10/05/2013 Daily Politics

Politics. Nothing about Europe in the Queens speech. MPs could get a

free vote on and on out EU referendum next week. Are we getting

closer to a British exit? As a Prime Minister meet Vladimir

Putin in Russia, Canada you'll be done to bring the Syrian conflict

closer to a conclusion? A third runway at Heathrow? No, the

airport needs four runways, says a committee of MPs, slamming Boris's

idea of an estuary airport. And was it a mistake to welcome this

man to Britain? Is his stand subhuman rights putting at risk our

relationship with China? -- his stands on human rights.

All that in the next hour. With us for the duration, Paul Waugh, editor

of Politics Home, the website, and we hope to be joined by the editor

of Prospect Magazine shortly, Bronwen Maddox, but she's stuck in

traffic. Moment she arrives, we will whisper in. Let's start with the

clear up with the coalition over the government's child -- flareup with

the coalition over benefits reform. Some of the backbenchers were

spitting with rage yesterday after Nick Clegg threatened plans to --

threatened to veto plans to change the ratio for nurses and

childminders. The BBC has obtained a leaked exchange of letters between

the childcare Minister, Liz Truss, and Nick Clegg, from last December.

In a letter, Liz Truss warrens Lib Dems insist he was signing off a

consultation, not the policy itself.

But Liz Truss was not sure of that. Some conservatives are asking why he

did not raise his concerns at the time. We decided the issue of

whether central government should be involved in laying down by statute

ratios of childcare staff to the toddlers, let's park that moment, it

is something even the Swedes do not bother to do. What does this tell us

about the state of the coalition? is interesting that we're talking

about childcare but both sides are throwing their toys out of the pram.

There is no overt stating that the bitterness felt by the Tories is

quite keen on this one. They work getting into their stride over the

Queens speech and then there was this flareup from Nick Clegg, going

quite public with it. He left Liz Truss twisting in the wind. There is

our sense on the Tory side that Nick Clegg knows that he is not the bees

knees among the Lib Dem activists or the Tory backbenchers. Conference is

not that far away. Is there a sense that he is throwing red meat to his

activists? There is a sense among the Tories

that the Lib Dems are trying to regain ground from what looked like

an overwhelmingly blue Queens speech, with things like immigration

at its heart. Not core issues for Lib Dem activists or voters, stuff

like welfare. And Lib Dems pet projects, like the lobbyist

register, has been dumped, plain packaging on cigarettes also

dumped. The was a feeling that maybe the Lib Dems felt bruised and he

felt that he had to make some capital. It makes for a scratchy

government. But it is probably not enough on its own to stop the

coalition in its tracks? Absolutely correct. Why should declare an

interest because I have a bet of a Magnum of champagne with Ian Martin

that the coalition will start -- will survive until 2015, but that is

not to say that I wanted to. With Nick Clegg at the helm? Even if they

come fourth or fifth in the European elections and headless chicken

syndrome breaks out? There is mutually assured destruction going

on here. Vince Cable in the background saying he could be doing

better? There is no sense yet that the Lib Dems are in changing leader

territory. They have made their bed and they are going to lie in it. The

point of the coalition is to prove that they are grown-ups in

government. Cameron and Clegg are wedded to the project. What kind of

champagne? Ian wanted it to be vintage but I think it should be

quite normal. It is time for the daily quiz. Michael Gove gave a

speech yesterday when he criticised the use of comic characters to teach

GCSE history lessons. Which of these has been used to study the black and

the rise of the third Reich? Was it 1010, Nemo or the Mr Men

characters? Or D, Bob the builder. -- was it 1010.

By the end of the show, we will get the correct answer.

20 bills in a seven and a half minute speech by the Queen but there

was not one word which passed her lips on Wednesday about Europe. But

that has not stopped everyone else talking about it. This week, members

of the old Tory guard have come out fighting to say they want out of the

EU. On Tuesday, Nigel Lawson said that the economic gains of leaving

would substantially outweigh the costs. Last week -- last night,

Michael Portillo told me that the problem in our relationship would be

you cannot be solved by a little renegotiation. -- our relationship

with the EU. Yesterday, nominal Mont told the BBC that the advantages of

ownership were vastly overstated. Support for that position is growing

on the home front. -- Norman Lamont. The times had a vote in which they

discovered that if there was a referendum tomorrow, 46% would vote

to quit the EU against 35% who would vote to stay in. And there is

disquiet on the rearguard, too. A group of Conservative MPs say that

they will table an amendment to the Queens speech yesterday -- next

week, expressing regret that there is no EU referendum Bill. We're

joined by one of those MPs behind the amendment, Phillip Hollobone,

and by Axelle Lemaire E, the French socialist MP. -- Axelle Lemaire. She

is a French socialist MP for Northern Europe. This amendment, is

it your understanding that the Tory whips will allow a free vote?

also, because that will truly reflect the opinion of Conservative

MPs and of the Conservative party. I'm know you would hope so, topping

and happening can be something very different. Is it your understanding

that there will be a free vote? have not been told that but whether

it is a free vote or not, they will be a considerable number of

Conservative MPs supporting it. if you are equipped to vote against

this amendment, would you define a whip? Yes. And you believe a large

number of colleagues will do the same? I should think very large

number. There were 81 MPs rebelling the last time, and would not be

surprised if the number is in excess of 100. Is there a sense that the

promised will vote for the amendment? I don't think he will be

here. That is convenient. Why is the amendment so polite? It is

respectful regret? We have two table it in parliamentary language and the

original motion is to thank Her Majesty for her speech. So any

amendment has to be respectfully worded. Can you clarify what exactly

it is that you want to happen on the referendum front? I want Britain to

leave the European Union but I want urge people to have a say at some

point, preferably sooner than later on whether we should leave or not.

Is it your view that we should have a referendum before the election or

on the day of the election? Either before or not on the day after. It

has to be one of those. And is it your view, IU happy to have a

referendum on our existing status in Europe? The difference of dreamy and

David Cameron is that if there were a -- the difference between me and

David Cameron is that if there were a referendum today, he would vote to

stay in and I would vote to leave. Is there anything the Prime Minister

any terms of membership that would cause you to change your mind?

for me but I suspect it would be a large number of people in the

general population who might be persuaded if there were a

substantial renegotiation. Is it possible that Conservative

backbenchers will bring forward the referendum Bill calling for an

immediate referendum? I think that is highly likely. There will be a

ballot of Private members in the next few weeks and one of them will

be a Conservative MP, and that Conservative MP will come under huge

pressure to bring a referendum Bill. And then you will put the

government in a difficult position because this government can pick and

mix the legislation it supports. There has to be an agreement between

the Lib Dem and conservative part of the coalition of what legislation it

supports and the Lib Dems will not allow support for a bill like that.

Correct? I don't think that's quite right. The government has to agree

on what legislation the government brings forward? The Lib Dem part of

the coalition block to the boundary bill. So if there were a referendum,

I do not understand why government members could not support that.

you believe as Michael Portillo implied, that the Prime Minister is

not really for leaving under any terms? He would not thought to leave

no, but I would. Think the prime could be persuaded. -- he would not

vote to leave now. We had to give the people say, because that is the

important thing, what they think. The question is when, and what

terms? Bannister is making it clear that he wants a referendum by the

end of 2017. Provided he wins.We had to hold his feet to the flames

to make sure that comes up. And if he does not win, you will never get

a referendum. What you make this? all sounds like a very foreign

language to me. Well, it is. It is, but there is not only a channel

between us, there is a world. I think as a French citizen, living in

London, this debate on Europe sounds like a debate about a debate about a

debate. Do not understand what is behind it, what kind of powers would

be repatriated, and seen from the continent, our political priorities

are jobs. We have high unemployment and we need to discover how to get

the country out of recession. So, following the financial crisis, we

feel that it is too much -- it is not the time to reopen the

negotiation agenda on Europe. It is rather the opposite, we need to work

towards greater integration to make sure that the crisis... But he knows

that if there is greater integration, Britain will never be

part of that. Well, that is entirely up to Britain. Under the current

terms... Even the Lib Dems are -- and the increasingly pro-Europe

Labour do not believe there should be integration. This is so clear to

me. The Prime Minister sometimes says that he wants further political

integration within the Eurozone. you, yes, but I am talking about

Britain. I'm talking about the Eurozone countries, sorry. The fear

in Britain is that the Eurozone, because of the mess it is in, and

the absurd decision to have monetary union before you get anywhere near

political union, the political union will have to follow. And that is the

game in town. And that will dominate Europe for the next decade. And your

economies are in such a mess that the argument of the Eurozone will

dominate. And therefore, Britain is not part of that, and might as well

go another way. That is your argument, correct? It is my

argument. But Britain is part of that. When it comes to discussing

the regulations on financial services, Britain is part of it at

the moment. But we usually lose! have a financial transaction tax

which Britain did not want. It is a measure that will be permitted

within the next few months in a positive way. Let me ask you, is

Europe in a mood, Berlin or Paris, that's what matters, is Berlin or

Paris in a mood to agree to any kind of meaningful renegotiation of

powers back to London or Britain? is not a political priority at the

moment. So he is right and you might as well have a referendum. Herman

Van Rompuy said that it is difficult to even consider the go see it in

with the country when you know that they have a hand on the exit handle.

That is called a bargaining chip. What you say to it? I'm not sure

that the actual beverage of negotiations is real. I'd do not

think that there is any. Eurozone countries will ultimately

become a United States of Europe. The British people do not want to be

part of that. The sooner we get out of it, the better. Mrs Merkel may

have a different view from you on that. But if the mood in Europe is

not to give any kind of repatriations that matters in

negotiations, our Paris and Berlin aware that in a referendum, it is

likely that Britain would vote to get out? I agree that that is a

question to be decided by the British people and our political

leaders. So I think there is concern about the potential results of such

a referendum, because we are convinced that it would be harmful

for the rest of the EU, but also for the United Kingdom. Almost 90% of

the small businesses in this country trade with other EU countries.

Swiss businesses. Switzerland exports more to the EU than we do.

Switzerland is an example of a country that does take advantage of

the single market, but has no power negotiating. And they are so poor as

a result(!). Well, they are sitting on natural resources. If money is a

matter resource! This is a nightmare for David Cameron. Cameron's problem

in the renegotiation is, is he serious about walking away at the

end of it and saying, we are out? It is obvious. People voting UKIP were

determined to say it was a simple issue of in or out. The prime

minister has complicated it with this attempt at renegotiation, which

we are not sure of the definitions of, and it gets muddied. The

difficulty for the PM is that next week, it is not the amendment we are

talking about that will cause him trouble, it is the regret motion. He

is pragmatic about that. That is why ministers will be able to vote for

it. But the private members bill comes on Thursday. And as Phillips

says, the government has no say over that. Will the government be trying

to whip on that 's that is where it gets tricky from number ten. If the

Euro-sceptic mood of the country deepens, even if the prime minister

was to say, I brought back powers from Brussels, we should stay in on

these new conditions, the British people might still say no thanks.

my view, that is what the British people will do. They will not be

convinced by renegotiation. That is what we heard from our friend here.

The Europeans are in no mood to take Britain's exit threats seriously, so

we might have to give it a shot. voted against Lisbon. There is a

pro-European consensus in France at the moment. But the National Front

is more powerful in France than UKIP. We have no UKIP in France.You

have something worse in the National Front. It is an equivalent.The

French people voted against the Lisbon Treaty, and the French

government ignored them and went ahead. So why would you want to

consult the people? The treaty was transformed. But you are right in

saying it puts a real challenge to political parties, and we have to

address those. But I don't think a referendum is the answer. Jobs are

the answer. Speaking of jobs, why has your president turned out to be

so useless? Don't say that! Look at what we are doing. He has

implemented more than half of the 60 proposals which were part of his

manifesto a year ago. And how much has unemployment gone up since?

is 10.6%. And among young people? But I must also remind you that the

country's economy is not as bad as here. You are in a recession.The

French economy has grown more. We are all in this together. We are

doing so much, but we can't see results in one year. We are forming

the labour market. We have passed the banking law. I live in France.

Reforming the labour market? You can't say things like that. I think

we have just seen the new French presidential candidate! Thank you

for coming in. " Syria first and foremost" ,

according to the Kremlin press service, it is at the top of the

agenda and the most important topic of conversation as David Cameron and

Vladimir Putin meet in the southern Black Sea resort of Sochi today. But

can the prime minister persuade Russia, a key ally of Syria's

President Assad, to help bring the warring factions to the negotiating

table and end a conflict which has caused the deaths of more than

70,000 people? It is effectively a Syrian Civil War now. The BBC's

Daniel Sandford is in Sochi. Are there any signs of the Russians

moving, even imperceptibly, in their attitude towards Mr Assad's regime?

There are just perceptible signs. There is a suggestion that they are

a bit less likely to support him and a bit more likely to be able to see

a Syria without him. But the key thing they have stuck to throughout

the two-year conflict is that it should be the Syrian people who

decide who should govern, and therefore, they don't want to see

any settlement that says Mr Assad has to go first. That would leave

open the possibility that the people of Syria may choose him to govern.

It still remains a very difficult difference between Britain, America

and France on the one hand and Russia on the other. David Cameron

has come here in hope. He says he has spoken a couple of times to

President Putin recently. The agenda here is more about repairing for the

G8, the G20. Russia will take over as president of the G8. Both sides

admit that at the top of that agenda is Syria. We were invited to see the

beginning of their meeting. I thought it looked quite formal. The

two don't really know each other well, but the words were very

cordial and it was all about the Olympics and . Emit Putin saying he

wants to take David Cameron and around the Olympic Park later. But

David Cameron pointed out that one of his key issues is here. We will

see what comes out of it. Have the British given any indication of what

they could offer or what they could do to encourage the Russians to move

more in the direction that Britain would like them to go? The language

has changed. The language from John Kerry earlier this week changed when

he met President Putin. And the language coming out of Downing

Street briefings has changed. It was said to me that we will be saying to

President Putin, yes, we understand your concern about extremists

possibly taking over in Syria if President Assad were to stand aside.

We have lots of common ground about what the solution to the Syrian

conflict will be. It has to be a negotiated solution where all

parties get round the table. They are trying to give open doors to

Putin to walk through. But his position is that the outside world

can't interfere in this in any significant way. He has become quite

a long way from that position before anything meaningful can happen.

Peace talks are due to happen this month, and at the G8 in Northern

Ireland in June, everyone is hoping that by then, there may be something

concrete. But I think it is still wishful thinking at the moment.

Before I go, I should say that we are here in the residence, for many

years, of Russian and Soviet leaders, beside the Black Sea in

Sochi. As far as I know, you are the first people to broadcast live from

inside the Russian leader's residence on the Black Sea. Another

first for the Daily Politics. And it looks beautiful behind you. Have a

good conference and get lots of information for Monday.

Now, I am delighted to say that Bronwen Maddox has made it. You had

trouble with the traffic. London was not at its best for me. And we have

the former Foreign Secretary Malcolm Rifkind with us. You think we should

be arming the rebels now? I have taken that view for the last 12

months. That view came to me more easily than to the government. When

you have crises of this kind, you look for a bad solution -- a good

solution rather than a bad solution. But the longer this war goes on, the

more people will die. 70,000 have died so far. It could go up to

150,000 over the next year. Anything that stops that is preferable.

Secondly, there is the rise of the Al-Qaeda-type organisation in

north-eastern Syria. It is still a minority of the opposition, but it

is undoubtedly the case that over the last year and a half, they have

had access to arms and have been increasing their influence. They can

control parts of the territory that have been removed from the control

of the Syrian government. The more control they get, the more dangerous

that becomes. Are you sure we would have the capability to be able to

get the arms to what we would regard as the good guys rather than them

falling into the hands of what we think are the bad guys? Quite a lot

has happened over the last year and a half. We do now recognised the

Syrian opposition as the legitimate voice of the Syrian people. There

has been a lot of contact in Jordan and Turkey and elsewhere. The short

answer is that you can't get it 100% right, but it would not be as

difficult as it would have been in the past. What do you say to the

idea that this would be like pouring petrol onto a fire, that the ethnic

structure and rivalries in Syria make Iraq look like a simple nursery

and the whole place would be a conflagration? Needs of the --

neither the West nor Iran created the war. That war is happening. Many

innocent people have died. It is not just a fire, it is already a

conflagration. The question is how you can best bring this conflict to

an end as soon as possible. Part of it will be diplomatic, part of it

may be sanctions. But the most decisive consideration will be

military. If the insurgents are able, because the Assad regime is

not short of military hardware, because they started off with most

of it and they have received some from Iran and possibly Russia over

the last few years, and unless that balance is tipped in the right

direction, this conflict goes on for another few years, we all ring our

hands, and thousands more die and the Al-Qaeda-type people

increasingly take power in parts of the country. Bronwyn, what do you

say? Malcolm Rifkind has made two good points, the humanitarian one

and the threat of Al-Qaeda rising. But your conclusion is wrong.

Putting in more arms into this immensely unstable country is

putting more fuel on the fire. Our record of picking the good guys has

not been great. You can't be sure that the good guys will stay your

friends. People can turn on you. The talks are fantastically frustrating

as it is. Talks have begun to open up between Russia, John Kerry and

Britain will stop there may be the chance of something different.

Russia might be able to change position and save face. It is

calling for international peace talks, and Russia could now say, we

have tried this and we can now back away. There is at least an opening

where Russia can begin to change its view. I don't necessarily disagree

with that. It is not a stark choice of either pursuing a diplomatic

route or giving greater help to the insurgents. The one would contribute

to the other. You have to ask why it is now that Russia and the United

States have come sufficiently close together to call for an

international conference. That could be the beginnings of a date-type

process that leads to a resolution. At in terms of putting pressure on

the Assad regime to accept the need for a political solution to this,

they will be influenced in the right direction if they realised the West

is now prepared, in the absence of such a solution, to give material

and military help to the insurgents. On the other hand, the

opposition may be less willing to do any kind of deal if they think a

giant shipment of arms is coming down way. The Let me add to that

point. It may be possible for us to switch on and off that extra

military help. If they is to cooperate. I cannot think of an

example where you put a load of guns into a country and you can get them

out again. They are not on strings. No, this does not happen overnight.

The idea that you are the insurgents, it is not done in 24

hours. It is a gradual build-up. -- arm the insurgents. At any stage,

the process could be halted at the insurgents were acting unreasonably.

I wish I agreed, but is -- it is an illusion of control. What would

happen if the Russians responded with more weapons for Mr Assad, and

the Iranians? A lot of his hardware at the moment is more powerful than

what the rebels has but it goes back to Soviet times. What if they got

some modern stuff? That is part of the problem. When we had an embargo

in Bosnia, it was a UN embargo which applied to everyone. The only

important that exists at the moment is an EU embargo on the Russians and

Iranians have not only been supplying weapons, they have not

been breaking any embargo to which they were party in doing so. I get

the impression that there is a mood in the British Government,

particularly in the Warren office, moving in Malcolm Rifkind 's

direction. They are reaching towards what he has been suggesting will

stop there is a twin track at the moment, the PM today making the

point of making a attempt for a political settlement. That is the

worst case scenario. -- making an attempt. Another ten are keen on

leadership change. There was a hint this week that Russia were not tied

to any one particular individual. The Foreign Office sees a glimmer of

hope there. They are not naive but they want to push the weapons issue

because it is a pretty good stick with which to beat President Assad.

My Syrian friends tell me that the Al Whites around the regime will

fight to the end because they know that if they do not, they believe

they will all be killed. They do believe that, and there is a risk

that that could happen. They are 15% of the population. They cannot

prevent the other 85% of the population wanting a political

change towards a more released and open society. That 85% is not

homogeneous in any way. It is not in the objective of the West must be to

put whatever pressure is needed on the Syrian opposition that will one

day become the government to ensure that you respect the rights, not

just of the Al Whites, but of other minorities, Christians and Kurds,

that have serious and understandable concerns. Cos of all its gas and

yes, the Assad regime played to these minorities. -- Alawites. That

is where they got their support. That was not a spurious argument. It

has to be taken into concern. a number of Christian supporters

that were very worried. Let me bring you back to a matter more at home.

What do you make of your former Cabinet colleagues sitting around a

table, probably with a single European market at that is being

negotiated? I will go through them, Mr Lassen, Mr Lamont, Michael

Portillo. -- Mr Lassen. Why have you not join them two I have not joined

them because I start with a different set of assumptions.

have you not join them? I think of myself as a moderate. I do not want

Britain to join the single currency but I do not accept the argument

Nigel Lawson is using that you have a stark choice between either

accepting gradual moves towards a federal Europe or leaving you as

soon as possible. He is quite right to say that the consequence of the

Eurozone crisis is that for at least 17 other countries, they will end up

in a con federal system. That is a correct analysis. We already have a

European Union that is very diverse with different kinds of membership.

11 members are not members of the Eurozone. Some countries are not in

-- participating with the fence because of neutral status. For the

United Kingdom to seek to have greater assurances that it will not

be pushed into further forms of social integration and domestic

policy, that we will not tolerate, that is going to be difficult, but

my second criticism of Nigel is when he rubbished or tried to rubbished

David Cameron 's negotiating prospects. He should think back to

the Prime Minister we served under, Margaret Thatcher. When she started

negotiating, it was one against the world. And her negotiation started

far more -- in a more difficult context than David Cameron's because

every pound of rebate she won back, somebody else had to pay for. Every

other member state was going to have to fork out more when she eventually

won. So David Cameron is Margaret Thatcher? I'm saying that the kind

of changes he is making, like getting us out of the working time

directive, the way that doctors and nurses work in British hospitals, if

you change it is does not have any effect on France, Germany, Spain,

Italy. This is doctrinally stuff that we have been bound into. I am

not saying it will be any easy negotiation but actually he is

starting off with the task which is very difficult, but it is not as

difficult as Thatcher had in the 1980s. I wonder about that. But they

do not want to go there because I think she had one simple aim in

mind, but he has to negotiate across a lot of issues. But it is worth

bearing in mind that when a country has legitimate concerns, when they

are put forward consistently and hopefully with courtesy, but with

strength, then ultimately other countries, every other head in

Europe is domestically elected and understands that these are important

issues that are divisive. Copper mines is the motherboard in thing.

One final question, Michael Portillo was in the studio last night saying

that he did not agree that they would get very much back but if they

did not then David Cameron would still vote to stay in. -- compromise

is the most important thing. I think that is likely, but it is not what

the Prime Minister says that will determine the outcome. The

comparison that Nigel Lawson was making was with Harold Wilson's

because the ocean. He got nothing back. I know and notwithstanding

that, at that particular time it was not too difficult for him to win a

referendum. It will be more difficult. But every part of the

media apart from the express in the morning Star backed him. And it is a

different European Union now. I think David Cameron not only had to

recommend staying in happy has renegotiated, but he has been

achieved real substance as a result of the negotiation. I think it can

be done but I am not pretending it will be easy. One final thing, if he

came back with nothing and we had a referendum, how would you vote them?

That is rather like saying if there was a referendum tomorrow. With lots

of caveats and without any real enthusiasm, I would vote to stay in

because for a range of reasons which I could happily tell you... Milk,

no, we're running out of time. believe that now we have knocked

out, and we are locked into a referendum if there is any proposal

to -- to enhance powers in Europe, I could cope with that. So you are in.

Correct. It is to re-won so far. -- the re-won so far.

Workers on the Transport Select Committee say that Heathrow need

four runways and they have rubbished Boris Johnson's ideas they have

export -- harbour airport in the Thames estuary. There is what Boris

had to say about it. I think you have to look at what the MPs are

saying about their solution. They want to create a fourth runway to

the west of London, and move he wrote to the west. It might be

cheaper to move London to the east. They are proposing things that are

not costed. You have to look at the real long-term benefits from having

a new airport to the east of London, avoiding millions of

Londoners suffering from XS aircraft noise. There is no other great city

in the world that would do this to its citizens and in trench a massive

planning and location mistake of decades ago. That was Boris with --

that is -- that was Boris and with us is the chair of the Transport

Select Committee. Why did you conclude that Boris was wrong?

looked at the possibility of building a new airport, and we need

more help capacity. First, there is cost. There is not much information

around but the commission shows it would cost up to �30 billion for

infrastructure alone. Heathrow airport would have to close, with

the massive disruption that that would involve. There are major

environmental issues. The area is a habitat for 300,000 birds. There are

major problems with finance dislocation and environment.

billion, does that include not just the cost of building Boris Island,

but does it include the massive cost of reconfiguring the infrastructure

towards the east of London which it has not got at the moment? New

motorways, new Rhyl were lines. was about access to the airport

itself but it was only an assessment. There will also be

compensation for closing down Heathrow. -- new railway lines.

in the principle of the Scottish Parliament, I guess we can assumed

that �30 billion would end up �60 billion or �160 billion. This is an

assessment on a range of possibilities. If you rule out Boris

Island, but you think we still need a single hub in the south-east, also

-- almost by default is that Heathrow? We need increased hot

capacity and that means it should be at Heathrow. -- hub. There is a

strong case for an additional runway but we also think that we need to

look at other things for the future. Did you take a view on where the

third one we should be? We did not look at the detail of that. -- third

runway show. A number of proposals in the melting pot. To the west,

next to Windsor Castle? Did you call the Queen? ! She should never have

bought that hassle on the flightpath! This has been, if you

were to stand back and look at things with out any party hat on,

this has been a huge decision about the future of our country which the

main parties have bought. Your party for the last election in favour of a

third runway and lost, and then changed its mind. The Tories plotted

against a third runway, and are clearly now trying to move towards

something like a third runway. The parties have not covered themselves

in glory. You are right. It is one of those issues that is too

difficult. But it matters so much to the country in the economy and jobs.

Somebody's going to have to grasp the nettle and the government has

set up the Davis commission. It has told not to report until after the

next general election. I wonder why(!) After that, somebody will

have to take a decision. How do you read this, Paul Waugh? I think it

will do a lot of the spadework for the Davis Commission, this work from

today. I think you will be interested in the paragraphs that

dismiss Boris Island. Some of his critics say that he is very good at

splashing the cash on his own schemes and �30 billion is a lot of

money for something that is basically what they say, just an

issue about a few people in west London trying to protect their

flight plans, rather than economic growth. Some of the Treasury are

coming around to that. It is clear that that is where the party is

going. Labour will have to come around to that opinion, too, by

2015. Boris is in Belfast today, why? Because he's going to a factory

urges going to build the new buses which are costing �350,000 each.

Each. At least they are being done in Britain. Yes, but that is a lot

of money. Where are you on this?I think we have dismissed Boris Island

too quickly. There was a marvellous couple of paragraphs, demolishing

something that does not exist yet, but the KC has made, right, he wants

to spend a lot of money and it is a set of plans for spending a lot of

money in the Southeast. But he has a point that if you were starting from

scratch, you would not put the major airports serving Britain and the

south-east where it is. But we are not starting from scratch. We would

not have a monarchy if we were starting from scratch. That is an

interesting question. But we have the chances that the chance with

this to say, look, where are we going to build this? But we are not

very good at these projects. We are not very good at the economics and

the assessment of them, and this figure of �30 billion needs a lot of

chipping away. I thought that �30 billion would be an absolute

minimum. That came from an independent assessment made by the

consultants. It was an assessment of the range of costs. All we could

work on work proposals, not fully worked out, which are out there in a

semipublic arena. It is a fallacy to think that there would be no

problems with a new airport. It would not be. You would also have to

have new infrastructure so the rest of Britain could get to that part of

London. It is easy for the rest of Britain to get to the west of

London, easier to get there than the east of London. I live in West

London. We're not bad people. It is easier if you are in Merseyside MP

to take this position. Is that fair? This is the view of the cross-party

committee Conservatives again. any west London MPs are there on the

committee? We do have some.I'm going to check! Thank you for

coming. Now, Britain needs money, and China has got lots of it.

David Cameron wants Britain to win export deals over the next two

years, but can we do business with Beijing while criticising its human

rights record, which is patchy? That is probably British understatement.

Gerard Street, a delicious slice of China in the heart of London. The

Chinese have been in Britain for centuries, and we, with varying

degrees of friendliness, have been in China for as long. The upper hand

in that relationship has changed from time to time, but these days,

it is clear that we need them a lots more than they need us. This is the

traditional manifestation of the Chinese in Britain, but their real

power lies behind-the-scenes. investment side, last year was a

record year. 10 million in sterling from China to various industries

including infrastructure, which is important. Our trade was up 13.5%

last year, more than any other EU country to China. There are exposed

to as increased as well, so we are on track to a bilateral trading

relationship of 100 billion sterling by 2015. There is even a feeling

that if two of written's biggest infrastructure projects are to

happen, Chinese investment will be vital. But there is a snag. China's

human rights record does not stack up well. Over the years, Amnesty

International have documented a wide range of human rights abuses ranging

from the clamp-down on freedom of expression and freedom of assembly,

freedom of religion, death penalty, torture, cruel treatment, the list

goes on. Beijing took a dim view when the Dalai Lama was broke to

Britain, leading to fears that political and trade links could be

damaged. While Downing Street have played that down, some business

leaders believe we do have a choice to make. As a nation, we have to

decide whether we set out our stall by example and then get on and trade

with the world, which we need to do to prosper and grow the economy, or

or whether we preach to the rest of the world on how they should behave.

But there is a danger in that. The UK is no longer an imperial nation.

We are not in control of what the rest of the world does. All we can

do is set out our stall by example. Bear in mind, this is high-stakes

diplomacy. It is important to get the political relationship right. We

have different views, so there will be differences of opinion, and both

sides recognise that. We have to engage and work our way through them

and make sure differences in political views don't interrupt the

important trading relationship which is going so well. So how do we avoid

rocking the boat too much, while still being able to speak our minds?

It is about creating a dialogue with the Chinese on human rights. We have

seen dramatic change in China over the years. We have seen an

increasingly affluent middle-class arise, we have seen workers

demonstrate on pay and working conditions. It is in the Chinese

interest to embrace this and work with countries like the UK on how

best to utilise all of that energy to promote good governance and human

rights practice. One of our favourite Chinese imports, but

generally pretty frustrating. The challenge for politicians dashed to

make sure our trading relationship with China is a bit more productive

than this guy has been so far. Here is the dilemma. Britain needs

to export a lot more to China. Our record of doing so is pretty

lamentable, and the Eurozone is on its back. So we need to get into the

emerging markets. On the other hand, china's record in Tibet is barbaric

and we, the British, feel we should be free to say that. How do you

resolve it? Britain should hang tough on the human rights issue.

Keep meeting the Dalai Lama, and so on. China has been keen to say that

it is very big in Britain, but it does not have all the cards. It has

its own problems, and its paranoia about the Dalai Lama is a sign of

the concerns among the leadership about holding the country together.

I think British companies are up to continuing to find their way in, as

German companies have done the decades. Mrs Merkel has seen the

Dalai Lama? A very good point.I am not sure. There is a historic tie

between China and Britain. Should our trade policy be hijacked by an

unelected spiritual leader? Number ten both. You have to respect the

demands for human rights in Tibet, while at the same time making sure

you have a productive economic relationship. Mrs Merkel has met the

Dalai Lama, she just called me to say so. This week, Malcolm Rifkind

was helpful to David Cameron during the Queen's Speech. He intervened to

give him the chance to offer an olive branch to China. The PM could

say, we recognise china's sovereignty into debt. That was a

clear signal to Beijing. Although we have met the Dalai Lama, we are

still interested in a working relationship. That was significant.

China has a choice at this point. Will it listen to some of the

complaints that other countries have, for example over cyber

hacking? Or is it going to say, we will be a superpower but we will not

observe the rules or engage? There will be pressure on China coming

from other governments as it gets bigger. It is possible to have it

both ways, to keep making these points, because China will have to

listen. Without further ceremony, an item

even shorter than the Queen's Speech. Here is the week in 60

seconds. Queen's Speech time this week, and

surprise appearances included Charles and Camilla. Not so

surprised appearances? A raft of Bill's critics claimed were designed

to appeal -- appease you give voters. The Dean Doris was taken off

the naughty step and reinstated as a Tory MP -- Nadine Dorries. Talking

of naughty steps, Nick Clegg criticised the plan over childcare.

Any of us would find it tough to look after two-year-olds. There was

more excitement to Prince Charles on Wednesday after he heard that a

lengthy and distinguished reign was coming to an end. But his hopes were

dashed when David Moyes was appointed to replace Alex Ferguson.

Ed and Dave could not resist getting in on the act, tweeting their views

at two in the morning. Really, lads? But the week is not over yet,

because we are getting news this morning that Abu Qatada's lawyers

have told the British court that if the Jordanian parliament ratifies

this agreement that no evidence obtained by torture can be

admissible in a Jordanian court, he will go back to Jordan, an

interesting development. Is this the final breakthrough, or his lawyers

up to something? The Home Office are hopeful that this could be a proper

breakthrough. They have put a lot of effort into getting this agreement

with the Jordanians, and now even Abu Qatada's lawyers are saying, if

you can pin it down, he will go back of his own free will. It is a

win-win for Theresa May. Why would he agree to do this? I can't see

why. I am not sure it is the end of the story at all. I know Belmarsh is

not the nicest place, but I am sure it is better than a Jordanian jail.

This does not feel like the end of the story to me. It does not add

up. Exactly.Even if they don't use evidence obtained under torture, the

chances are that he is still going down in Jordan. You would have

thought so, but maybe there is some arrangement we don't know about with

the Jordanians whereby he is concerned kind of assurances through

his lawyers that he will have a sentence, but not so severe. We need

to find out more. I am simply going to nod. Where do the Tories all go

on this referendum now? David Cameron has created this huge

problem for himself. The year ago, he was whipping his own MPs against

a European in-out referendum. Now the policy has shifted, not

necessarily because of UKIP. It shifted at the beginning of the year

towards and in-out referendum, but they have not quite got to the

position where they believe in it. A lot of backbenchers have a clear

position saying out, all very strict conditions if they were going to

stay in. It is messy at the moment. It is not easy to communicate to the

voters. The Tory strategy is to say to voters that if you want a

referendum, you can only get it by voting Conservative and giving the

Tories an overall majority. Do you detect any signs that either Labour

or the Lib Dems could shoot that Fox by saying, all right, we will give

you a referendum? This does not show David Cameron as a good politician.

He has fallen into a trap and has been running scared of supposedly

integration that the euro zone might achieve. The Eurozone has not got a

clue as to how it will get there. is going into the next election with

an economic record which is nowhere near the kind he hoped he would be

heading to 2015 with. It will not be a job done economic record by any

means, so he needs something else. Europe will firstly hope to see off

UKIP, he hopes, but it is also a good debating point for him with the

campaign? It is. He is trying to park Europe as an issue in a way.

The next general election will be decided on economic growth and jobs.

They are crossing their fingers that growth will go up a bit next year.

And there on the -- there are indications that it could happen.

Time to find out the answer to our quiz. The question was, Michael Gove

has criticised the use of children's characters in a GCSE history lesson

plan about the Nazis. Who was he talking about? Mr Men? Specifically,

Mr topsy-turvy. And this is not in the nursery, this is for GCSEs?

GCSEs teaching Hitler. You couldn't make it up. Why didn't they choose

Mr Strong? He did not have the moustache. That is it today. Thanks

to our guests. The one o'clock News is starting on BBC One. I will be