21/06/2012 Daily Politics

Afternoon, folks. Welcome to the Daily Politics. It could be back to

the 80s for exams, as the Government considers a return to O

levels. We'll ask whether the changes could restore the

reputation of secondary school qualifications. Paying your taxes?

You're having a laugh. Comedian Jimmy Carr apologies for avoiding

tax after David Cameron slaps him down. But will the joke end up

being on the Prime Minister? doctors take industrial action

today over government changes to their pension scheme, the BMA and

the Health Minister join us to debate the issues. And as Aung San

Suu Kyi visits Westminster on the latest leg of her trip to the UK,

we'll ask Foreign Office Minister Jeremy Browne why the Government is

also inviting the military-backed Burmese President to Britain.

what of England's chances at the Euros? We've been asking

parliament's best footballing brains if they can go all the way.

We must not get carried away. We have to take each game as it comes.

I think he will be getting carried away when it comes to the match

with Italy, even carried out! All that in the next hour. With us for

the duration former Director General of the CBI, Labour Trade

Minister and keen football fan, it says here, Digby Jones. He supports

Aston Villa, which I'm told is a football team! Thank you for having

me. Prince William supports him. And also David Cameron. Welcome.

Let's start with David Cameron's decision to criticise the TV comic

Jimmy Carr for his tax arrangements. It was revealed in the Times

newspaper. The comedian has been using an off-shore scheme to pay as

little as 1% income tax. This morning Mr Carr said he'd made a

terrible error of judgement, despite the scheme being entirely

legal. Here's what Mr Cameron had to say. Some of these schemes where

people are parking huge amounts of money offshore and taking loans are

back to minimise their tax rates, it is not morally acceptable and I

put it like this. Think of all those people who work hard, pay

their taxes, and out of their post- tax incomes, save up to go and see

Jimmy Carr, he is taking that money and of putting it somewhere where

he does not have to pay taxes. That is not right. The Prime Minister

talked about the morality of paying taxes in relation to Jimmy Carr's

tax affairs. Should be commenting on individual tax payer? He is in

Mexico taking a trade delegation with him, and they wish he had

stuck to his knitting and created jobs and wealth for Britain by

being there, rather commenting on such a domestic issue, but it's a

very, very difficult path for a Democratic elected politician to

take. On the one side, it's great politics. Especially at the moment,

it is excellent to be able to say, we've got these rich people not

breaking the law but they are morally repugnant. That's a phrase

which could come back to haunt them. Spot on. To get popularity, the

problem is, one man's tax avoidance is another man's planning. And

everybody does something which is perfectly legal but is a way of

minimising it. Jimmy Carr says he met with his financial adviser who

asked them, do you want to pay less tax and it's totally legal? Jimmy

Carr said yes. What is morally repugnant about that? If it's so

bad, why doesn't the Government close the loophole? Labour was in

power for 13 years, and the loophole has been there all this

time. If these things are so wrong, why do they exist? I actually sat

next to Gordon Brown at a dinner and he was clamping down on self-

employed IT professionals. Years ago, now. I remember saying, why

are you going after these people? What they are doing is illegal. And

not every professional footballer in the Premiership? Frankly, the

tax avoidance, which goes on with highly remunerated of footballers...

He said, if you think I'm going to lose the boats are the people who

support these footballers, you have got to be joking. -- the votes.

People have to make a moral judgement about what they do and

then governments are there to reflect the electorate's view on

whether it should be illegal or not and if it's not right, pass a law

to stop it. Over the years, politicians of all persuasions have

made the tax code more and more complicated. And they have put

taxes on there and loopholes there. Look at the film schemes introduced

by Labour as a way to get money in, but the tax guide under Gordon

Brown went from this thick to this thick. My accountant said to me, I

can't carry around the tax code any more because it's too big. With

smart accountants, finding dodgy ways around it... We have a

politician railing against the market. You put it tax up to a rate

where it pays some body to try to avoid it but it was lower, people

wouldn't do it. If the market doesn't like what Jimmy Carr is

doing, they won't go and watch his show. How do you differentiate

between it aggressive tax avoidance and straightforward tax avoidance?

I do great... I gave money to charity and a try to put other 10

and I took huge exception to being told, when I put a bit in and the

Government puts a bit in and the charity gets it, it is morally

repugnant tax avoidance. I thought, if you're going go down this path,

be careful because you will put a lot of people down a road where

they have a label they don't deserve or forgive. The Prime

Minister has made to open season on people like Jimmy Carr. We should

look at Tory donors, Tory MPs, Cabinet colleagues, celebrity

supporters. We will see where this ends. It will be very interesting.

Now, today's Daily Mail has something of a scoop. We are giving

the Daily Mail credit. Usually it just steals other people's scoops

and does not give them credit. They've got hold of leaked

documents from the Department of Education on Government plans to

overhaul the exam system. Michael Gove was summoned to the Commons

this morning to confirm the plans which he said are going out to

consultation. So what has he got in mind and what could it mean for

school children in England? Here's Jo with the details. Yes, it seems

Michael Gove and his team have been burning the midnight oil. They've

come up with a new plan for school exams in England. Well, not so new

as it turns out. They're looking at getting rid of GCSEs and bringing

back O Level style exams. Remember them? It's understood the Education

Secretary believes GCSEs have led to a collapse in standards. And the

new tests would, it's claimed, meet or exceed the highest standards in

the world for that age group. The subjects would include English,

Maths and the individual sciences Physics, Chemistry and Biology.

There could also be new exams in History, Geography and modern

languages. Less able pupils might also sit a simpler CSE-style exam.

What's more, it's been reported that Mr Gove wants just one exam

board to set the new papers instead of schools being able to pick and

chose, something which ministers have claimed contributes to a race

to the bottom. However head teachers will have more choice on

what they teach, as the plans include proposals to scrap the

national curriculum in secondary schools. Something that already

happens in academies. Andrew. Thanks. We're joined to discuss the

plans by Conservative MP Liz Truss. And the shadow schools minister

Kevin Brennan. Welcome. Why don't we start with a short opening

statements. What is the case for this reform? Britain is

underperforming, our international competitors, we are 28th in the

world, 16th for science. It's not good enough. We have been overtaken

by Germany. The Asian countries are racing ahead, Canada is doing very

well and unfortunately, although we have seen the great inflation in

schools, the real results are not better as shown by the

international comparisons. The exam boards are competing with each

other to make the exams easier, to get schools to take them, and we

have seen the expose by the Telegraph this year showing it's

going on so we need radical change. Will Labour oppose these reforms

and why? If as reported in today's Daily Mail and we are returning

back to O-levels and CSC's, yes, we would, because we fear it will

close of opportunities for young people and Ken Baker this morning

described by CSCs as a worthless piece of paper, as they were. I

taught them. It was a change brought in by Mrs Thatcher for a

reason, to make sure opportunities were not closed off to children at

the age of 14. At the moment, 40% of students are not getting five

good grades at GCSEs. They're getting grade which are not well

regarded by employers. What we need to do, we're not talking about

returning to that system but what we are saying, in top-performing

countries, 80% of students are getting good quality qualifications

at 16. Those who are not able to reach those standards, 20%, should

be able to show what they can do in terms of mastering basic

mathematics and English. They can't do that in the current GCSE

structure. We are moving to a two- tier system, aren't we? There will

be two sorts of qualifications and one of them inevitably would be

seen as one for the poor. We have a two-tier system at the moment, 40%

of students not getting good grades at GCSE is and who are bringing

qualifications that employers don't take seriously and are having to

retrain people to do. I think it's better to say... They are being

sifted out by schools at the age of 14. Are they are told that they

have to go for an inferior qualification. I'm afraid that is

what will happen. I will come back. We have got plenty of time. Your

party had 18 years. Yours had 12 years. 13 years. Between you, that

is three scholastic generations. Three generations of children going

through school. After 11 years of full-time, free compulsory

education in this country, half the children, 48% who take a GCSE this

summer, will not get a grade above a C grade. 42% of the employers,

public and private sector, are people who come out of school and

have to give them remedial training, teach them to read. You are

squabbling now. What the average kid and empire once, just teach

them to read, write and count. -- employee wants. This constant

social streaming concept. You have got to teach them to read.

completely agree that we didn't do enough when we were in government.

Were you wrong to introduce the GCSEs? Margaret Thatcher did it.

The A-level system was not right because not enough people were

getting good quality occasions. were you wrong? Answer yes or no.

It isn't right. It must have been on otherwise you would not be

making these changes. It's IBS on know. The Tory high command is not

going to hang you from Westminster Bridge! Just answer truthfully, yes

or no. They were better than what went before but not as good as what

we could have now. No one is holding you accountable. I did a

GCSE in media studies myself, Andrew, so I'm well aware. Confess

and be honest. Was it wrong to do it? They were an improvement but

not enough of an improvement. there's an improvement, why are you

going back to the way it was? want to say why it will be

different. What we are envisaging his students will study in the same

classes but when they get to 16 there will be a question about, are

they up to doing the rigorous GCSEs or do they sit... So they sit at

the same classroom but do it to different qualifications? Excuse me.

You've had a good go, even they didn't answer my question. How can

this country hope to compete with Germany or China or Singapore? One

of the questions in the GCSE science paper is, do you use a

microscope or a telescope to look at the moon? If you ask somebody

that, you would think you were Jimmy Carr having a laugh. There is

a good piece in today's Financial Times a dressing that very question.

I haven't read it. It points out that the GCSE is available to

children at every level and that may sound like an extremely simple

question. It is, but it's not testing the ability of the pupils

who are being stretched. What is the answer? Do you think Chinese

children are being asked that question? They do get a paper like

that. Do you think a Chinese kid is being asked that in a serious

science exam in the Shanghai? idea. The answer is no. It is an

all ability paper. If you're going to put in some children in a small

number, clearly questions of that kind will be on it. It shows we

have a two-tier system at the moment. Students are being asked

low-grade questions at the moment. It's better to get basic English

and maths in place. Back in the distant past, when the education

system was ruined through the introduction of comprehensive

schools, instead of saying it let's make the bits that don't work well,

secondary modern, and CSC's, instead of saying that letters make

that better, create more vocational skills and training, and Taylor

something to people whose academic abilities is not so good, instead

of that, both of you in different Will it actually raise standards?

If the problem is you were going to have a mediocre set of results, it

will not raise standards, will it? We're asking schools to have higher

aspirations. Students in all these other countries - 80% or 90% are

doing high quality academic qualifications until they are 16.

Why did you leave out then? That is top of the table. I do not think we

can have a system that only educates a minority of people.

Academic education is becoming more and more important. Mathematics

commands highest earnings premium in the workplace. He cannot write a

whole bunch of students off. Half of students cannot read? Actually

those standards have improved. I know you say about the return back

to the system of having selection at 11, which is presumably what you

favour in terms of grammar school as and secondary moderns. The vast

majority of such -- children, literacy was terrible. It is wrong

to say that half the children cannot read. It is wrong to say

they cannot read at 16 - half the children. Why is it Beth half of

the Labour MPs actually supported our policy? -- that. We are out of

time. A great debate. I am sure we will continue it. If you had

surgery or an appointment planned with your consultant, chances are

you're not be seeing a doctor because of industrial action over

changes to pensions. We will bring to representatives of both sides of

the dispute to argue their cases. The public finances we inherited

were in a terrible situation. There was a necessity to rebalance public

service workers' contributions to their pensions with taxpayers'

subsidies. Instead of, for example, �4 out of �5 being contributed,

there has been a shift. I wanted it still to be a really good pension

scheme. When you look at it, for a junior doctor starting out, over

their working lifetime, if the works through G68, some he is

starting out at 2015 and 24, they will be able to have a pension -- a

large pension. All the doctors will get the pension they expected when

it spent -- expected. Starting with you, do you feel there is little

sympathy for you and the strike? Some of the headlines in the papers

saying, the strike will confirm a growing perception that the

profession is fuelled by greed. This is the first time in nearly 40

years that doctors have taken any sort of action. The public have to

ask what has driven them to this and what meant that 70% of them

said they wanted to take action because of the fact the Government

had come back on the 2008 pension scheme. Let's have a look at

doctors and GPs. What you say to reports that at supporters also

waning? There were poles by GPs saying that 281 GP centres, 22%

confirmed there would not be taking part. Doctors have taken this

decision very reluctant they. I can fully understand and sympathise

with doctors who do not want to take this dispute out on patients.

That is why we have tried to minimise the impact on patients.

All doctors are treating emergency cases. I'm not out to maximise the

adverse reaction on the public. We are talking but highlighting the

problem and resolving the issue. What do you hope to achieve?

Ministers could not have been clearer. They said the action

stands no chance to talk in changing government policy. One way

or another, one has to try to resolve these. There are be far

better to resolve but sooner rather to talk, sit down and tried to find

a way out of the problem. Why could do not have stop this happening?

believe the deal being put forward is fair. You'll notice the nurses

and Unison members are not striking today. Department of Health

officials have had 23 meetings with the BMA to discuss this. It is

unfortunate that chair of the pension committee did not turn up

to the meetings. Hamish has had five meetings with the Secretary of

State. Why have you not worked this out? Do not so we have not engage

properly in negotiation. The head of our pensions department has been

at every single meeting - the equivalent of every other union

personnel was there as well. The idea we have not been committed to

the discussions is untrue. Are you saying you will not negotiate?

have come up with a fair deal. Ind has been accepted by the nurses'

and Unison. -- it has been. If you joined the pension scheme in 2015,

if you retire at 65, you will get a pension of �53,000. If you retire

later, at 68, you will receive �68,000 a year pension, which is a

pot of �1.5 million from the private sector. Why is that not

acceptable? We went into more the issues about pensions in 2008. We

had a deal where doctors would work longer, pay more and, where any

future impact on the pension system would be taken by the employees and

not by the Government. People live longer and the cost of pensions go

up. That would be paid for by the employees and not the Government.

It is wrong to compare it with another pot. At the moment, that is

supplied �2 billion a year surplus to the Treasury. You have run a

Tarmac deal? No, we have not. -- gone back on that deal? Very few

have joined that scheme. That scheme renegotiated, Winnie was

less good than the current scheme that doctors had. -- we knew. We

agreed to it in the interest of the public. It is not surprising that

few doctors joined bad. What you are now offering was far less good.

The 2008 scheme which was put together did not take into account

two key factors - one the economic situation and the cost to the

country. You are saying you a change it because of the economic

situation. Also because of changes in the lifespan of people. If you

retire at 60, it could be 34 years. Amanda working on the line a Jaguar

has jumped through every hoop to keep in work. -- a man. Rarely have

I ever sat in a television studio unwashed a turkey voting for

Christmas. -- and watched. On behalf of that kite in Birmingham,

making motor cars, you have just wash -- lost the street-cred your

profession deserves. I am sorry you think that is the case. Doctors are

now in the 30th of a pay freeze. -- third year. Doctors have agreed to

pay more. Lord Hutton said, this is not the race. Public sector

pensions are not gold-plated. It has always been part of working in

the public sector that you had a degree of job security and

reasonable pensions. Now doctors are having to pay almost twice as

much as equivalents in the Civil Service. That cannot be fair.

should doctors' pay much more for their pensions and well-paid civil

servants and MPs? First of all, it is wrong to just isolate one aspect

of the whole pension package. should they pay much more? 14.5%

Against 9%. Why is it so different? You are wrong! 14.5% after tax

relief, that is 8.7%. If you are talking about MPs, they are

currently paying 13.5% for their pensions. It rose from 11.25 %.

That is bought eight 20th accrual. Matters in half the time the

doctors would take. -- that is in half the time. On the broad., let's

not get bogged down into much detail in terms of figures. -- on

the broad point. Is it fair? Senior civil servants are earning, on

average, �78,000 a year. Consultants are earning �116,500.

The average pension for all civil servants, including senior, middle

and junior, is about �31,000 the year. The average in the NHS scheme

is �7,000. The doctors won �53,000, rising to 68 as an pounds. -- the

doctors want. -- the doctors want �53,000 rising to �68,000. Is it

clever to cut funding for the NHS, introduce competition and carry out

the biggest reorganisation of the NHS, impose a pay freeze and

changed doctors pensions at the same time? BhS is a protected

budget. They are having a modest real terms increase. -- the NHS is

a protected budget. This was not going to get the doctors on side.

It was difficult to get doctors on side at times at all. The NHS needs

to continue to evolve. We cannot stand still. You are looking greedy

and self-interested. You have not gone strike that money being sent

for the NHS. You ask about your pensions. You know as well as I can,

industrial law is you cannot go on strike for something like that -

only for a contractual thing. could make a bigger deal upper tip.

The beer maybe -- made a big deal about the changes. We were the

first body to talk about this. We both have scars on our back to

prove it. When teachers started to strike in the early 80s, they lost

the link of trust between society and them. You're just about to go

down the same path and that is a tragedy. Thank you both very much.

Contrary to what Digby was saying, if any techies are watching this

programme, I would like to reassure you, Christmas is a long way off! -

- techies. It has been veiled Jimmy Carr paid in cash for his �8.5

million house. -- it has been revealed that Jimmy Carr. I think

we are in the wrong business the stuff we need to be comedians. Got

Until very recently it would have been unthinkable. But this

afternoon Aung Sang Sui Kyi, leader of Burma's Opposition and a woman

who endured house arrest at the hands of her country's military

junta for 15 years, will address both Houses of Parliament. She's

only the second woman after the Queen to do so. In a moment, we'll

talk to the Foreign Office minister Jeremy Browne about the trip and

Britain's invitation to the President of Burma to visit the UK

later in the year. But first let's go over to Adam Fleming who's

outside the Houses of Parliament with two women whose lives have

been touched by Aung San Suu Kyi and her campaign.

Good afternoon. A really historic day in the Commons today. They just

started cutting the grass on College Green but to discuss

today's events we are joined by boot to women who have been

affected by Aung San Suu Kyi. A woman who wrote a film about the

Burmese opposition leader. And a woman who is from the Burma

campaigner UK. Rebecca, this would be a great climax for your thumb,

wouldn't it? Yes, when I voted for years ago, Aung San Suu Kyi had

been under house arrest for over 20 years and the film was a

campaigning film to campaign for her release so little did we know,

history would move so quickly. does this fit into the story of her

life? Today is a wonderful day. She's on a five-country tour of

Europe and I think that in addressing both houses of

parliament today, which is an honour accorded to usually only

heads of state, I think the West are sending a clear signal to the

military of Aung San Suu Kyi, but she has the right for leader, and

she has who we wanted a business with. She won a landslide election

victory in the 1991 and it will mean she will return to Burma at

the end of this week with increased political clout. What is it like

knowing you are going to be watching her? It is wonderful. Very

inspiring and encouraging. To see Aung San Suu Kyi travelling outside

Burma. She has the confidence she will be allowed back in Burma. Many

others have been campaigning for her release. It is just very

helpful and encouraging to see this, but I think the most important

thing for us to see is what she has to say. The political messages she

has been delivering throughout her trip in Europe is very good and

very inspiring. There are still hundreds of political prisoners in

Burma. The international committees, governments, have to do something

about it for their release and, at the same time, for humanitarian aid

to be increased in at Burma, especially for Refugees, to have a

genuine peace in ethnic areas. The International Committee should pay

attention. Are you worried that if people see Aung San Suu Kyi touring

around Europe, they will think everything is fine now? Some people

who don't know much about Burma, of course they might think that the

problems are solved now but Aung San Suu Kyi makes it very clear

that we still have a long way to go in Burma and the international

community needs to support the people in Burma. Although the

Government in Burma is opening up some kind of political phrases by

stabilising problems in Burma... It's a problem for the

international committee to support our community and the people in a

Burma to have genuine peace. what about the British Government's

invite to the President? It's far too soon. The British Government

has sent bench marks against the Government in Burma and none of

those benchmarks have been met. Thank you both for joining us. We

have run out of time. The speech starts at 3pm and then there is a

reception later on. Thank you, Adam. And welcome to

viewers in Scotland. We're discussing Aung San Suu Kyi's visit

to Britain. Her speech to the joint session of Parliament. And we're

joined by Jeremy Browne, Foreign Office Minister. Are we in danger

of thinking that the situation has been resolved in Burma now? Yes,

because it has not been resolved but has shifted significantly. The

balance to have to strike in the play Missy is to recognise change

when you see it and reward it but not anticipate future change before

it has happened. We are trying to get that balance right, encourage

progress in Burma. This is a sick of a good part, this week, but we

are not being blinded by it -- a significant part. That woman thinks

it's too soon to invite the President of this country. He was a

former general. He leads a military-backed party. Still a

military regime. She thinks it's too soon. That could then it is

sometimes made that in trying to reward progress and show good faith

-- criticism -- in terms of my decisions going on in Burma with

the people, we over reach ourselves. I don't accept that. I think we are

getting the balance right. Aung San Suu Kyi is in favour of telling

that level of engagement and the Prime Minister and Foreign

Secretary have been in Burma this year, and as well as meeting her

they had engaged with the Burmese authorities and the President as

well. We have to manage that relationship as a whole, and him

coming, I hope, will enable us to bring about reform in Burma. Have

we normalised relations with Burma? We won't sell them arms, but have

we returned to normality? Ride through, we had an embassy there. -

- a right through. I look forward to being at posted there! What poor

man had descended there! It's not normally the longest queue for that

job. It's a politically interesting job when you arrive at. The British

ambassador is back here for the Aung San Suu Kyi visit and is

playing a central role in that. We have suspended EU sanctions and

consciously not scrap them. They are in suspension and that was a

conscious decision led by David Cameron and the British Government

that we would have that hanging over them but if there was a

demonstration of progress, the rewards follow, so there is a bit

of coaxing. Over 400 political prisoners, still. Lots have been

released. Amnesty and others had a campaign where you had people's

names on your hands and campaigned for them. Those had been released

so there has been great progress. I had a meeting with Aung San Suu Kyi

and of Foreign Secretary this morning and she said she thought

there was about 271 remaining political prisoners but you can get

the ones who are most obviously political prisoners, they have been

released. It's what you classified as a political prisoner because

some of them, it may be described like that, may also be imprisoned

for violent acts, for example. She said the 271 was not an absolute

figure and there could be an error. A we are the biggest donor.

gives us some substantial leverage. Although William Hague was the

first British Foreign Secretary since the 1950s to visit Burma, and

Richards had previously been. There's all kinds of difficulties

in Burma. A lot of internal unrest. We are trying to help in that

regard and I hope that that gives us a bigger... When I was in Delhi,

as a minister, I said when Burma finally opens up to the world, the

real end during way of keeping reform in their face will be

through trade. It will be through clean water, health care, education

and all that comes from wealth created by people trading and

investing. Am very supportive of what you're doing. I think the way

you have put it is spot-on. When the cameras have gone home and Aung

San Suu Kyi has gone home, and it's not flavour of the month any more,

the Burmese have got to understand democracy pays and that by a job,

healthcare, education. I strongly agree. What do we want to trade

with them? There's a lot of opportunities. Let me help you.

They have a lot of natural resources. The Chinese and the

Indians are in their though, aren't they? I mean the support services,

gas and oil fields. Really good people who can go in there. Also

they need capacity, how to deliver and we are quite good at that,

education and training. I want to move on. Will there be Lib Dem

unrest at these education reforms? I haven't seen the details of the

reforms but read some newspaper reports. I think what will be the

guiding principle for the rank and file Lib Dems is to have a system

where everybody is able to realise their potential. You don't have a

glass ceilings put in at different layers. It's a return to a two-tier

system. I think there has been some genuine concern, not only on the

Conservative benches, that we need to make sure that different exam

boards are not trying to compete with each other to make the system

easier. Will your party be happy with a two-tier system? English and

maths, we need to keep the rigour to be internationally competitive.

Will you be happy with a two-tier system, a return to O-levels and a

modern version of A C S E? instincts are obviously people will

get the top grades and people will get, but we want to try and keep

that under one umbrella bar than having separate strains. The OK. We

have done Education and Burma. Versatile today. Now the big issue.

England are playing Kiev on Sunday. I was unfairly treated earlier this

week on the subject for the did you see that? I apologise. I have no

idea what you're talking about. said England had never reached a

final of the tournament held outside England. And this was

reported as me predicting that England would not reach the final.

I didn't do that at all. Can I now get on with a questions? No

minister is going to go to the match in Kiev, in the Ukraine,

correct? The quarter-final. Yes. The semi-final, if we get through,

it's in Poland. So you can go there. What happens of England makes the

final in the Ukraine? I think we are reserving our position. Why?

I'm definitely not going because I will be on the other side of the

world. If it were you? The position, it has been, and answering the

question, I'm not going. Would you go? The ministers in general?

they go to the final if we make it to the final? It remains under

review but I wouldn't have an assumption that they will do.

if it's right to boycott the Ukraine for the reasons you have

given, surely it doesn't matter whether it is the tiddlywinks

championship or the finals of the year 2012? If you want to make an

effective boycott, the final is the place to do it. Not going to a

quarter-final,, a final, it consistently es or no. The position

is that there is widespread feeling, shared by the British Government

that they have been a serious errors of concern in the Ukraine

and you want to demonstrate. The fact it's been discussed so widely

in a way, as shown that we have got across that message very powerfully

but there are people who say that it is appropriate, especially if

you go to the later end of the competition, to have that type of

representation. We will keep it under review but it wouldn't hold

any great prospect that we would attend because of those concerns

about human rights. You could make it that if you go to the final, you

then have to go and be ambassador in North Korea as a penalty?

that why you're not going? Are they hosting any tournaments any time

soon? They did well in a 1966 World Cup. Their record since then...

but then they could afford to eat. They are now richer than South

Korea, though. An amazing transformation in that type of the

world. Thank you very much. That's assuming England get to the final.

What do you think? I would ask you! It's already been a summer to

remember with Diamond Jubilees and the Olympics, not to mention

England's imminent triumph in the Euros. The eyes of the world will

be on Britain. So what better opportunity for putting our goods

and services in the shop window? But are government and business

really capitalising on it? And are they doing enough to promote

British trade with the emerging economic superpowers of Brazil,

Russia, India and China? We sent We might not be able to guarantee

the weather but this summer will be Britain a past of his chance to

shine on the world's stage. We have had the Diamond Jubilee. --

Britain's prime -- chance. Will any of this actually make a difference

to the image of Britain in the world? Will it help to put our

exports in the shop window? In the end, have you got the products?

Have you got the people? Is the Government backing you? Can you get

export and financial support? Too many answers remain, not quite, not

sure. That is not the view from the coalition front bench. British

exports to Brazil going at 37%. British exports to China going at

61%. British exports to India going up 73%. That is because the British

government is out there, championing British business, which

the other side neglected to do. Brazil Russia India and China are

the brick Nations. -- brake nations. These statistics do not tell the

holster talk -- story. In the UK club bottom of the leak of EU

nations when it comes to sending goods to emerging markets. -- the

UK is bottom of the leak. Russia is a very good example of exporting

its image. We're in the post- industrial age where Britain does

not produce as much as it did in the 19th century. Russians aspired

to everything, what is British and what is English. What open stores

in Brazil? In Brazil, we are known for football. It has a Briton who

took the first football in the 18 90s. We are known in different

places for different things. We could be promoting our message even

more. That is what is going to sell goods and services. Why aren't we

selling more? They do not cut as any slack. We think the Indians are

our friends. Belgian exports more to India than we do. Unless we have

the products, the personnel, we have to get up and go guys, but

above all we have a government that believes in helping companies

export. Ministers say they believe that there is no bang behind their

words. When I was in Brazil receiving British business figures,

there were two things they always said. They had no idea Brazil was

like it was. The second was that they will be back. Sadly, quite a

few were impressed but never came back. Heritage is one of Britain's

u s ps. That will determine whether our trade is left in the past. --

unique selling points. Let's start with the image of Britain abroad.

How are reviewed on the trading saying? I was an international

corporate finance a liar. It has -- lawyer. I do not think it has

changed. We are seen as slow but we are trusted. More than the

Americans and the French. More than the Germans and Japanese. We're a

trusted trading partner. People believe Bass and like to associate

with our values. -- belief asked. When you buy something for me by

because you feel good about it all. As emerging markets get richer,

middle classes have disposable income. What do they want to show

off? And services. They want to buy a Mini. They want a Jaguar Land

Rover. They want a Vodafone made in Newbury. They want to send their

kids to a British university. That is buying into a feeling of

Britishness. In the last 30 years, nothing has changed. Middle classes

are growing and expanding in the -- in those countries. We make half of

every Airbus that is ever flown. A lot take off from Toulouse. It is

booked as the French export. Reebok kit as an export to France. We make

half of it. -- week book it. They book a whole thing. France sell a

lot more to India and China. That happens a lot. Secondly, an awful

lot of what we do it in emerging markets, we have come in from other

ways. Higher education is a fabulous export in this country. It

is them coming to us. Services is another one. On a monorail in Dubai,

we ran it. It is not a sensible sale. -- Serco run it. We have a

Secretary of State who does not use British goods. They do not get it.

I came up against this all the time as Trade Minister. It is open

market. I do not want protectionism. What I want is in the DNA of people.

It is not protectionist. I would love Vince Cable to get in every

day the Toyota, Nissan or Honda made in Britain. The British

business minister gets into a Japanese car made in Japan? Because

they cannot understand why it matters. When I was the minister,

the first thing that happened Dom we made Nissan in Sunderland.

the first thing that happened at... I am saying if you put him in here

and asked if he was patriotic, he would say, of course I am. When I

got there, they said, it is your car. They do not get it. As you can

imagine, we're getting very excited at the Daily Politics about

everything going on in Europe. Last minute transfer of the Greek right

wing, Germany giving nothing away. -- and plucky England planning

their own furrow and just about staying in the game. I'm not

talking about the euro crisis, I am talking about Euro 2012. I am told

it is a football tournament. Who will win? Can Greece beat back the

Germans? Who better to ask than football-mad MPs? Occasionally talk

does slip towards Euro 2012. We are interested in both. There is a

danger that both will end in tears. Expectations are raised. Things

seem to be on the way up and dashed at the last moment. I think

everybody wants Greece to win. I am told Greece will only play if they

played against the German reserves. I would like Greece to win but I

expect Germany will win. If they win and we when we will play them.

Maybe they should decide the bail out conditions. I would like to

think they would drop out of the euro's first but I have a sneaking

suspicion that, if Italy do well, it will be a winning goal by Mario

Balatelli. Days are numbered to just a couple. Let's get behind the

lads. It is looking good. By God, the country needs a left! It is

quite clear it will be the euro, any time soon. No is the straight

answer. I think we have done pretty well so far. We might beat Italy

but I think we will probably get knocked out by the Germans. First

of all we are unlucky side. I think we will be the only financially

sound country come the final and we will win because of that. They can

but we must not get carried away. We will take each game as it comes.

They have benefited from the lack of hype and the rest of it. They

can go all the way. Can England win? If they do, or will it mean a

feel-good factor and sweep the nation? Welcome to both of you.

What do you think? I think it has been a good performance, better

than expected so far. Will have to wait and see what happens at the

weekend. Better than expected because everyone had low

expectations. I have watched these matches. They are not brilliant.

They have got through, which is fantastic. Data not shown a great

sense of brilliance. We have had better England teams in the past. -

- they have not shown. We will will them on to win at the next game on

Sunday. What chances to they have of reaching the final? We have to

get past Sunday and probably get past the Germans. Let's see what

happens. Jeremy Browne asked about the consistency of policy in terms

of ministers going to watch matches in the Ukraine. Do you think they

should go if England reaches the final? I'm not sure they should go.

I take the position that, if you send a minister and they lose, they

could Jinks the team. I am the superstitious football fan. Maybe

we will just leave it. Next come on to the issue of effect on the

country and politics. -- next, to the issue. In terms of political

boost, it is hogwash. There is no evidence this has evidence on

people's political views. What is more significant is the state of

the weather. In the brief summer we had last month, the month before,

we had the slight blip in people's economic confidence and in a

general attitudes towards life. not football? Not football. What

about if they reach the final? With that whip up a bit of national

fervour? You can go back to 1966. I cannot remember the time what the

national mood was like. Going back and consulting the polling digests,

there was no discernible impact, even though we won it in London on

up own territory. On the tournament like this, possibly in the World

Cup, they might be an impact that last a week or so that nothing more

enduring than that. 1966 is a myth. The election took place 17 weeks

before the World Cup finals. polling numbers at the time, month-

by-month by month... In 1970, Harold Wilson lost unexpectedly --

unexpectedly took Ted Heath. We to say there is no correlation between

Wilson losing an inspection -- an election he is expected to win and

England being lost out? I remember watching the World Cup in 1970. I

had to get my grandfather's house because he had the colour

television. -- to go to my grandfather's house. I do not think

there is the same access to the Games as there is today. I think it

is very easy. Do you think the Government might hope for a bit of

a lift from the football? I agree with Andrew. Football is the big

mass sport for the nation. I do not think a team's result has much to

an impact on the political situation. Harold Wilson blamed it

on a consignment of two jumbo jets and diamonds into Hatton Garden

which changed trade figures. Not football! England any wins the

World Cup when Labour was in power. That is his gag. That is

irrefutable. Thank you for being a guest of the day. Thank you to all