lot of ground stilton makeup and not a vast amount of time. -- ground still to make up and not a vast amount of time. >> thanks a lot. we will be coming back in a moment. talking of referendums, a conservative backbencher is doing what he can to bring us closer to the day when we can all have a vote on the european union or at least britain's membership of it. you might have thought something so important would be steered through by the government. in fact, the reality of coalition life means it has been left to this man introducing his own bill, bringing in a referendum by 2017. his bill cleared the comments at the end of november. >> it is right for the people to be given their say. it is right for a british government to seek a new settlement in europe. it is right for us to put that on the statute both now -- a book now. it is been outstanding that my honorable friend have put this before the house. 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. >> it is clear that this house believes that it is the right thing to do to go back to europe to try to get the best possible deal that we can do it whatever that you looks like, to put that to the british people in a in- output. >> that is not the end of it. his bill has to be scrutinized by the house of lords. his peers are likely to have plenty to say. europe is bound to be a big subject in 20 for two of the reasons. at the end of may, elections to the european parliament are taking place, and before that, what are known as the accession rules means the first time romanians across eu member states -- the u.k. independence party, at a party that wants britain to say goodbye to the eu, has protected a mass influx.

there have been warnings in parliament. >> i do think it is a dereliction of duty of her majesty's government to not even attempt an estimate of the numbers who may come in from romania or bulgaria on the first of january. i can understand politically why they have decided not to publish an estimate because they do not want to make the horrendous mistake of the previous labor government, which said that the numbers from the eastern european countries would only be 13,000 a year. i understand that the population that has come in is 1.1 million. >> amid the growing nervousness of the mass influx suggestions -- influx, suggestions -- >> the opportunity that is ahead of us to reform the european union, i think we should take that opportunity to look at free movement.

there are concerns across europe in another -- in a number of other countries about free movement. i think it is right we should look at the accession treaties, countries coming into europe, and within that, we could look at the question of whether we should have flexibility rather than this period of time for transitional control. maybe it should be in place until the national income of the country has reached a certain percentage of the main countries national income, or indeed if migration reaches a certain level. >> that is extremely helpful. >> joining us in the studio once again, norman smith. we saw conservative backbencher saying the government has no idea about the numbers that could be coming from romania and bulgaria. do you think that is right? >> what is certainly right is

they have given no one any clue as to whether they've got an idea. they have actually refused to engage that whole argument. i think the bulgarians and romanians have put it down to tens of thousands. not on the scale we had under the previous labor 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. therefore, we have seen a plethora of suggestions and ideas and briefings to indicate that the government is actually doing something. we have had all these proposals on tightening up of benefits, tightening up on access to the health service, limiting access to social housing to try and minimize the draw factor bringing people to britain. then, we have had david cameron kind of floating this idea of maybe even a cap on the number of migrants. it seems to me none of 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 a rhetorical ploy to show, we understand, we are listening. >> a highlight of 2014 politically will be the european elections. ukip candidates, absolutely certain to do well. do you think the mainstream parties have written these european elections off? >> i think there is in tory ranks almost a fatalism that they are going to take a hammering from ukip just because of what they saw, for example, at east lee -- a target seed for the conservatives, pushed into third by ukip. the europe issue, that plays to their narrative. the one thing that matron them up is the candidates. they have had repeated difficulties with candidates coming out and saying things that they shouldn't have. you think of bongo bongo land. the list goes on.

the problem nigel for roche's head is he has always wanted his party to be different. they are not like the others. we don't have this obsession with control and discipline. the consequence of that, sometimes your candidates go a little walkabout. that can land you in all sorts of difficulty. ukip looked extraordinarily well-positioned in the run-up to the european elections, but you cannot take away from the fact that they do have the potential to implode if some of their candidates go awol. >> norman smith, thank you very much for joining us on the program. when a building project is going to cost an estimated 50 billion pounds, you might expect some details of its environmental impact. that is what the government delivered when it published a high-speed rail bill complete with an environmental dossier, running to 50,000 pages. a printout warned documents would write -- would weigh about 1.5 billion tons. instead, it was all put on a memory stick.

the formal consultation ends in january. the campaign is complaining they only have 56 days to wade through the information mark roughly the equal -- information, roughly the equivalent of getting through 40 copies of "war and peace." depending, of course, on how fast you read. the transport secretary told the transport committee he was fully up to speed on heist -- on the high-speed rail bill. >> yesterday, everyone will know that we did publish the hybrid bill to fund almost -- bill, almost 50,000 pages of work. i think it is the first time i believe that the whole hybrid bill divided on the computer stick. this represents the entire workings of the 50,000-page document. i would say that i believe that this project is vital to our economy and future prosperity to the united kingdom. >> do we really know who is out

there? once we scour the internet and send electronic mac -- messages, the specter of big brother was raised in 2013 by former u.s. contractor edward snowden. are mi5 and mi6 overstepping the mark in efforts to keep the country safe? this building, the top roots -- the top-secret gcqa surveillance center, do they know too much about our lives? when mps held a special debate on the disclosures, this mp spring to "the guardian"'s defe nse. >> for technology changes in the capacity of states and companies to collect and analyze data grows massively. we growing dangerously walking

into a surveillance state. >> we are in a situation today where "the guardian," which had 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. >> this focus on "the guardian" is really quite extraordinary, if you compare it to the fact that you were talking about "the guardian." in the u.s. they're talking about the important issues, citizens privacy. shouldn't we get onto talking about that? >> this is the secret state, the government acting without the knowledge and permission of its citizens, a flagrant breach of individuals moral and probably legal rights for what it believes is the common good. >> who is judge injury?

-- judge and jury in this? i would venture a stage with some site of oversight is a better judge and jury. then the journalist locking themselves up in a room and deciding they are the judge and jury in this. >> the agencies recruitment and training procedures are all designed to ensure that those operating within the ring of secrecy can be trusted to do so lawfully and ethically. a culture of compliance with both a letter -- with the letter of the law pervades everything that they do. >> britain's spy chiefs have been pretty invisible. public appearances have been few and far between, which meant there was intense interest when the heads of mi% and gchq came to perlman for their first ever public questioning -- parliament for their first ever public questioning, the intelligence and security committee. spy chiefs were keen to get some things on the record. >> to clarify, we do not spend our time listening to the

telephone calls or reading the e-mails of the majority. that would not be proportionate. it would not be legal. we do not do it. my duty is modified by saving the lives of british forces on the battlefield, finding terrorists, serious criminals -- by meeting that foreign intelligence mission, as well. >> although we appreciate you may be limited in some details you may be able 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 material. can either you or your coworker give specific examples how this has been a gift to the terrorists? >> we have seen terrorist groups in the middle east, in afghanistan, and elsewhere in south asia discussing the

revelations in specific terms, in terms of the communication packages that they use, the communication packages they wish to move to. >> do you mean this is online, or are you saying you have other ways of knowing? >> we have intelligence on it. we have seen chats 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 perceive not to be exploitable. i'm not going to compound the damage by being specific and public. >> it is sometimes argued that the people responsible for all these publications have not mentioned any names, have not mentioned any details. they have simply referred to general capabilities. is there any validity? it seems on the face of it that is bound to be must less damaging, if it is damaging at all. how would you comment on that?

>> perhaps i could make a comment on that. i'm not sure that the journalists who are managing this very sensitive information are particularly well placed to make those judgments. what i can tell you is that the leaks from snowden has been very damaging. they have 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 have made that remark. i think we need to hear why you feel you're entitled to say that. that is what you are assuming, but can you say more about why you believe that be true? >> i will repeat what my colleagues have said. they have clearly set out just how the alerting of targets and adversaries to our capabilities means that it becomes more difficult to acquire the intelligence that this country needs. >> with "the guardian" cast is irresponsible,

the papers editor was called upon to defend his papers record when he came before the home affairs committee. >> all heads of the security services were very clear in her evidence to the intelligence and security committee that you had damaged this country as a result of what you had done. do you recognize what you have done? do you accept that this had damaged the country? 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. last week, he said, i have been impressed by the judgment and care you would expect from a great news organization. a senior white house official at the heart of the stories on september 9, i have not seen anything you have published today which has risked lives. >yo and i were both born

outside this country. i love this country. do you love this country? [laughter] >> how do you answer that kind of question? >> we live in a democracy. most of the people working on the story are british people who have families in this country, who love this country. i'm suddenly 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 press -- free press and the fact that one can in this country discuss and report these things. >> there is nothing "the guardian" published that -- >> it isn't about what you have published. it is about what you have community did. you have caused the communication of secret documents -- we classify things as secret and top-secret in this country for a reason, not to hide them from "the guardian," but to hide them from those who are out to heart -- to harm us.

but you have communicated those documents. if you knew about the enigma code during world war ii, would you have provided that information? [laughter] >> that is a red herring, if you don't mind me saying so. i think most journalists can make a dissension between the kind of thing you're talking about, the enigma code or the travel of ships -- this is very well-worn material that has been dealt with by the supreme court and that you learn when you deal in nctj courts. >> there were lighter moments as well in the spying saga. the german chancellor angela merkel had been bugged for 10 years by u.s. -- by the u.s.. >> did you discuss with chancellor merkel the targeting of the intelligence services of her phone, and you can ash and can you tell us if his phone has been targeted, and if not, why not? [laughter] >> there was a very good moment of the dinner when one eu prime minister said how disappointment

he was they were more interested -- there was no one who was interested in his conversations. i will not reveal who it was. the point is this -- we do not comment on these issues. >> the british are nothing if not a nation of animal lovers. when the government embarked on the mass shooting of badgers into parts of the country, ministers knew they would be in for a backlash from badger- loving middle england. it was ordered to stop the spread of tb in cattle. plenty of politicians were on their side, and the badgers proved hard to find. numbers shot by the marksman fell well behind expected levels. then came the television moment that would haunt the environment secretary. >> you are moving the goalposts on all fronts. >> no, that is not right at all. the badgers have moved the goalposts. >> a remark inevitably picked up and the comments. -- in the commons.

>> last year, ash last week, the secretary of state cancel the call because there weren't enough badgers. can you explain what gloucestershire has also applied for an extension even though the trial hasn't even finished? is that because the badgers have moved the goalposts as well? >> her government tried to sort the problem by only addressing the disease in cattle. that was a terrible mistake. >> it is actually morally reprehensible what is being done in the west country to badgers. ineffective, inefficient, ignoring scientific opinion. why doesn't he resign? [laughter] >> mr. speaker, he supported a government that did nothing on this. back to the policies of the government he supported -- 300- 5000 otherwise healthy cattle were hauled off to slaughter.

>> the call and gloucestershire was held off with only 40% of the badger population eliminated. 's into aned mp argument. >> he doesn't matter what the evidence says. he will just simply argue that this has been a success. even by the government's own terms, it has 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. this is appalling, disgraceful, and certainly should be condemned. we haven't heard any condemnation from the government. >> this call has proved to be a success on two counts, in terms of humaneness and effectiveness. if the honorable member who proposed a debate, if he has a serious accusation that shots were fired about people's heads, he should report that to the

police. they will investigate, and if people have do that -- have done that, they will have committed a criminal act. let him produce the evidence before he makes these statements. >> in light of the shambles around the current policy, there is a real danger the government is going down the route of gassing. gassing is incredible inhumane as well. the more effective answer is vaccinating badgers. >> please can the minister listen to the views of the members, listen to the views of the public? it is not all about talking ugly cuddlys not all about creatures. >> we are all in this one, and we have to find a solution to it. we've got to recognize that if there is an animal carrying a pernicious disease, it needs to be put down, not only for its own welfare, but for the well for of the cattle. >> if there were an easy answer

to tackling this disease, we would have done it. there are no easy answers when it comes to reversing the spread of bovine tb. there are no examples in the world of a country that has successfully tackle tb without also dealing with disease in the wildlife population. >> just as badgers were proving to be rather thin on the ground in the weeks of the autumn, extremely plentiful. 30 new ones were admitted, taking the total membership of the house of lords number should to 800. >> there were several new peers appointed, such as lady lawrence. lord paddock, a former metropolitan police deputy assistant commissioner. lady jones, a green party politician in london. lord finkelstein, a former associate editor of "the times." a former first sea lord had a

noble suggestion to make. >> i wonder if the royal navy could maybe come to the nation's assistance again. having been scrapped earlier this year. i wonder if the house authorities would like to buy it to berth alongside the palace of westminster to accommodate the huge number of new peers being created? [laughter] >> in fact, the worship can accommodate up to 700 people and has a bank, laundry, and shop. the death of nelson mandela was a moment that parliament could not ignore. the first black president of south africa and father figure for his nation came to parliament back in 1996 and spoke in westminster hall. he was fully aware of the anti- apartheid campaigns that ran in britain throughout his long time in captivity. when his death was announced, tributes were many and moving. >> when nelson mandela took his

first steps to freedom, he made no call for vengeance, only forgiveness. he understood that dismantling apartheid legacy was about more than just removing the most explicit signs of discrimination and segregation. >> the man most responsible for the destruction of what people thought was indestructible, the apartheid system, the man who taught us that no injustice can last forever. >> my mother was often alone in the early section of the public gallery. when he entered the dock, he would always acknowledge her with a clenched fist, which she would return. >> a former foreign secretary gave a slightly different emphasis. >> it was not just nelson mandela who undoubtedly deserves the bulk of the credit, but there was also the south african president, f.w. de clerk.

without both of them, it would not have been a peaceful resolution. let me say what i mean. it is a serious point. mandela was receiving power, which at that stage, most of the struggle had already been one -- won. clerke was persuading his own people to give it up. >> i am truly grateful for the role model that was nelson mandela. to me and so many like me, he provided a tremendous dignity and courage. that perhaps was the reason why during the very difficult 1980s, we did not pick up molotov cocktails and cause chaos on our own streets. we chose another path.

we chose another path. ♪ >> three days later, a less somber day. a celebration of nelson mandela's life and work in words, dance, and sung in the setting of westminster hall which ended the term of parliament on a colorful and poignant note. >> â™ mandela â™ â™ nelson â™ â™ people love you â™ mandela ♪ ♪ ♪ nelson you ♪le love ♪ you make them strong the returner that next week. we will have live coverage of

the prime minister's questions on wednesday. >> pat >> pat nixon traveled abroad more than any first lady lady before her, accompanying her president and husband, richard nixon to china and the soviet union. up next on our first lady series, the life and influence of and. then, from the university of north carolina, a conversation of televisionre news. ♪ [applause] >> i stay in the wings and do not come out too often. this is quite