27/09/2012 Daily Politics

Afternoon, folks. Welcome to the Daily Politics. The worst floods in

30 years in some parts in country end a very soggy summer and leave

an insurance headache for homeowners and businesses. The

Prime Minister lands in Rio to sell the UK's wares. Could exporting to

these fast growing economies get us out of recession? They get the best

A-levels, GCSEs and their pupils dominate the top jobs. But what's

to be done about the great education divide between private

and state schools? The Prime Minister's been taking a Latin test

live on TV in New York. So, how did he do? And the literal translation

was...? Again you are testing. would be good if you knew this.

would be. Glad it was not me. All that in the next hour. And, with me

for the whole programme today, is the philanthropist and

educationalist, chairman of the Sutton Trust, Sir Peter Lampl.

Let's start with a terrible flooding that has hit so many parts

of the country. One of the worst affected areas is Yorkshire and in

York itself where river levels peaked. Our Correspondent is there.

Yes, it looks pretty terrible behind you. It is not raining. Has

it been saved by the fact the weather has changed for the better?

Lovely blue skies here. What we have is fire and rescue officers

who have been ferrying people, medical personnel in particular, to

and from one of the buildings behind me - a residential care home

- to check that people all the -- have all the medicine they need. It

is a busy lunchtime in York. Behind the noise of the traffic, you can

hear the faintly audible sigh of relief. The feeling is that your

has escaped the worst of it. The flood defences can take 5.5 metres

above the normal river level. Repeat this morning at around 8

o'clock. On the other side of that building, the river used winds its

way through the city with such a mess. The defences have managed to

keep most riverside properties clear of water. There is still

quite a bit of flooding here. People are having to be rescued by

the fire service. People are breathing a sigh of relief. That is

not much comfort for those who did in this area thinking, if more rain

comes, we will be hit. I think, had there been a couple of hours of

heavy rain yesterday, we could have been looking at an entirely

different story. Either speaking to the Environment Agency and they

were saying that there is no rain forecast for today. -- I was

speaking. The picture will remain rosy. These will to should

gradually recede. It is clear that hundreds of homes across the

country, and especially in the north, have been affected. In the

next year or so, the arrangement that has been put in place to

ensure that people who are in blood affected areas - blood prone areas

- can still get insurance. That is due to come to an end before next

June. There are still questions and matters of policy that need

hammering out. The feeling is it will not just happen this year, we

will see it again and again. we're joined now by Nick Starling

from the Association of British Insurers. What is the agreement?

is called the statement of principles. He was put into place

as a temporary measure. It means that our members keep people

covered in high-risk areas. That is in return to the Government

investing in flood defences, sorting out planning, so we no

longer have unwise development in higher risk areas and greatly

improving the flow of information to people. Why is it temporary?

Wires are not permanent? Those people will worry about what will

happen to those premiums. -- why is it not permanent? We said it was

unsustainable. That is partly because it distorts the market. New

entrants can cover people in lower areas for lower prices. It does not

guarantee price. Some people in high risk areas are paying higher

premiums. You say you will not insure homes in high-risk areas

without a premium being paid over and above what is being paid at the

moment. They are saying for about 200,000 households in the country,

insurance will become unaffordable or unavailable. No other country in

the world has property wrapped up in flood insurance. We need to

share the risk between policyholders and governments so

people can be assured of getting colour. What do you mean, share the

risk? -- getting cover. Does that mean I have to pay a high premium?

What we are discussing with government is a range of issues

around this. The Government itself has talked about a very small levy

across the industry as being part of this. Also, looking at what the

right premium is for someone living in a high risk area. The risk is

increasing all the time. People here in an area which was not high

risk are now at a high risk of flooding. All of us are. I am as

well, probably. The situation is there is enough money in the

industry to offer money to people in high-risk homes. They think

you're trying to squeeze more money out of the Government cut the state,

or other policyholders. I do not recognise that. If you have a

very... Let's say there is a very major flood event - an East Coast

flood event. There will be a huge hit on government spending if that

happens. There would not be enough money in the system and we would

need shared liability. Do you think we are looking at the levy being

imposed right across the country, in order to help to pay for these

areas? I want to say that I really feel for all these people. It is

absolutely dreadful. I have a home in Florida and, regularly, we get

tropical storms and hurricanes coming through. I know what it is

like to be flooded - not completely flooded. With insurance, in the

United States, we have separate flood insurance - federal flood

insurance. That is separate from a household insurance. Nevertheless,

it is a traumatic experience, when your home gets flooded. I have

never been flooded. This is water coming through windows and... The

other thing I want to say is, of them are so much government can do

to help people. Do you think they are not doing that? They are.

Nature takes its own course. We will see increasing amounts of this

happening. The whole insurance... My insurance in Florida goes up.

The cost of insurance is getting out of hand. It must be affordable.

What is dramatic is people warring they were not be covered in future

years. Would you put a cap on the premiums that people pay? Where

would you put that cap? That is something we are discussing with

the Government. Affordability is the key issue. It will depend on

your own circumstances. Some properties are virtually

uninsurable. If you are flooded every two or three years, that is

not insurable. What will happen to them? We need to talk about theirs.

I think there is a real point here. There is an issue about whether

people should be building houses in those places. The number of places

that are becoming increasingly difficult to prevent flooding is

becoming bigger all the time. You say 200,000 and that is a huge

number. You are right on that. The flood risk is increasing. The

Environment Agency says if we spend �1 billion a year on flood defences,

which we welcome, that is only enough to keep pace with existing

risk and not reduce it. Thank you very much. Now, fasten your

seatbelts for the latest instalment of our jet setting Prime Minister's

travels. Yesterday, it was New York and today it is Brazil - home of

carnival, the 2016 Olympics but also one of the world's fastest-

growing economies. And so, our Dave has just arrived in Sao Paulo, not

just to do the samba but also to try and boost trade. He's

accompanied by a 40-strong business delegation. And, it is no wonder

that the Prime Minister wants to dance close - so close to the

Brazilians. Last year, Brazil overtook the UK to become the

world's sixth largest economy. As we crept out of an economic

hangover in 2010, Brazil celebrated growth of 7.5%. Even last year, the

country had 2.7% growth compared to the UK's 0.8%. Brazil is one of the

four so called BRIC countries, thought to be at similar stage of

newly advanced development. The others being Russia, India and

China. We saw a similar push from the UK, with India, at the

beginning of David Cameron's premiership. The Prime Minister is

keen for the UK to set out its stall because, according to the

Department for Business, Brazil is yet to become one of the UK's top

trade partners. It is the 27th largest destination for UK goods

exports and the 41st market for UK services exports. Our entry onto

the Brazilian scene has been slow compared to our neighbours.

According to the Department for Business, the UK accounted for 1.8%

of Brazil's goods imports in 2010, compared to 6.5% from Germany and

2.6% from France. The question for Dave now is whether the UK can

dance to the right beat when we have been so far behind. With us

now is the Business Minister, Matthew Hancock, and with his

folding bike is Emerson Roberts of Brompton Bicycle, who visited

Brazil himself on a trade delegation in 2010. You did not

cycle there, I presume. More exports to those countries. That

has been the emphasis and focus in the last few years. With this visit,

who is David Cameron trying to attract to buy our stuff? It is the

largest prime ministerial delegation in history, we

understand. Does that make a difference? Yes. You take lots of

businessmen with you. Several ministers are going in order to try

to reach as many parts of the Brazilian economy that we can.

There is a special focus on sports infrastructure. They have the World

Cup in 2014 and then the Olympics in 2016. There are British

companies like a con, who designed the master plan for the London Park,

who have similar contracts in Rio. There is that to capitalise on.

Also the energy sector. There is offshore oil and gas off the shore

of Brazil. We are the world experts in offshore. Do these charm

offensives work? Yes. Everything helps. Your opening bit, showing

where we are in relation to Germany and France... We are quite a long

way behind. Absolutely! We are playing catch-up. Anything the

Prime Minister can do to raise the profile of British businesses, all

to be good. Catch up here because the focus was too much on

financial-services, is that right? We did not do enough in those years

looking outside the EU and now we are suffering. I think that is a

fair criticism. The first foreign visit by the Prime Minister when he

came into office was India. That was in recognition of the fact the

fastest growing markets are outside of the EU. There are outside of

North America as well. Over the last 12 months, and exports to

Brazil have gone up by 24% - by a quarter. This is good news but it

is from a low base and we need to do much more. The trade deficit has

been reduced from July. It could say it is a spike rather than

anything sustainable. We have not moved into surplus, why not? Coming

back to Brazil, Germany are way ahead of us. They used -- I used to

work in Germany and own businesses there. They have a lot more to

offer Brazil then we do, in terms of engineering and manufacturing.

It will be very difficult for us to play catch-up. Yours is a wonderful

company but there are hundreds of companies like cures. Privately

owned German companies. -- like yours. That is why they're so far

ahead of us and it will be tough for us to catch up. I agree with

that to an extent. The onus should be much more on companies than

expecting the Government to come in and sort it all out. I think what

the German companies, with government support, they were

already looking ahead. Where were the next big markets? They did not

just rely on the EU. Why has Britain failed so much? They are

talking about looking out sides of the EU but Germany and France are

doing much better than ourselves. Historically they have focused much

more on the rest of the world. is said we do not have the export

here to do that. If we do not have the goods to offer, what is the

point? I wish the size of our manufacturing sector had not halved

under the Labour years. It also was by the Conservative government was

we are trying to turn that around. The point is, do you focus on

trying to get the best links we can with the rest of the world? No one

disputes that. Even if we do, are we ever going to really be able to

have an export-led recovery in the way we have been talking about?

Should we be looking still at our financial services industry? We do

not want to have a balanced economy. What you're saying will not change

the terms of trade. Of if you argue that because we cannot do

everything we should do nothing at all, I do not think people would

agree with that. There was too much of a focus on financial services.

They remain something Britain is good at. We should continue to push

them. We must have a more balanced approach. Not only balanced in

terms of the sectors but also in terms of... It comes back to my

main thing - education. We do not have enough kids doing what they

call stem subjects - science, technology, engineering and mask.

We do not have enough capability in that area compared with Germany and

France. It is a long-term thing to try to build up our capability in

science, engineering. The Government has a big push on that

which we are supporting. It is not something that will happen

What can government do to help companies like yours? There is a

particularly good use of funds, but I would put the onus more on

companies to make use of what is already available. The cornerstone

of any export strategy should be getting legal advice, advice on

logistics. I also think we shouldn't do it ourselves down, we

are still a married -- major manufacturing economy. There are

many products are which would be very welcome in the high streets of

Rio, across the countries. consumer demand is still so

dampened, we are struggling to make it up in terms of export. It is

vital we do what we can for exports. For businesses that are watching,

the trade promotion body has been turned around and really advanced.

They are there to help businesses to export. They will have local

knowledge of all markets. In your position in the business department,

if the trade picture is getting better, can we expect growth in the

third quarter? I am not a forecaster, bid is difficult to

make predictions. But you optimistic? There are more positive

signs than there have been. I would rather be cautious. Our job is to

do as much as we can to support British businesses both here and

overseas. In terms of help, his business being hampered by the lack

of connectivity between our airports in London and second

cities in places like Brazil and China. If you look at the

statistics, the number of flights to Shanghai, to Sao Paulo, we are

way behind Frankfurt and Charles de Gaulle. Two weeks ago, I was in

Shanghai, no difficulties getting between London and there. This is

not something I want to give an answer to. What do you think?

Business save time and again we are hampered. That may be an issue. I

want to come back to Brazil. I was a consultant in Sao Paulo. I am now

invested in agricultural land in Brazil. It is a fantastic country.

Huge, growing. Safe? No. I can to walk outside the hotel. The family

I was working for, a wealthy Sao Paulo family, they couldn't go

anywhere without a machine guns in their car. Security is a major

issue in Brazil. You are nodding your head? It has got better. I was

there a couple of years ago. I walked around quite happily in the

evenings without feeling in any danger. Did you cycle around?

course. Isn't connectivity an issue raised by business groups, the lack

of Heathrow being a centre of transport links to those countries?

It has been a debate. A review will look into airport capacity in the

south east. One reason why business has been pushing hard on this is

partly because all the other things, this government is doing, to make

it easier to grow a business and create jobs, and export. We are

extremely receptive to ideas from any quarter of what needs to happen

to create jobs and improve the environment for enterprise. There

is one successful export, Margaret Thatcher, to China. She is being

used as part of the Shanghai chain Executive Leadership Academy, her

philosophy, in crisis management. How does David Cameron match that?

She is a great lady. Britain has a two-nation education

system, according to the Sutton Trust, the educational charity run

by our guest Sir Peter Lampl. The performance of private schools far

outstrips outcomes for pupils in state schools. The current

government believes free schools might be one of the answers. They

are state-funded independent schools, free of local authority

control. The idea, borrowed from Sweden, is to make it easier for

parents, teachers, charities and businesses to set up their own

schools. This September, 55 new free schools opened. A further 114

have been approved to open in 2013 and beyond.

Only 7% of young people in the UK attend fee-paying schools. Yet 40%

of students at Oxford and Cambridge went to private school. And

independent schools dominate the professions too. 35% of MPs are

educated privately, with 13 private schools providing 10% of all MPs.

And 54% of the country's top journalists were privately educated.

Let us start with the inequality and poor performance, seen as

hallmarks of England's school system. Why do think it is there is

this big divide? Between private and state? It boils down to

teaching. Private schools have better-qualified teachers. They go

about hiring those. They pay more? That is part of it. You are

teaching smaller classes, teaching your subject. If you have children,

they get free or subsidised places were two schools. If you are a

teacher. If you look at the ratio, there are far less pupils to

teacher in private schools. It is a resource issue, there is much more

money spent in private schools. you agree? They have all money but

there is plenty of evidence to show when you strip out the class

background, state school teachers actually do a better job. I am sure

they do have good teachers, they have fantastic resources, selective

intake. You are starting with a different group of what children

clutching macro group of children. -- CORRECTION. We conducted

research on children who all qualified for assisted places. That

was got rid of by Labour. Half took the assisted places, half went to

comprehensives. We have looked at outcomes, how well did they do in

their exams. What are they doing now? The kids who went to

independent schools have done far better. Wouldn't the answer be

raising the Standard and putting that money into the state

comprehensive system, rather than try to take a certain number of

pupils and putting them into the independent system? I think you

have to do both, raise standards in the state system. That boils down

to improving teaching. It is not free schools or academies. That is

structural change. We have to focus on what goes on in the class room

and teaching. What would raise standards in state comprehensive

schools? Some do extremely well. If you want to use the benchmark of

Oxford and Cambridge, some local schools are getting higher numbers

of children into those universities. What makes the difference? Pupils

from middle-class families need to stay in the state school system?

Why is it down to the background of children? Schools that have a

balanced intake tend to do better. What worries me about open access

schemes, you would take out what able children from the state sector.

I agree with everything almost that Peter says, the key is quality of

teaching and school leadership. Explained open access? It is based

on the way the top American universities select pupils. It says

the school will take children based on merit alone. We can debate what

merit is. Whether they can pay or not. The whole school is available

based on merit. Then, you means test parents, some can pay the full

fee, some pay partially. This is not a theoretical thing, we took

one of the best schools in Liverpool and over seven years, the

whole school was opened access. We ended up with 30% of schools on --

schoolgirls on free places. A terrific social mix. The academic

standards went up because more able schoolgirls were going in. Who paid

for it? We paid threat, we are the owners of the school. -- we paid

for it. The creaming off argument, we took 50 schoolgirls every year

who would have gone to comprehensives, out of 10,000, into

the school. One problem I have with this, you assume the displaced

private school parents would come back into the state school sector.

Some of them well. A subsidised expansion of that sector, it is a

curse on our education system, it gives unfair advantage. In much of

the Sutton Trust work, you put the problems of the English education

system down to social divide. Before 1970 six, 70% of these

schools were state funded, and there was much more opportunity. If

you were reported you could go to one of these schools. Why should

taxpayers subsidise places at independent schools? Because it

will get kids into good schools and access to good teachers. It will

prevent, we have 80% of judges privately educated, it would

actually open up social mobility at the top. It would allow very small

numbers of children from disadvantaged backgrounds possibly

to get into independent schools. My worry is it would end up with an

expansion of the fee-paying sector. You talk about the couple. In my

local area, if you expanded that scheme where there is a high number

of private schools, it would impact Now we have got over 80 independent

day schools. They say if the Government will fund it, we will do

it. They will not do that, will they? Do you speak to them? All the

time. There may be covert support for this but official policy is

that it will not be done. We're in this for the long haul and we will

keep pushing. He previously said you would not be a private if you

paid me. My children have left school now anyway. You can get a

very good education in your local state school. That has been my

personal experience. We should do many things suggested by the Sutton

Trust in terms of raising prospects for children. We spend most of our

time focused on the state sector and improving the state sector and

improving provision in the state sector. Fiona is right. That has to

be the main thrust. Opening up private schools is really important.

We will come back to this if the Government holds you secretly it

will fund all of theirs. David Cameron was in New York to talk to

the United Nations. He found time to appear on the David Letterman

Late Show. He set the Prime Minister a test on British

political history. Let's have a look at some of his answers. Rule

Britannia, written by whom? It is the iconic association with the

British Empire. Who wrote that? are testing me there. Elgar, I will

go for. Edward Elgar. Rule Britannia, which is a beautiful

refrain, based on a poem by James Thomson. Are you familiar with him?

I am now! It was set to music in 17 balti pied Thomas Arne. The literal

translation was what? -- 1745 Thomas Arne. Magna Carta means

Great Charter. As we pointed out, the seeds of democracy. Before we

move on, a welcome to viewers in Scotland who have been watching

First Minister's Questions from Holyrood. Back to David Letterman.

I'm joined in studio by Clive Anderson and from America by Mike

Hale of the New York Times. What did you think? How did he do?

thought he did very well. He did you primal. He was charming and

intelligent. -- did you proud. He showed the ability of taking a joke.

He was very graceful last night. You like to it. What did the

American audience make of it? will be finding out today. From

what I saw, Americans will be quite taken with him. I have to say, to

be perfectly honest, there are other new stories going on that

might be a bit bigger than his appearance on the David Letterman

Show last night. Overall he did very well. Why would he want to go

on the David Letterman Show? probably likes it and wants to up

his profile. His decision to go one was bad timing. He would do better

at another time. It upstages his own appearance at the United

Nations. He is not well established On that basis, how does he compare

with people like Tony Blair and Boris Johnson? I have only seen

some of the David Letterman interview. They're a bit stingy and

releasing the information. It was quite odd, the information. It is

odd for him to know what Magna Carta means. He knew when it was

signed am broadly speaking what it was about. I do not think he was

aware there were several copies. It was all right. I know a little bit

about this. I was once going to be on that show a few years ago and I

talked myself out of it. A thought it would be the wrong time for me

to be on there. Were you worried about being humiliated? Not really.

I was in the making a programme - and improvisation programme. I

spoke to the segment producer and we had the discussion. In a rather

bad, diffident British way, I explained all the reasons a might

be a bad choice to go on. You can try to get a second chance to go on

the show. Do you think they were the right questions to ask him? It

was odd trying to test him on his knowledge. I think they wanted to

do a comedy bit and that is what they came up with. What the

questions were 20 there here nor there, I don't think American

viewers really cared if he knew where the Magna Carta was held or

not. I thought after the comedy portion, he came of looking better

than David Letterman. The comedy part have not been thought through

that well. Funnily enough, up one of the viewers after its said, he

seemed quite nice. WKM up on Wikipedia. To Americans know who he

is? -- I will look him up. They had not got this close a look of him

before. What they got on the show last night was a great opportunity

to hear a campaign speech by David Cameron. He was given a series of

softball questions, allowing him to boast about the Olympics, set out

his theories about monetary policy and the euro, pretty much without

interruption. He did pretty well. The problem is for something like -

- someone like David Cameron, the fact he had a long time, it does

not go around the world. It was not one of his best interviews. They

were reduced by the end it to showing a picture of the Downing

Street cat. Where they are struggling for material? They were

doing British things. I tried to predict what the questions would be.

I got it completely wrong. We got it wrong yesterday. We thought it

might be something on class, on plebs. Because he is not quite

famous enough, it takes too much effort to explain the background. I

thought he might have said, what about you leaving your kid in a

British pub? He might have been prepared for that. He can't have

possibly expected, who wrote Land of Hope and Glory? Who wrote rule

Britannia? And what has struggled with that. You'll be pleased to

know I'm not going to ask you any questions about that. When I am in

the States, I do not watch David Letterman. J Lenno is a bid

comedian. -- a good comedian. What made the David Letterman Show ask

for him to come on? I can only speculate about that. My guess is

that his people approached the David Letterman Show. They probably

said, why not have the British Prime Minister on this show? I

agreed there was feeling throughout that segments -- that segment that

he and his producers have not quite belt have to play it. They felt

constrained. They could not make fun of him. Basically they let him

talk. Do you think Ed Miliband could go on that show? They are not

particularly good at dealing with leaders of the opposition. Could

you imagine it? Once he was in office, if you could imagine that.

-- if you could imagine that Dom I do not know my British politicians

that well. One of the best interviews with the British

politician -- with a politician was Carla Bruni Sarkozy. He has an

entirely different reaction to those guests. It was rather cosy.

did an interview with Mikhail Gorbachev. He was very entertaining.

He was warm and engaging. Do you think the J-Lo no-show would have

been better? He would have any remorse of Paul -- soft ball

questions. That is one of the many things that makes him interesting.

You cannot work out what was going on. I do not think David Letterman

is very funny. Some of his interviews are weird. I want to

make a serious point. Of course you can. We have been promoting, his

whole specialisation at 15 and 16 and doing three subjects, we should

have a Baccalaureate. I guarantee that David Cameron dropped history

at GCSE. If he had kept studying history until he was 18, he might

have known the answer about the Magna Carta. He has more bread some

most people in this country. In every other advanced country,

people steady eight subjects until they're 18 pretty much. Finally,

before we go, what is the UK equivalent of the Late Show? There

is not an exact equivalent. about this week? -- This Week.

Thank you very much. Good luck - a rugged good luck for the appearance

on the David Letterman Show of. Now, while we've spent most of the week

talking about an angry minister on his bike, and the Lib Dem party

conference, elsewhere in the world, there may be more pressing concerns

- in particular the threat of nuclear war. Iran's president

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made his final address to the UN General Assembly

yesterday before he steps down, and accused the West of nuclear

intimidation. About the pledge to disclose armaments, and dude time

is now being used as a new language of threat into accepting a new era.

A continued threat by the uncivilised Zionist to resort to

military action against a great nation is big it example of this

bitter reality. To discuss the effect that speech will have on the

Middle East and the likelihood that Israel will attack Iran, I am

joined by Ben Wallace and Douglas Murray. Douglas Murray, how likely

to think it is that Israel will attack Iran? Very likely, indeed

inevitable, unless the international community -

particularly America - makes it extremely clear that there is no

doubt to Iran that the idea of the combination of the Islamic

revolutionary government in Iraq gaining a nuclear device - gaining

the capability to build a nuclear device - is completely intolerable

to us. Unless that is made entirely clear, the Israelis will feel it is

only them that truly feel threatened by this and fruity

recognise the magnitude of this threat to world peace. -- truly

recognise. Only the Israelis will act. Do you agree with that?

quite. They will only act if they believe they will get the support

of countries like America and, wider afield, Europe and Britain,

etc. They will only act if they can achieve the destruction of the

nuclear programme. That is one of that challenges ahead. Even within

Israel, both Ministry of Defence sources and the ex head of Mossad

are split on whether Israel would be able to achieve that. Should

more be done in the West to prevent The US has already made unilateral

sanctions. Through financial sanctions and oil sanctions. The

problem is, this is not just about Israel. What people forget,

actually, this is much more about Saudi and Iran and the rivalries

within the region and who will be the dominant partner in that area.

The worry for the west is that Israel may trigger something that

America, Britain and others do not want to happen. And caused a real

problem in that region. Are you saying that the threats from

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have been just playing to the audience in terms of

his frail macro, and Israel takes it far too seriously? -- Israel.

There is a huge history of rhetoric. In the 80s, the last supreme

leader's rhetoric against the state that shouldn't be, it was is bell

macro up arming Iran, not the -- it was Israel. We have two separate

rhetoric from often the reality. Doesn't Britain have to do that?

This is not about rhetoric only, it would be a great mistake to think

that. The President of Iran, the Supreme Leader, all of the senior

figures have for 30 years desired a desire to wipe out the state of

Israel. Among other things, they are doing what they can with their

current spread of capabilities. They farm and fund his father. --

arm Hizbollah. If you like what Iran is doing without a nuclear

bomb, you'll love what they will do when they have got one. The idea

this is solely about rhetoric is a mistake. But, the rhetoric does

matter. A world leader like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is able to continuously

claim that the last Holocaust did not happen whilst calling for the

next one to occur. You are underestimating the be a threat --

the threat? I agree that Iran has used its third parties and

terrorist links to wage war on his role -- Israel. Let us remember,

only in March this year, they said they did not believe the Iranian

people were rational when it came to Mitchell destruction. Let us

take this on. His role is a democracy with many voices --

Israel. There are many Israelis, not just the Prime Minister

Binyamin Netanyahu. One other point is very important. This is a

problem for his role -- Israel, first. But only first. For the

region and the world, what happens after Iran goes nuclear, we already

know, all the international bodies known. Sadly, Egypt, all the other

countries in the region will themselves be armed with the most

genocidal weapons. If anyone thinks this is solely about Israel, they

are mistaken. Pakistan has a nuclear weapon. I am not glad that

Israel has a nuclear weapon. The Middle East nuclear arms race

started with Israel and they did not comply with the directive. We

have to recognise that the real issue here, let us remember, I

fully defend their right to defend themselves, that is not Britain's

national interest. Hoop is blowing up twin towers? Plotting to kill

and murdered in this country? It is not Shia Iranian sponsored

terrorism. It is Saudi sponsored. What is in Britain's interest? In

terms of foreign policy? assault entire run was done with

the backing of that government. Britain's interest in how they

handle this? First of all, Israel is an ally of us, the only thriving

democracy in the region. It is in our national interest that the

Middle East does not go nuclear across the board. We want to take

nuclear weapons out of the Middle East. Gentle men, I have to stop

you both. Just how much should we rely on

philanthropy? The government says it wants us all giving more to

charity. That was the basis of the Giving white paper launched last

year. But, in tough economic times, just how generous are the

wealthiest in society being? We sent Susana Mendonca to find out.

The boys in this school are a mixture, seven parts fee paying,

one part scholarship funded. It is the money donated by rich

philanthropists which makes it possible for private schools to

bring in pupils from less privileged backgrounds.

overwhelming majority operate a out of parental fee income but when be

able to do it without philanthropic input. Here are two of the lucky

ones who have their �13,000 fees paid for in part by wealthy donors.

Isolate her that person. Without that money I would not be able to

come to this school. I owe it to the person who sponsored me, to

work hard. It is a small group of donors who make the biggest impact.

In 2009, just 8% of the population provided 47% of all charitable

donations. Despite tough economic times, the number of people giving

is holding up. But there are questions. It is often education,

higher education in particular. arts institutions are often the big

ones based in London. The things that tend to lose out a little bit

are issues like drugs, alcohol, disability. Around 133,000

charities, three-quarters of them, have received no government funding.

Private donors gave �13.1 billion to charity, 37% of all the income

to charities. Just 833 of the charities in the UK received more

than half of all the charitable sector income in 2009. The Royal

Opera House is giving families the chance to watch Swan Lake at

cheaper prices, using the money it gets from philanthropists to

subsidise the tickets. After that is his �25 million a year in

government arts funding. Less than it used to get. They are clear that

philanthropy isn't enough. He it's not enticing to fill a government

gap. We couldn't exist without that government support. I do not

foresee the day that it will be entirely funded by philanthropic

organisations. Maybe it will be different if we were Americans.

People who weren't over �150,000 a year donate organs six times the

amount their British counterparts What are the limits of

philanthropy? They do a good job. Even in the UK, we may not give as

much as in the States. If you take out there giving in the States to

higher education, people giving back to their university, or

religious giving, the difference isn't as big. People do give a lot.

It is particularly important as the state is spending less. This raises

lots of issues. Can philanthropists fill that gap left by the state,

and should they? Of course they can't. 0.7% of GDP being given.

2.1% in the States. Coming on to higher education, this is a huge

issue. There are 100 universities in America where they have an

annual giving away off 50%, 50% of graduates give them money every

year. We have to. How do you make it happen? The culture of given --

giving, we do not have here. There is a tax issue. In America you get

a straight deduction from look income. Here, we have a gift Aid

scheme where the charity claims that some, you claim that sum. It

is complicated. If we change that system, is that what should be done

to encourage people to give? tax system does influence giving.

Actually, our tax system, there have been a lot of differences, but

it could be simpler. I am not sure I want to see all of this money

disappearing into universities. There are a lot of good causes.

Universities are getting better at asking for money. Will they now

give it to Oxford and Cambridge but not a mental health charity?

would go to other charities as well. If you change the way. Why should

wealthy philanthropists choose? When I was in New York, making a

reasonable amount of money, by tax advisers said, you are paying too

much, why not give some money to good causes? Homeless. You're all

to university. That goes on in the States. No one would ever say that

here. Tax is really important, to stop people giving once they are

earning money. Delight said they would start giving to their pet

project, not the spread of smaller charities, less fashionable. They

would suffer. I think people give to all kinds of charities. Some

want to give to universities, some too early years centres. We would

find the whole level of charitable giving, if we change the tax, we

change the culture of giving, we would approach American levels,

which would be highly desirable. Tax does matter but I don't want

rich people giving because they want a tax break. I want them to

give because they want to do some good. We work with a lot of

philanthropists, to help them do the best they can. At the moment,

there are people in need around the country, where statutory services

are being withdrawn, were you are an unemployed young person, we want

this to be funded. At 0.7% of GDP, you won't make a big difference on

that. That's all for today. Thanks to our guest of the day, and all

our guests. The one o'clock news is starting over on BBC One now.