:00:45. > :00:48.Afternoon, folks. Welcome to the Daily Politics. The worst floods in
:00:48. > :00:50.30 years in some parts in country end a very soggy summer and leave
:00:50. > :00:53.an insurance headache for homeowners and businesses. The
:00:53. > :00:59.Prime Minister lands in Rio to sell the UK's wares. Could exporting to
:00:59. > :01:02.these fast growing economies get us out of recession? They get the best
:01:02. > :01:04.A-levels, GCSEs and their pupils dominate the top jobs. But what's
:01:04. > :01:09.to be done about the great education divide between private
:01:09. > :01:19.and state schools? The Prime Minister's been taking a Latin test
:01:19. > :01:21.
:01:21. > :01:28.live on TV in New York. So, how did he do? And the literal translation
:01:28. > :01:36.was...? Again you are testing. would be good if you knew this.
:01:36. > :01:39.would be. Glad it was not me. All that in the next hour. And, with me
:01:39. > :01:41.for the whole programme today, is the philanthropist and
:01:41. > :01:45.educationalist, chairman of the Sutton Trust, Sir Peter Lampl.
:01:45. > :01:51.Let's start with a terrible flooding that has hit so many parts
:01:51. > :01:57.of the country. One of the worst affected areas is Yorkshire and in
:01:57. > :02:01.York itself where river levels peaked. Our Correspondent is there.
:02:01. > :02:07.Yes, it looks pretty terrible behind you. It is not raining. Has
:02:07. > :02:13.it been saved by the fact the weather has changed for the better?
:02:13. > :02:18.Lovely blue skies here. What we have is fire and rescue officers
:02:18. > :02:23.who have been ferrying people, medical personnel in particular, to
:02:23. > :02:28.and from one of the buildings behind me - a residential care home
:02:28. > :02:34.- to check that people all the -- have all the medicine they need. It
:02:34. > :02:39.is a busy lunchtime in York. Behind the noise of the traffic, you can
:02:39. > :02:44.hear the faintly audible sigh of relief. The feeling is that your
:02:44. > :02:52.has escaped the worst of it. The flood defences can take 5.5 metres
:02:52. > :02:57.above the normal river level. Repeat this morning at around 8
:02:57. > :03:02.o'clock. On the other side of that building, the river used winds its
:03:02. > :03:07.way through the city with such a mess. The defences have managed to
:03:07. > :03:12.keep most riverside properties clear of water. There is still
:03:12. > :03:18.quite a bit of flooding here. People are having to be rescued by
:03:18. > :03:22.the fire service. People are breathing a sigh of relief. That is
:03:22. > :03:27.not much comfort for those who did in this area thinking, if more rain
:03:27. > :03:31.comes, we will be hit. I think, had there been a couple of hours of
:03:31. > :03:35.heavy rain yesterday, we could have been looking at an entirely
:03:35. > :03:41.different story. Either speaking to the Environment Agency and they
:03:41. > :03:46.were saying that there is no rain forecast for today. -- I was
:03:46. > :03:50.speaking. The picture will remain rosy. These will to should
:03:50. > :03:55.gradually recede. It is clear that hundreds of homes across the
:03:55. > :03:59.country, and especially in the north, have been affected. In the
:03:59. > :04:05.next year or so, the arrangement that has been put in place to
:04:05. > :04:10.ensure that people who are in blood affected areas - blood prone areas
:04:10. > :04:14.- can still get insurance. That is due to come to an end before next
:04:14. > :04:19.June. There are still questions and matters of policy that need
:04:19. > :04:29.hammering out. The feeling is it will not just happen this year, we
:04:29. > :04:30.
:04:30. > :04:35.will see it again and again. we're joined now by Nick Starling
:04:35. > :04:40.from the Association of British Insurers. What is the agreement?
:04:40. > :04:45.is called the statement of principles. He was put into place
:04:45. > :04:49.as a temporary measure. It means that our members keep people
:04:49. > :04:54.covered in high-risk areas. That is in return to the Government
:04:54. > :04:59.investing in flood defences, sorting out planning, so we no
:04:59. > :05:04.longer have unwise development in higher risk areas and greatly
:05:04. > :05:07.improving the flow of information to people. Why is it temporary?
:05:07. > :05:16.Wires are not permanent? Those people will worry about what will
:05:17. > :05:20.happen to those premiums. -- why is it not permanent? We said it was
:05:20. > :05:28.unsustainable. That is partly because it distorts the market. New
:05:28. > :05:35.entrants can cover people in lower areas for lower prices. It does not
:05:35. > :05:39.guarantee price. Some people in high risk areas are paying higher
:05:39. > :05:44.premiums. You say you will not insure homes in high-risk areas
:05:44. > :05:48.without a premium being paid over and above what is being paid at the
:05:48. > :05:54.moment. They are saying for about 200,000 households in the country,
:05:54. > :06:00.insurance will become unaffordable or unavailable. No other country in
:06:00. > :06:02.the world has property wrapped up in flood insurance. We need to
:06:02. > :06:07.share the risk between policyholders and governments so
:06:07. > :06:14.people can be assured of getting colour. What do you mean, share the
:06:14. > :06:17.risk? -- getting cover. Does that mean I have to pay a high premium?
:06:17. > :06:22.What we are discussing with government is a range of issues
:06:22. > :06:27.around this. The Government itself has talked about a very small levy
:06:27. > :06:31.across the industry as being part of this. Also, looking at what the
:06:31. > :06:36.right premium is for someone living in a high risk area. The risk is
:06:36. > :06:42.increasing all the time. People here in an area which was not high
:06:42. > :06:47.risk are now at a high risk of flooding. All of us are. I am as
:06:47. > :06:51.well, probably. The situation is there is enough money in the
:06:51. > :06:55.industry to offer money to people in high-risk homes. They think
:06:55. > :07:03.you're trying to squeeze more money out of the Government cut the state,
:07:03. > :07:08.or other policyholders. I do not recognise that. If you have a
:07:08. > :07:17.very... Let's say there is a very major flood event - an East Coast
:07:17. > :07:21.flood event. There will be a huge hit on government spending if that
:07:21. > :07:26.happens. There would not be enough money in the system and we would
:07:26. > :07:30.need shared liability. Do you think we are looking at the levy being
:07:30. > :07:36.imposed right across the country, in order to help to pay for these
:07:36. > :07:41.areas? I want to say that I really feel for all these people. It is
:07:41. > :07:46.absolutely dreadful. I have a home in Florida and, regularly, we get
:07:46. > :07:50.tropical storms and hurricanes coming through. I know what it is
:07:50. > :07:55.like to be flooded - not completely flooded. With insurance, in the
:07:55. > :08:01.United States, we have separate flood insurance - federal flood
:08:01. > :08:05.insurance. That is separate from a household insurance. Nevertheless,
:08:06. > :08:13.it is a traumatic experience, when your home gets flooded. I have
:08:13. > :08:17.never been flooded. This is water coming through windows and... The
:08:17. > :08:23.other thing I want to say is, of them are so much government can do
:08:23. > :08:28.to help people. Do you think they are not doing that? They are.
:08:28. > :08:33.Nature takes its own course. We will see increasing amounts of this
:08:33. > :08:38.happening. The whole insurance... My insurance in Florida goes up.
:08:38. > :08:42.The cost of insurance is getting out of hand. It must be affordable.
:08:42. > :08:48.What is dramatic is people warring they were not be covered in future
:08:48. > :08:52.years. Would you put a cap on the premiums that people pay? Where
:08:52. > :08:58.would you put that cap? That is something we are discussing with
:08:58. > :09:03.the Government. Affordability is the key issue. It will depend on
:09:03. > :09:07.your own circumstances. Some properties are virtually
:09:07. > :09:14.uninsurable. If you are flooded every two or three years, that is
:09:14. > :09:18.not insurable. What will happen to them? We need to talk about theirs.
:09:18. > :09:25.I think there is a real point here. There is an issue about whether
:09:25. > :09:29.people should be building houses in those places. The number of places
:09:29. > :09:34.that are becoming increasingly difficult to prevent flooding is
:09:34. > :09:39.becoming bigger all the time. You say 200,000 and that is a huge
:09:39. > :09:43.number. You are right on that. The flood risk is increasing. The
:09:43. > :09:49.Environment Agency says if we spend �1 billion a year on flood defences,
:09:49. > :09:54.which we welcome, that is only enough to keep pace with existing
:09:54. > :09:56.risk and not reduce it. Thank you very much. Now, fasten your
:09:56. > :10:01.seatbelts for the latest instalment of our jet setting Prime Minister's
:10:01. > :10:03.travels. Yesterday, it was New York and today it is Brazil - home of
:10:03. > :10:08.carnival, the 2016 Olympics but also one of the world's fastest-
:10:08. > :10:12.growing economies. And so, our Dave has just arrived in Sao Paulo, not
:10:12. > :10:15.just to do the samba but also to try and boost trade. He's
:10:15. > :10:18.accompanied by a 40-strong business delegation. And, it is no wonder
:10:18. > :10:24.that the Prime Minister wants to dance close - so close to the
:10:24. > :10:28.Brazilians. Last year, Brazil overtook the UK to become the
:10:28. > :10:31.world's sixth largest economy. As we crept out of an economic
:10:31. > :10:37.hangover in 2010, Brazil celebrated growth of 7.5%. Even last year, the
:10:37. > :10:40.country had 2.7% growth compared to the UK's 0.8%. Brazil is one of the
:10:40. > :10:45.four so called BRIC countries, thought to be at similar stage of
:10:45. > :10:50.newly advanced development. The others being Russia, India and
:10:50. > :10:53.China. We saw a similar push from the UK, with India, at the
:10:53. > :10:56.beginning of David Cameron's premiership. The Prime Minister is
:10:56. > :10:59.keen for the UK to set out its stall because, according to the
:10:59. > :11:03.Department for Business, Brazil is yet to become one of the UK's top
:11:03. > :11:07.trade partners. It is the 27th largest destination for UK goods
:11:08. > :11:11.exports and the 41st market for UK services exports. Our entry onto
:11:11. > :11:14.the Brazilian scene has been slow compared to our neighbours.
:11:14. > :11:17.According to the Department for Business, the UK accounted for 1.8%
:11:17. > :11:27.of Brazil's goods imports in 2010, compared to 6.5% from Germany and
:11:27. > :11:28.
:11:28. > :11:33.2.6% from France. The question for Dave now is whether the UK can
:11:33. > :11:35.dance to the right beat when we have been so far behind. With us
:11:35. > :11:37.now is the Business Minister, Matthew Hancock, and with his
:11:38. > :11:47.folding bike is Emerson Roberts of Brompton Bicycle, who visited
:11:48. > :11:48.
:11:48. > :11:53.Brazil himself on a trade delegation in 2010. You did not
:11:53. > :11:59.cycle there, I presume. More exports to those countries. That
:11:59. > :12:05.has been the emphasis and focus in the last few years. With this visit,
:12:05. > :12:08.who is David Cameron trying to attract to buy our stuff? It is the
:12:08. > :12:13.largest prime ministerial delegation in history, we
:12:13. > :12:17.understand. Does that make a difference? Yes. You take lots of
:12:17. > :12:23.businessmen with you. Several ministers are going in order to try
:12:23. > :12:29.to reach as many parts of the Brazilian economy that we can.
:12:29. > :12:35.There is a special focus on sports infrastructure. They have the World
:12:35. > :12:41.Cup in 2014 and then the Olympics in 2016. There are British
:12:41. > :12:47.companies like a con, who designed the master plan for the London Park,
:12:47. > :12:52.who have similar contracts in Rio. There is that to capitalise on.
:12:52. > :12:59.Also the energy sector. There is offshore oil and gas off the shore
:12:59. > :13:05.of Brazil. We are the world experts in offshore. Do these charm
:13:05. > :13:10.offensives work? Yes. Everything helps. Your opening bit, showing
:13:10. > :13:16.where we are in relation to Germany and France... We are quite a long
:13:16. > :13:19.way behind. Absolutely! We are playing catch-up. Anything the
:13:19. > :13:25.Prime Minister can do to raise the profile of British businesses, all
:13:25. > :13:29.to be good. Catch up here because the focus was too much on
:13:29. > :13:35.financial-services, is that right? We did not do enough in those years
:13:35. > :13:39.looking outside the EU and now we are suffering. I think that is a
:13:39. > :13:45.fair criticism. The first foreign visit by the Prime Minister when he
:13:45. > :13:48.came into office was India. That was in recognition of the fact the
:13:48. > :13:53.fastest growing markets are outside of the EU. There are outside of
:13:53. > :13:59.North America as well. Over the last 12 months, and exports to
:13:59. > :14:05.Brazil have gone up by 24% - by a quarter. This is good news but it
:14:05. > :14:09.is from a low base and we need to do much more. The trade deficit has
:14:09. > :14:16.been reduced from July. It could say it is a spike rather than
:14:16. > :14:22.anything sustainable. We have not moved into surplus, why not? Coming
:14:22. > :14:26.back to Brazil, Germany are way ahead of us. They used -- I used to
:14:26. > :14:31.work in Germany and own businesses there. They have a lot more to
:14:31. > :14:36.offer Brazil then we do, in terms of engineering and manufacturing.
:14:36. > :14:42.It will be very difficult for us to play catch-up. Yours is a wonderful
:14:42. > :14:49.company but there are hundreds of companies like cures. Privately
:14:49. > :14:54.owned German companies. -- like yours. That is why they're so far
:14:54. > :14:57.ahead of us and it will be tough for us to catch up. I agree with
:14:57. > :15:02.that to an extent. The onus should be much more on companies than
:15:02. > :15:06.expecting the Government to come in and sort it all out. I think what
:15:06. > :15:11.the German companies, with government support, they were
:15:11. > :15:17.already looking ahead. Where were the next big markets? They did not
:15:17. > :15:23.just rely on the EU. Why has Britain failed so much? They are
:15:23. > :15:28.talking about looking out sides of the EU but Germany and France are
:15:28. > :15:34.doing much better than ourselves. Historically they have focused much
:15:34. > :15:40.more on the rest of the world. is said we do not have the export
:15:40. > :15:46.here to do that. If we do not have the goods to offer, what is the
:15:46. > :15:51.point? I wish the size of our manufacturing sector had not halved
:15:51. > :15:56.under the Labour years. It also was by the Conservative government was
:15:56. > :16:01.we are trying to turn that around. The point is, do you focus on
:16:01. > :16:07.trying to get the best links we can with the rest of the world? No one
:16:07. > :16:11.disputes that. Even if we do, are we ever going to really be able to
:16:11. > :16:17.have an export-led recovery in the way we have been talking about?
:16:17. > :16:22.Should we be looking still at our financial services industry? We do
:16:22. > :16:25.not want to have a balanced economy. What you're saying will not change
:16:25. > :16:29.the terms of trade. Of if you argue that because we cannot do
:16:29. > :16:35.everything we should do nothing at all, I do not think people would
:16:35. > :16:39.agree with that. There was too much of a focus on financial services.
:16:39. > :16:43.They remain something Britain is good at. We should continue to push
:16:43. > :16:49.them. We must have a more balanced approach. Not only balanced in
:16:49. > :16:54.terms of the sectors but also in terms of... It comes back to my
:16:54. > :16:58.main thing - education. We do not have enough kids doing what they
:16:58. > :17:03.call stem subjects - science, technology, engineering and mask.
:17:03. > :17:09.We do not have enough capability in that area compared with Germany and
:17:09. > :17:14.France. It is a long-term thing to try to build up our capability in
:17:14. > :17:17.science, engineering. The Government has a big push on that
:17:17. > :17:27.which we are supporting. It is not something that will happen
:17:27. > :17:33.
:17:33. > :17:37.What can government do to help companies like yours? There is a
:17:37. > :17:42.particularly good use of funds, but I would put the onus more on
:17:42. > :17:49.companies to make use of what is already available. The cornerstone
:17:49. > :17:53.of any export strategy should be getting legal advice, advice on
:17:53. > :17:59.logistics. I also think we shouldn't do it ourselves down, we
:17:59. > :18:06.are still a married -- major manufacturing economy. There are
:18:06. > :18:12.many products are which would be very welcome in the high streets of
:18:12. > :18:20.Rio, across the countries. consumer demand is still so
:18:20. > :18:28.dampened, we are struggling to make it up in terms of export. It is
:18:28. > :18:33.vital we do what we can for exports. For businesses that are watching,
:18:33. > :18:39.the trade promotion body has been turned around and really advanced.
:18:39. > :18:44.They are there to help businesses to export. They will have local
:18:44. > :18:49.knowledge of all markets. In your position in the business department,
:18:49. > :18:54.if the trade picture is getting better, can we expect growth in the
:18:54. > :19:01.third quarter? I am not a forecaster, bid is difficult to
:19:01. > :19:07.make predictions. But you optimistic? There are more positive
:19:07. > :19:11.signs than there have been. I would rather be cautious. Our job is to
:19:11. > :19:21.do as much as we can to support British businesses both here and
:19:21. > :19:24.
:19:24. > :19:28.overseas. In terms of help, his business being hampered by the lack
:19:28. > :19:31.of connectivity between our airports in London and second
:19:31. > :19:37.cities in places like Brazil and China. If you look at the
:19:37. > :19:47.statistics, the number of flights to Shanghai, to Sao Paulo, we are
:19:47. > :19:56.way behind Frankfurt and Charles de Gaulle. Two weeks ago, I was in
:19:56. > :20:02.Shanghai, no difficulties getting between London and there. This is
:20:02. > :20:08.not something I want to give an answer to. What do you think?
:20:08. > :20:17.Business save time and again we are hampered. That may be an issue. I
:20:17. > :20:26.want to come back to Brazil. I was a consultant in Sao Paulo. I am now
:20:26. > :20:34.invested in agricultural land in Brazil. It is a fantastic country.
:20:34. > :20:39.Huge, growing. Safe? No. I can to walk outside the hotel. The family
:20:39. > :20:46.I was working for, a wealthy Sao Paulo family, they couldn't go
:20:46. > :20:53.anywhere without a machine guns in their car. Security is a major
:20:53. > :20:58.issue in Brazil. You are nodding your head? It has got better. I was
:20:58. > :21:05.there a couple of years ago. I walked around quite happily in the
:21:05. > :21:14.evenings without feeling in any danger. Did you cycle around?
:21:14. > :21:20.course. Isn't connectivity an issue raised by business groups, the lack
:21:20. > :21:24.of Heathrow being a centre of transport links to those countries?
:21:25. > :21:30.It has been a debate. A review will look into airport capacity in the
:21:30. > :21:36.south east. One reason why business has been pushing hard on this is
:21:37. > :21:42.partly because all the other things, this government is doing, to make
:21:42. > :21:47.it easier to grow a business and create jobs, and export. We are
:21:47. > :21:53.extremely receptive to ideas from any quarter of what needs to happen
:21:53. > :21:58.to create jobs and improve the environment for enterprise. There
:21:58. > :22:04.is one successful export, Margaret Thatcher, to China. She is being
:22:04. > :22:11.used as part of the Shanghai chain Executive Leadership Academy, her
:22:11. > :22:18.philosophy, in crisis management. How does David Cameron match that?
:22:18. > :22:21.She is a great lady. Britain has a two-nation education
:22:21. > :22:25.system, according to the Sutton Trust, the educational charity run
:22:25. > :22:27.by our guest Sir Peter Lampl. The performance of private schools far
:22:27. > :22:31.outstrips outcomes for pupils in state schools. The current
:22:31. > :22:34.government believes free schools might be one of the answers. They
:22:34. > :22:39.are state-funded independent schools, free of local authority
:22:39. > :22:42.control. The idea, borrowed from Sweden, is to make it easier for
:22:42. > :22:45.parents, teachers, charities and businesses to set up their own
:22:45. > :22:55.schools. This September, 55 new free schools opened. A further 114
:22:55. > :23:02.
:23:02. > :23:05.have been approved to open in 2013 and beyond.
:23:05. > :23:10.Only 7% of young people in the UK attend fee-paying schools. Yet 40%
:23:10. > :23:13.of students at Oxford and Cambridge went to private school. And
:23:13. > :23:18.independent schools dominate the professions too. 35% of MPs are
:23:18. > :23:28.educated privately, with 13 private schools providing 10% of all MPs.
:23:28. > :23:32.
:23:32. > :23:37.And 54% of the country's top journalists were privately educated.
:23:37. > :23:41.Let us start with the inequality and poor performance, seen as
:23:41. > :23:48.hallmarks of England's school system. Why do think it is there is
:23:48. > :23:53.this big divide? Between private and state? It boils down to
:23:53. > :24:00.teaching. Private schools have better-qualified teachers. They go
:24:00. > :24:10.about hiring those. They pay more? That is part of it. You are
:24:10. > :24:11.
:24:11. > :24:15.teaching smaller classes, teaching your subject. If you have children,
:24:15. > :24:20.they get free or subsidised places were two schools. If you are a
:24:21. > :24:24.teacher. If you look at the ratio, there are far less pupils to
:24:24. > :24:31.teacher in private schools. It is a resource issue, there is much more
:24:31. > :24:37.money spent in private schools. you agree? They have all money but
:24:37. > :24:41.there is plenty of evidence to show when you strip out the class
:24:41. > :24:46.background, state school teachers actually do a better job. I am sure
:24:46. > :24:53.they do have good teachers, they have fantastic resources, selective
:24:53. > :25:03.intake. You are starting with a different group of what children
:25:03. > :25:06.
:25:06. > :25:10.clutching macro group of children. -- CORRECTION. We conducted
:25:10. > :25:15.research on children who all qualified for assisted places. That
:25:16. > :25:22.was got rid of by Labour. Half took the assisted places, half went to
:25:22. > :25:29.comprehensives. We have looked at outcomes, how well did they do in
:25:29. > :25:36.their exams. What are they doing now? The kids who went to
:25:36. > :25:39.independent schools have done far better. Wouldn't the answer be
:25:39. > :25:43.raising the Standard and putting that money into the state
:25:43. > :25:47.comprehensive system, rather than try to take a certain number of
:25:47. > :25:55.pupils and putting them into the independent system? I think you
:25:55. > :26:00.have to do both, raise standards in the state system. That boils down
:26:00. > :26:04.to improving teaching. It is not free schools or academies. That is
:26:04. > :26:11.structural change. We have to focus on what goes on in the class room
:26:11. > :26:17.and teaching. What would raise standards in state comprehensive
:26:17. > :26:22.schools? Some do extremely well. If you want to use the benchmark of
:26:22. > :26:27.Oxford and Cambridge, some local schools are getting higher numbers
:26:27. > :26:31.of children into those universities. What makes the difference? Pupils
:26:31. > :26:36.from middle-class families need to stay in the state school system?
:26:36. > :26:41.Why is it down to the background of children? Schools that have a
:26:42. > :26:47.balanced intake tend to do better. What worries me about open access
:26:47. > :26:54.schemes, you would take out what able children from the state sector.
:26:54. > :27:00.I agree with everything almost that Peter says, the key is quality of
:27:01. > :27:05.teaching and school leadership. Explained open access? It is based
:27:06. > :27:11.on the way the top American universities select pupils. It says
:27:11. > :27:17.the school will take children based on merit alone. We can debate what
:27:17. > :27:22.merit is. Whether they can pay or not. The whole school is available
:27:22. > :27:28.based on merit. Then, you means test parents, some can pay the full
:27:28. > :27:34.fee, some pay partially. This is not a theoretical thing, we took
:27:34. > :27:42.one of the best schools in Liverpool and over seven years, the
:27:42. > :27:46.whole school was opened access. We ended up with 30% of schools on --
:27:46. > :27:52.schoolgirls on free places. A terrific social mix. The academic
:27:52. > :28:02.standards went up because more able schoolgirls were going in. Who paid
:28:02. > :28:10.for it? We paid threat, we are the owners of the school. -- we paid
:28:10. > :28:17.for it. The creaming off argument, we took 50 schoolgirls every year
:28:17. > :28:24.who would have gone to comprehensives, out of 10,000, into
:28:24. > :28:29.the school. One problem I have with this, you assume the displaced
:28:29. > :28:37.private school parents would come back into the state school sector.
:28:37. > :28:44.Some of them well. A subsidised expansion of that sector, it is a
:28:44. > :28:50.curse on our education system, it gives unfair advantage. In much of
:28:50. > :28:57.the Sutton Trust work, you put the problems of the English education
:28:57. > :29:02.system down to social divide. Before 1970 six, 70% of these
:29:02. > :29:10.schools were state funded, and there was much more opportunity. If
:29:10. > :29:15.you were reported you could go to one of these schools. Why should
:29:15. > :29:22.taxpayers subsidise places at independent schools? Because it
:29:22. > :29:29.will get kids into good schools and access to good teachers. It will
:29:30. > :29:36.prevent, we have 80% of judges privately educated, it would
:29:36. > :29:40.actually open up social mobility at the top. It would allow very small
:29:40. > :29:46.numbers of children from disadvantaged backgrounds possibly
:29:46. > :29:51.to get into independent schools. My worry is it would end up with an
:29:51. > :29:55.expansion of the fee-paying sector. You talk about the couple. In my
:29:55. > :30:05.local area, if you expanded that scheme where there is a high number
:30:05. > :30:12.
:30:12. > :30:17.of private schools, it would impact Now we have got over 80 independent
:30:17. > :30:25.day schools. They say if the Government will fund it, we will do
:30:25. > :30:28.it. They will not do that, will they? Do you speak to them? All the
:30:28. > :30:33.time. There may be covert support for this but official policy is
:30:33. > :30:37.that it will not be done. We're in this for the long haul and we will
:30:37. > :30:46.keep pushing. He previously said you would not be a private if you
:30:46. > :30:49.paid me. My children have left school now anyway. You can get a
:30:50. > :30:55.very good education in your local state school. That has been my
:30:55. > :31:01.personal experience. We should do many things suggested by the Sutton
:31:01. > :31:04.Trust in terms of raising prospects for children. We spend most of our
:31:04. > :31:10.time focused on the state sector and improving the state sector and
:31:10. > :31:15.improving provision in the state sector. Fiona is right. That has to
:31:16. > :31:19.be the main thrust. Opening up private schools is really important.
:31:19. > :31:27.We will come back to this if the Government holds you secretly it
:31:27. > :31:35.will fund all of theirs. David Cameron was in New York to talk to
:31:35. > :31:39.the United Nations. He found time to appear on the David Letterman
:31:39. > :31:46.Late Show. He set the Prime Minister a test on British
:31:46. > :31:52.political history. Let's have a look at some of his answers. Rule
:31:52. > :31:58.Britannia, written by whom? It is the iconic association with the
:31:58. > :32:07.British Empire. Who wrote that? are testing me there. Elgar, I will
:32:07. > :32:13.go for. Edward Elgar. Rule Britannia, which is a beautiful
:32:13. > :32:21.refrain, based on a poem by James Thomson. Are you familiar with him?
:32:21. > :32:31.I am now! It was set to music in 17 balti pied Thomas Arne. The literal
:32:31. > :32:33.
:32:33. > :32:39.translation was what? -- 1745 Thomas Arne. Magna Carta means
:32:39. > :32:42.Great Charter. As we pointed out, the seeds of democracy. Before we
:32:42. > :32:50.move on, a welcome to viewers in Scotland who have been watching
:32:50. > :32:54.First Minister's Questions from Holyrood. Back to David Letterman.
:32:54. > :33:00.I'm joined in studio by Clive Anderson and from America by Mike
:33:00. > :33:07.Hale of the New York Times. What did you think? How did he do?
:33:07. > :33:14.thought he did very well. He did you primal. He was charming and
:33:14. > :33:20.intelligent. -- did you proud. He showed the ability of taking a joke.
:33:20. > :33:27.He was very graceful last night. You like to it. What did the
:33:27. > :33:34.American audience make of it? will be finding out today. From
:33:34. > :33:38.what I saw, Americans will be quite taken with him. I have to say, to
:33:38. > :33:42.be perfectly honest, there are other new stories going on that
:33:42. > :33:49.might be a bit bigger than his appearance on the David Letterman
:33:49. > :33:53.Show last night. Overall he did very well. Why would he want to go
:33:53. > :33:59.on the David Letterman Show? probably likes it and wants to up
:33:59. > :34:06.his profile. His decision to go one was bad timing. He would do better
:34:06. > :34:16.at another time. It upstages his own appearance at the United
:34:16. > :34:22.
:34:22. > :34:29.Nations. He is not well established On that basis, how does he compare
:34:29. > :34:34.with people like Tony Blair and Boris Johnson? I have only seen
:34:34. > :34:43.some of the David Letterman interview. They're a bit stingy and
:34:43. > :34:48.releasing the information. It was quite odd, the information. It is
:34:48. > :34:53.odd for him to know what Magna Carta means. He knew when it was
:34:53. > :35:00.signed am broadly speaking what it was about. I do not think he was
:35:00. > :35:05.aware there were several copies. It was all right. I know a little bit
:35:05. > :35:09.about this. I was once going to be on that show a few years ago and I
:35:09. > :35:16.talked myself out of it. A thought it would be the wrong time for me
:35:16. > :35:23.to be on there. Were you worried about being humiliated? Not really.
:35:23. > :35:29.I was in the making a programme - and improvisation programme. I
:35:29. > :35:32.spoke to the segment producer and we had the discussion. In a rather
:35:32. > :35:38.bad, diffident British way, I explained all the reasons a might
:35:38. > :35:43.be a bad choice to go on. You can try to get a second chance to go on
:35:43. > :35:49.the show. Do you think they were the right questions to ask him? It
:35:49. > :35:52.was odd trying to test him on his knowledge. I think they wanted to
:35:53. > :35:58.do a comedy bit and that is what they came up with. What the
:35:58. > :36:04.questions were 20 there here nor there, I don't think American
:36:04. > :36:09.viewers really cared if he knew where the Magna Carta was held or
:36:09. > :36:13.not. I thought after the comedy portion, he came of looking better
:36:13. > :36:21.than David Letterman. The comedy part have not been thought through
:36:21. > :36:27.that well. Funnily enough, up one of the viewers after its said, he
:36:27. > :36:36.seemed quite nice. WKM up on Wikipedia. To Americans know who he
:36:36. > :36:43.is? -- I will look him up. They had not got this close a look of him
:36:43. > :36:51.before. What they got on the show last night was a great opportunity
:36:51. > :36:56.to hear a campaign speech by David Cameron. He was given a series of
:36:56. > :37:01.softball questions, allowing him to boast about the Olympics, set out
:37:01. > :37:08.his theories about monetary policy and the euro, pretty much without
:37:08. > :37:14.interruption. He did pretty well. The problem is for something like -
:37:14. > :37:19.- someone like David Cameron, the fact he had a long time, it does
:37:20. > :37:25.not go around the world. It was not one of his best interviews. They
:37:25. > :37:31.were reduced by the end it to showing a picture of the Downing
:37:31. > :37:36.Street cat. Where they are struggling for material? They were
:37:36. > :37:41.doing British things. I tried to predict what the questions would be.
:37:41. > :37:46.I got it completely wrong. We got it wrong yesterday. We thought it
:37:46. > :37:51.might be something on class, on plebs. Because he is not quite
:37:51. > :37:56.famous enough, it takes too much effort to explain the background. I
:37:56. > :38:02.thought he might have said, what about you leaving your kid in a
:38:02. > :38:07.British pub? He might have been prepared for that. He can't have
:38:07. > :38:12.possibly expected, who wrote Land of Hope and Glory? Who wrote rule
:38:12. > :38:19.Britannia? And what has struggled with that. You'll be pleased to
:38:19. > :38:29.know I'm not going to ask you any questions about that. When I am in
:38:29. > :38:33.
:38:33. > :38:39.the States, I do not watch David Letterman. J Lenno is a bid
:38:39. > :38:46.comedian. -- a good comedian. What made the David Letterman Show ask
:38:46. > :38:51.for him to come on? I can only speculate about that. My guess is
:38:51. > :38:56.that his people approached the David Letterman Show. They probably
:38:56. > :39:05.said, why not have the British Prime Minister on this show? I
:39:05. > :39:14.agreed there was feeling throughout that segments -- that segment that
:39:14. > :39:21.he and his producers have not quite belt have to play it. They felt
:39:21. > :39:25.constrained. They could not make fun of him. Basically they let him
:39:25. > :39:28.talk. Do you think Ed Miliband could go on that show? They are not
:39:28. > :39:38.particularly good at dealing with leaders of the opposition. Could
:39:38. > :39:41.
:39:41. > :39:47.you imagine it? Once he was in office, if you could imagine that.
:39:47. > :39:57.-- if you could imagine that Dom I do not know my British politicians
:39:57. > :39:57.
:39:57. > :40:04.that well. One of the best interviews with the British
:40:04. > :40:14.politician -- with a politician was Carla Bruni Sarkozy. He has an
:40:14. > :40:18.
:40:18. > :40:23.entirely different reaction to those guests. It was rather cosy.
:40:23. > :40:29.did an interview with Mikhail Gorbachev. He was very entertaining.
:40:29. > :40:35.He was warm and engaging. Do you think the J-Lo no-show would have
:40:35. > :40:40.been better? He would have any remorse of Paul -- soft ball
:40:40. > :40:45.questions. That is one of the many things that makes him interesting.
:40:45. > :40:52.You cannot work out what was going on. I do not think David Letterman
:40:52. > :40:59.is very funny. Some of his interviews are weird. I want to
:40:59. > :41:05.make a serious point. Of course you can. We have been promoting, his
:41:05. > :41:09.whole specialisation at 15 and 16 and doing three subjects, we should
:41:09. > :41:14.have a Baccalaureate. I guarantee that David Cameron dropped history
:41:14. > :41:24.at GCSE. If he had kept studying history until he was 18, he might
:41:24. > :41:25.
:41:25. > :41:30.have known the answer about the Magna Carta. He has more bread some
:41:30. > :41:37.most people in this country. In every other advanced country,
:41:37. > :41:42.people steady eight subjects until they're 18 pretty much. Finally,
:41:42. > :41:52.before we go, what is the UK equivalent of the Late Show? There
:41:52. > :42:00.
:42:00. > :42:06.is not an exact equivalent. about this week? -- This Week.
:42:06. > :42:14.Thank you very much. Good luck - a rugged good luck for the appearance
:42:14. > :42:17.on the David Letterman Show of. Now, while we've spent most of the week
:42:17. > :42:20.talking about an angry minister on his bike, and the Lib Dem party
:42:20. > :42:23.conference, elsewhere in the world, there may be more pressing concerns
:42:23. > :42:25.- in particular the threat of nuclear war. Iran's president
:42:25. > :42:28.Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made his final address to the UN General Assembly
:42:28. > :42:38.yesterday before he steps down, and accused the West of nuclear
:42:38. > :42:41.
:42:41. > :42:49.intimidation. About the pledge to disclose armaments, and dude time
:42:49. > :42:55.is now being used as a new language of threat into accepting a new era.
:42:55. > :43:00.A continued threat by the uncivilised Zionist to resort to
:43:00. > :43:10.military action against a great nation is big it example of this
:43:10. > :43:10.
:43:10. > :43:15.bitter reality. To discuss the effect that speech will have on the
:43:15. > :43:21.Middle East and the likelihood that Israel will attack Iran, I am
:43:21. > :43:29.joined by Ben Wallace and Douglas Murray. Douglas Murray, how likely
:43:29. > :43:31.to think it is that Israel will attack Iran? Very likely, indeed
:43:31. > :43:36.inevitable, unless the international community -
:43:36. > :43:41.particularly America - makes it extremely clear that there is no
:43:41. > :43:46.doubt to Iran that the idea of the combination of the Islamic
:43:46. > :43:50.revolutionary government in Iraq gaining a nuclear device - gaining
:43:50. > :43:56.the capability to build a nuclear device - is completely intolerable
:43:56. > :44:00.to us. Unless that is made entirely clear, the Israelis will feel it is
:44:00. > :44:06.only them that truly feel threatened by this and fruity
:44:06. > :44:11.recognise the magnitude of this threat to world peace. -- truly
:44:11. > :44:15.recognise. Only the Israelis will act. Do you agree with that?
:44:15. > :44:20.quite. They will only act if they believe they will get the support
:44:21. > :44:25.of countries like America and, wider afield, Europe and Britain,
:44:25. > :44:31.etc. They will only act if they can achieve the destruction of the
:44:31. > :44:34.nuclear programme. That is one of that challenges ahead. Even within
:44:34. > :44:39.Israel, both Ministry of Defence sources and the ex head of Mossad
:44:39. > :44:49.are split on whether Israel would be able to achieve that. Should
:44:49. > :44:51.
:44:51. > :45:01.more be done in the West to prevent The US has already made unilateral
:45:01. > :45:02.
:45:02. > :45:08.sanctions. Through financial sanctions and oil sanctions. The
:45:08. > :45:14.problem is, this is not just about Israel. What people forget,
:45:14. > :45:20.actually, this is much more about Saudi and Iran and the rivalries
:45:20. > :45:27.within the region and who will be the dominant partner in that area.
:45:27. > :45:34.The worry for the west is that Israel may trigger something that
:45:34. > :45:39.America, Britain and others do not want to happen. And caused a real
:45:39. > :45:43.problem in that region. Are you saying that the threats from
:45:43. > :45:53.Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have been just playing to the audience in terms of
:45:53. > :45:55.
:45:55. > :46:03.his frail macro, and Israel takes it far too seriously? -- Israel.
:46:03. > :46:11.There is a huge history of rhetoric. In the 80s, the last supreme
:46:11. > :46:21.leader's rhetoric against the state that shouldn't be, it was is bell
:46:21. > :46:23.
:46:23. > :46:29.macro up arming Iran, not the -- it was Israel. We have two separate
:46:29. > :46:34.rhetoric from often the reality. Doesn't Britain have to do that?
:46:34. > :46:43.This is not about rhetoric only, it would be a great mistake to think
:46:43. > :46:48.that. The President of Iran, the Supreme Leader, all of the senior
:46:48. > :46:55.figures have for 30 years desired a desire to wipe out the state of
:46:55. > :47:05.Israel. Among other things, they are doing what they can with their
:47:05. > :47:08.
:47:08. > :47:17.current spread of capabilities. They farm and fund his father. --
:47:17. > :47:22.arm Hizbollah. If you like what Iran is doing without a nuclear
:47:22. > :47:26.bomb, you'll love what they will do when they have got one. The idea
:47:26. > :47:32.this is solely about rhetoric is a mistake. But, the rhetoric does
:47:32. > :47:36.matter. A world leader like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is able to continuously
:47:36. > :47:44.claim that the last Holocaust did not happen whilst calling for the
:47:44. > :47:50.next one to occur. You are underestimating the be a threat --
:47:50. > :48:00.the threat? I agree that Iran has used its third parties and
:48:00. > :48:06.
:48:06. > :48:10.terrorist links to wage war on his role -- Israel. Let us remember,
:48:10. > :48:20.only in March this year, they said they did not believe the Iranian
:48:20. > :48:23.
:48:23. > :48:32.people were rational when it came to Mitchell destruction. Let us
:48:32. > :48:42.take this on. His role is a democracy with many voices --
:48:42. > :48:45.
:48:45. > :48:51.Israel. There are many Israelis, not just the Prime Minister
:48:51. > :49:01.Binyamin Netanyahu. One other point is very important. This is a
:49:01. > :49:06.
:49:06. > :49:11.problem for his role -- Israel, first. But only first. For the
:49:11. > :49:17.region and the world, what happens after Iran goes nuclear, we already
:49:17. > :49:26.know, all the international bodies known. Sadly, Egypt, all the other
:49:26. > :49:33.countries in the region will themselves be armed with the most
:49:33. > :49:42.genocidal weapons. If anyone thinks this is solely about Israel, they
:49:42. > :49:48.are mistaken. Pakistan has a nuclear weapon. I am not glad that
:49:48. > :49:52.Israel has a nuclear weapon. The Middle East nuclear arms race
:49:52. > :49:58.started with Israel and they did not comply with the directive. We
:49:58. > :50:04.have to recognise that the real issue here, let us remember, I
:50:04. > :50:10.fully defend their right to defend themselves, that is not Britain's
:50:10. > :50:15.national interest. Hoop is blowing up twin towers? Plotting to kill
:50:15. > :50:24.and murdered in this country? It is not Shia Iranian sponsored
:50:24. > :50:33.terrorism. It is Saudi sponsored. What is in Britain's interest? In
:50:33. > :50:41.terms of foreign policy? assault entire run was done with
:50:41. > :50:48.the backing of that government. Britain's interest in how they
:50:48. > :50:52.handle this? First of all, Israel is an ally of us, the only thriving
:50:52. > :51:02.democracy in the region. It is in our national interest that the
:51:02. > :51:09.Middle East does not go nuclear across the board. We want to take
:51:09. > :51:15.nuclear weapons out of the Middle East. Gentle men, I have to stop
:51:15. > :51:18.you both. Just how much should we rely on
:51:18. > :51:21.philanthropy? The government says it wants us all giving more to
:51:21. > :51:24.charity. That was the basis of the Giving white paper launched last
:51:24. > :51:33.year. But, in tough economic times, just how generous are the
:51:33. > :51:37.wealthiest in society being? We sent Susana Mendonca to find out.
:51:37. > :51:41.The boys in this school are a mixture, seven parts fee paying,
:51:41. > :51:44.one part scholarship funded. It is the money donated by rich
:51:44. > :51:48.philanthropists which makes it possible for private schools to
:51:48. > :51:57.bring in pupils from less privileged backgrounds.
:51:57. > :52:01.overwhelming majority operate a out of parental fee income but when be
:52:01. > :52:08.able to do it without philanthropic input. Here are two of the lucky
:52:08. > :52:12.ones who have their �13,000 fees paid for in part by wealthy donors.
:52:12. > :52:17.Isolate her that person. Without that money I would not be able to
:52:17. > :52:24.come to this school. I owe it to the person who sponsored me, to
:52:24. > :52:30.work hard. It is a small group of donors who make the biggest impact.
:52:30. > :52:35.In 2009, just 8% of the population provided 47% of all charitable
:52:36. > :52:45.donations. Despite tough economic times, the number of people giving
:52:45. > :52:51.is holding up. But there are questions. It is often education,
:52:51. > :52:56.higher education in particular. arts institutions are often the big
:52:56. > :53:04.ones based in London. The things that tend to lose out a little bit
:53:04. > :53:09.are issues like drugs, alcohol, disability. Around 133,000
:53:09. > :53:16.charities, three-quarters of them, have received no government funding.
:53:16. > :53:26.Private donors gave �13.1 billion to charity, 37% of all the income
:53:26. > :53:29.
:53:29. > :53:39.to charities. Just 833 of the charities in the UK received more
:53:39. > :53:41.
:53:41. > :53:44.than half of all the charitable sector income in 2009. The Royal
:53:44. > :53:50.Opera House is giving families the chance to watch Swan Lake at
:53:50. > :53:55.cheaper prices, using the money it gets from philanthropists to
:53:55. > :53:59.subsidise the tickets. After that is his �25 million a year in
:54:00. > :54:04.government arts funding. Less than it used to get. They are clear that
:54:04. > :54:10.philanthropy isn't enough. He it's not enticing to fill a government
:54:10. > :54:14.gap. We couldn't exist without that government support. I do not
:54:14. > :54:19.foresee the day that it will be entirely funded by philanthropic
:54:19. > :54:25.organisations. Maybe it will be different if we were Americans.
:54:25. > :54:35.People who weren't over �150,000 a year donate organs six times the
:54:35. > :54:38.
:54:38. > :54:46.amount their British counterparts What are the limits of
:54:46. > :54:51.philanthropy? They do a good job. Even in the UK, we may not give as
:54:51. > :54:53.much as in the States. If you take out there giving in the States to
:54:53. > :55:00.higher education, people giving back to their university, or
:55:00. > :55:08.religious giving, the difference isn't as big. People do give a lot.
:55:08. > :55:14.It is particularly important as the state is spending less. This raises
:55:14. > :55:21.lots of issues. Can philanthropists fill that gap left by the state,
:55:21. > :55:28.and should they? Of course they can't. 0.7% of GDP being given.
:55:28. > :55:33.2.1% in the States. Coming on to higher education, this is a huge
:55:33. > :55:40.issue. There are 100 universities in America where they have an
:55:40. > :55:49.annual giving away off 50%, 50% of graduates give them money every
:55:49. > :55:55.year. We have to. How do you make it happen? The culture of given --
:55:55. > :56:01.giving, we do not have here. There is a tax issue. In America you get
:56:01. > :56:04.a straight deduction from look income. Here, we have a gift Aid
:56:04. > :56:11.scheme where the charity claims that some, you claim that sum. It
:56:11. > :56:17.is complicated. If we change that system, is that what should be done
:56:17. > :56:23.to encourage people to give? tax system does influence giving.
:56:23. > :56:28.Actually, our tax system, there have been a lot of differences, but
:56:28. > :56:35.it could be simpler. I am not sure I want to see all of this money
:56:35. > :56:38.disappearing into universities. There are a lot of good causes.
:56:39. > :56:44.Universities are getting better at asking for money. Will they now
:56:44. > :56:50.give it to Oxford and Cambridge but not a mental health charity?
:56:50. > :56:55.would go to other charities as well. If you change the way. Why should
:56:55. > :57:00.wealthy philanthropists choose? When I was in New York, making a
:57:00. > :57:08.reasonable amount of money, by tax advisers said, you are paying too
:57:08. > :57:12.much, why not give some money to good causes? Homeless. You're all
:57:12. > :57:21.to university. That goes on in the States. No one would ever say that
:57:21. > :57:26.here. Tax is really important, to stop people giving once they are
:57:26. > :57:33.earning money. Delight said they would start giving to their pet
:57:33. > :57:40.project, not the spread of smaller charities, less fashionable. They
:57:40. > :57:46.would suffer. I think people give to all kinds of charities. Some
:57:46. > :57:51.want to give to universities, some too early years centres. We would
:57:51. > :57:56.find the whole level of charitable giving, if we change the tax, we
:57:56. > :58:02.change the culture of giving, we would approach American levels,
:58:02. > :58:05.which would be highly desirable. Tax does matter but I don't want
:58:05. > :58:12.rich people giving because they want a tax break. I want them to
:58:12. > :58:20.give because they want to do some good. We work with a lot of
:58:20. > :58:25.philanthropists, to help them do the best they can. At the moment,
:58:25. > :58:30.there are people in need around the country, where statutory services
:58:30. > :58:39.are being withdrawn, were you are an unemployed young person, we want
:58:39. > :58:46.this to be funded. At 0.7% of GDP, you won't make a big difference on
:58:46. > :58:50.that. That's all for today. Thanks to our guest of the day, and all
:58:50. > :58:53.our guests. The one o'clock news is starting over on BBC One now.