:00:36. > :00:40.Afternoon, folks, welcome to the Daily Politics. David Cameron heads
:00:40. > :00:45.to Europe for yet another the EU summit, and maybe a bust-up on
:00:45. > :00:49.banking regulation. The French President has already told Britain
:00:49. > :00:51.to butt out. The Prime Minister says he will
:00:51. > :00:54.change the law to force energy companies to give customers the
:00:54. > :00:59.best deal, but his energy department couldn't explain how it
:00:59. > :01:02.would work. Is this an omni-energy- shambles?
:01:02. > :01:06.Should MPs have to come clean on whether they are paying rent to
:01:06. > :01:12.another MP? The Speaker is reported to be blocking disclosure amid
:01:12. > :01:16.concerns about security. And as the SNP conference begins in
:01:16. > :01:19.Perth, how would an independent Scotland defend itself? Should it
:01:19. > :01:27.be part of NATO, or continue to base British nuclear weapons at
:01:27. > :01:29.Faslane? All that in the next hour, and with
:01:29. > :01:34.us for the duration, former Conservative Party leader, Michael
:01:34. > :01:38.Howard. Welcome to the programme. Let's start with the continuing
:01:38. > :01:41.saga of the embattled chief whip, Andrew Mitchell. It's four weeks
:01:41. > :01:45.now since he had that row at the Downing Street gates in which he
:01:45. > :01:48.was reported to have sworn at a police officer and called him a
:01:48. > :01:50.pleb. Mr Mitchell, of course, denies using the P word, but has
:01:50. > :01:56.apologised to officers for the incident, but the story just seems
:01:56. > :01:58.to refuse to go away. After being the butt of jokes at PMQs, he was
:01:59. > :02:03.at the receiving end of criticism from his Conservative colleagues at
:02:03. > :02:12.the 1922 Committee last night. Our political correspondent joins me
:02:12. > :02:17.now. Nine at that meeting, a number of his colleagues were prepared to
:02:17. > :02:22.speak up and openly criticise him, but no sign yet that his toast, to
:02:22. > :02:25.use Ed Miliband's would? That's right, MPs spent half an hour
:02:26. > :02:30.behind closed doors are discussing Andrew Mitchell's future. But he is
:02:30. > :02:33.not just any MP, he is a Cabinet minister. And he is not any Cabinet
:02:33. > :02:40.minister stare, he is the chief whip, the man who is supposed to be
:02:40. > :02:46.in charge of party discipline, and yet MPs were prepared to call for
:02:46. > :02:52.him to resign. Others were more supportive. And others said it is
:02:52. > :02:55.too late now. But there are some MPs who say we do have to draw a
:02:55. > :02:59.line under this and rally around the prime minister, who has decided
:02:59. > :03:04.to stick by him. Many feel frustration that the damage has
:03:04. > :03:08.been done. It does look as though it David Cameron will try and hold
:03:08. > :03:11.on to him. They don't want to give a scalp to Labour and the press,
:03:11. > :03:15.but his Andrew Mitchell becoming his own worst enemy? At Prime
:03:15. > :03:20.Minister's Questions yesterday, when Ed Miliband accused him of
:03:20. > :03:25.using abusive language against the police, and instead of being quiet,
:03:25. > :03:29.Andrew Mitchell muttered "I didn't swear", and ignited the row over
:03:29. > :03:32.again. On fortunately, the TV cameras did not pick up Andrew
:03:32. > :03:38.Mitchell saying that, but there are several witnesses including its Ed
:03:38. > :03:40.Miliband who say he did then say he did not swear. There are also
:03:41. > :03:46.rumours that his deputy was threatening to resign. He said he
:03:46. > :03:49.could not work with him. So there is potentially a problem within the
:03:49. > :03:53.whip's office, and this is a headache for the Prime Minister. He
:03:53. > :03:58.needs his troops to respect the whip and he needs them to behave at
:03:58. > :04:02.a time when they have a lot of problems. The frustration from Tory
:04:02. > :04:06.MPs is that they have enough going on without this kind of own goal,
:04:06. > :04:09.which reinforces an image of the party being out of touch. That was
:04:09. > :04:14.why Andrew Mitchell was put there in the first place.
:04:14. > :04:20.Michael Howard, for Labour, this is the gift that keeps on giving.
:04:20. > :04:26.trying to get my head around the concept of "any old cabinet
:04:26. > :04:35.minister", the phrase that Vicky Young used. That really set me
:04:35. > :04:38.thinking. Look, his apology was accepted. It has not been accepted
:04:38. > :04:43.by the wider political system. It has not even been accepted by a lot
:04:43. > :04:48.of people on your own side. For Labour, it is the gift that keeps
:04:48. > :04:53.on giving. Her of course Labour will try and keep it going. I
:04:53. > :04:59.understand that the majority of Conservative MPs supported him. We
:04:59. > :05:04.all get het up from time to time. We all perhaps say we should not.
:05:04. > :05:08.But Mr Mitchell keeps on giving the story legs himself. He shattered in
:05:08. > :05:13.the Commons yesterday when the Labour leader said it, you swore at
:05:13. > :05:18.the police, he said no, I didn't. And yet in previous statements, he
:05:18. > :05:23.said, I did swear at the police, but I didn't call them plebs. Who
:05:23. > :05:29.do we believe? Everybody will be looking for everything they can
:05:29. > :05:39.find to keep the story going. that is a huge thing - he said he
:05:39. > :05:39.
:05:39. > :05:46.didn't, and now he says he did. was not caught on camera. The best
:05:46. > :05:51.witness Vicky could come up with was Ed Miliband. We ought to get on
:05:51. > :05:55.to talk about the things that really matter. He has apologised.
:05:55. > :06:01.am bored with it. I am happy to move on, but it is not going away.
:06:01. > :06:06.I am sure your viewers are bored with it, too. What do you say to
:06:06. > :06:08.the idea that the Police Federation are the ones stirring it up to keep
:06:08. > :06:13.it alive, because they have their own agenda against the government?
:06:13. > :06:21.I don't want to get into any arguments with the Police
:06:21. > :06:28.Federation. Do you fear them? at all. I have worked with them in
:06:28. > :06:34.days gone by. As far as I'm concerned, the matter is over.
:06:34. > :06:40.just have to convince the rest of your colleagues. Not my job. He is
:06:40. > :06:47.not bothered. Shall we do a quiz without Andrew Mitchell in it? It
:06:47. > :06:50.is hard. The question for today is, yesterday, the Conservative trade
:06:50. > :06:57.minister Lord Marland told reporters he was off to keep the
:06:57. > :07:02.sun tan up. But where was he off to? Was at his local tanning salon,
:07:02. > :07:08.Mozambique for ministerial business or the north Cornwall coast? At the
:07:08. > :07:14.end of the show, Michael will give us the correct answer. Maybe he can
:07:14. > :07:18.tell us why anybody should care. care, because he does have an
:07:18. > :07:22.excellent job. I am delighted that he is continuing to bang the drum
:07:22. > :07:26.for Britain. Are you glad you asked?
:07:26. > :07:30.For now, at PMQs yesterday, the Prime Minister again indicated that
:07:30. > :07:35.Britain needed a new relationship and that any new deal would need
:07:35. > :07:39.popular approval, which is meant to be seen as a nod in the direction
:07:39. > :07:43.of a referendum. But he has not explicitly promised one, and he is
:07:43. > :07:48.vague about the timetable or exactly what the choice would-be.
:07:48. > :07:54.Today Mr Cameron heads to Brussels yet again, probably for some more
:07:54. > :07:59.bruising battles with his EU colleagues. This time, the fight is
:07:59. > :08:07.over a banking union, and at a time when many, especially the Germans,
:08:07. > :08:11.are fed up with British feet dragging.
:08:11. > :08:14.Earlier this week, the German magazine Der Spiegel compared the
:08:14. > :08:17.British position in Europe to Statler and Waldorf from the
:08:17. > :08:21.Muppets, always carping from the sidelines. The magazine is said to
:08:21. > :08:25.be close to the German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and the French
:08:25. > :08:28.President Francois Hollande has also said to be frustrated by
:08:28. > :08:33.Britain's approach, saying that those outside the single currency
:08:33. > :08:37.should avoid "telling us how the Eurozone should be run". So how
:08:37. > :08:40.have things got so bad? David Cameron is heading to Brussels for
:08:40. > :08:44.a two day summit that is expected to be dominated by proposals to
:08:44. > :08:47.create a banking union for countries who use the euro. The
:08:47. > :08:51.hope is that this will help protect the bags inside the Eurozone by
:08:51. > :08:53.putting them all under one monitoring system and having a
:08:53. > :08:58.joint deposit scheme. The British government is in favour of this,
:08:58. > :09:01.but is worried that our own financial system could also end up
:09:02. > :09:05.under European control. They want legal safeguards to prevent the
:09:05. > :09:09.Eurozone countries out voting Britain and others who don't have
:09:09. > :09:14.the euro. The discussions could get nasty. One EU Commission official
:09:14. > :09:19.has already said it would not be legally possible for the UK to
:09:19. > :09:25.secure a veto. We can speak to Mats Persson, a director of the think
:09:25. > :09:33.tank Open Europe. Is that true? Can be to ensure that its own banks are
:09:33. > :09:41.outside this banking union? I think you can. There are two parts to
:09:41. > :09:48.this proposal. In theory, yes, it is possible for Britain to get some
:09:48. > :09:53.pragmatic solution which it can be comfortable with to ensure that
:09:53. > :09:57.Britain and British banks have a good relationship with the Eurozone.
:09:57. > :10:00.What are the dangers to the City? Are their exaggerated in terms of
:10:00. > :10:06.negative impact on the City from these new banking union
:10:06. > :10:10.regulations? The City of London is a bit divided, actually. On the one
:10:10. > :10:16.hand, the like the idea of a banking union as a stabilising
:10:16. > :10:19.factor. At the same time, they are worried that the Euros and 17 will
:10:19. > :10:23.start to write rules for the 27 member states, with Britain having
:10:23. > :10:29.a limited ability to block the rules if they are not suitable to
:10:29. > :10:33.the City of London or the UK. So they are a bit two-faced. Yes,
:10:33. > :10:37.there is a legitimate concern here and Cameron is right to look at
:10:37. > :10:41.safeguards. But is there a risk that Britain will cut off its nose
:10:41. > :10:45.to spite its face? They want the banking union. The Chancellor said
:10:45. > :10:49.that anything that will stabilise the banks that are in crisis in
:10:49. > :10:56.Europe would be a good thing. If AV to it, the whole thing might
:10:56. > :11:03.collapse. I agree. There is a bit of inconsistency in the British
:11:03. > :11:12.diplomatic position at the moment. I have some sympathy with the
:11:12. > :11:17.Germans. But I think the British have a point, because this has an
:11:17. > :11:21.impact on them. Our interests need to be safeguarded as well. Everyone
:11:21. > :11:24.is looking out for their national interests, and so must Cameron. So
:11:24. > :11:29.I have sympathy with the German position, but Britain needs to look
:11:29. > :11:34.out for its own interests as well. A head of these summits, there is
:11:34. > :11:38.always a lot of rhetoric and foot stamping. Hasn't a lot of the
:11:38. > :11:41.ground now been agreed? British officials will have been talking
:11:41. > :11:45.about this banking union. When I was at the European Parliament,
:11:45. > :11:49.they were already discussing it. Hasn't a not been done already?
:11:49. > :11:53.Some has been done already, but there is still a huge number of
:11:53. > :11:57.disagreements lingering, not only between Britain and the Eurozone
:11:57. > :12:02.members, but amongst the Eurozone members themselves. The Germans are
:12:02. > :12:08.still keen on ski -- keeping of the scope of the agreement limited to
:12:08. > :12:12.the biggest banks, whereas others want to extend the agreement to all
:12:12. > :12:16.EUR6,000 and banks. So there is a lot of disagreement between Britain
:12:16. > :12:25.and the Eurozone members, but also within the Eurozone block itself.
:12:25. > :12:28.There is a lot of negotiation still ahead.
:12:28. > :12:34.Let's stick with this story. We are joined by the European Council
:12:34. > :12:39.spokesman Richard call but, and Michael Howard is still with us. Mr
:12:39. > :12:42.Corbett, can you clarify an issue for us here? If the UK does not
:12:42. > :12:49.like the shape of this banking union that is being proposed, does
:12:49. > :12:53.Britain have the power to veto it? As Mats Persson said, yes, there is
:12:53. > :13:01.one element that needs unanimous agreement of all the EU member
:13:01. > :13:07.states to be enacted. But once these negotiations have concluded
:13:07. > :13:14.and if there is not a veto, what power would Britain have over an
:13:14. > :13:18.operational banking union? Britain chooses not to join the
:13:18. > :13:22.banking union, if that is done at the level of the Eurozone or the
:13:22. > :13:29.Eurozone plus others who wish to join in but Britain does not wish
:13:29. > :13:34.to join in, there would be some supervisory aspects. They would
:13:34. > :13:38.only be supervising Eurozone banks. Britain is worried about something
:13:38. > :13:42.slightly different, that that spills over into the area of
:13:42. > :13:47.regulating banks, and that regulations will be adopted, with
:13:47. > :13:52.Britain being outvoted by a block of Eurozone countries. It is
:13:52. > :13:55.worried about that, but historically, other European
:13:55. > :13:58.countries recognise the importance of the City of London for the whole
:13:58. > :14:02.of the European Union, and try to get Britain on board for any
:14:02. > :14:08.legislation in this sector. It is unusual for Britain to be outvoted
:14:08. > :14:12.in the adoption of such legislation. But you are referring to the
:14:12. > :14:21.European Banking Authority, which exists at the moment. I was
:14:21. > :14:25.speaking more widely, actually. my understanding is that the
:14:25. > :14:32.British fear is that under this proposal, the European Central Bank
:14:32. > :14:38.will represent the Eurozone on the European Banking Authority. The ECB
:14:38. > :14:42.could vote as a block, 17 votes, so any major banking regulatory issues,
:14:42. > :14:50.Britain, with by far the most important financial sector in
:14:50. > :14:53.Europe, could lose out. On the point of the banking authority,
:14:53. > :15:00.that is indeed Britain's fear. As I said, most other countries would
:15:00. > :15:03.not normally want to do that. We are looking at safeguards in the
:15:03. > :15:07.voting procedures to say, for instance, whether you might need a
:15:07. > :15:11.double majority of those in the Eurozone and does not in the
:15:11. > :15:21.Eurozone. Those things will be yet explored and I am sure a compromise
:15:21. > :15:28.
:15:28. > :15:34.$:/STARTFEED. Michael Howard, what would you do a keyword Mr Cameron
:15:34. > :15:40.going to Europe? Let's be realistic about this. The main argument that
:15:40. > :15:43.is taking place today is going to be between France and Germany. They
:15:43. > :15:49.have hugely different views about what sort of banking union it
:15:49. > :15:53.should be. All we are saying, perfectly legitimately, is we think
:15:54. > :16:00.it is a good idea to have a banking union, you decide what kind of
:16:00. > :16:04.union and make sure what you have decided his set-up in such a way
:16:05. > :16:10.that it does not disadvantage Britain. I am entirely in favour of
:16:10. > :16:15.this. This is yet another example of the kind of flexible Europe I
:16:15. > :16:21.would like to see created. Not every member state has to accept
:16:21. > :16:26.every edict that comes out of Brussels. Some member states are in
:16:26. > :16:31.the euro-zone and some are not. Some are going to be in the banking
:16:31. > :16:36.union and others are not. We had our opt-out from the Social Chapter
:16:36. > :16:40.and tell it was given away by the last Labour Government. We ought to
:16:40. > :16:44.have the kind of European structure which allows us to say to our
:16:44. > :16:50.European partners, we do not want to stop you doing what you want to
:16:50. > :16:55.do as long as you do not make us do what we do not want to do. Is that
:16:55. > :17:01.realistic? In essence Mr Howard is right to say Britain is not part of
:17:01. > :17:04.the euro-zone and since banking union is being set that essentially
:17:04. > :17:09.for the euro-zone if Britain does not want to take part, it does not
:17:09. > :17:15.have to. But there are some who would say this ought to be a matter
:17:15. > :17:19.for the single market, all 27 member states. We have a single,
:17:19. > :17:25.financial markets and banks work across frontiers and ownership. Is
:17:25. > :17:29.it not better to have a common set of rules for that common market and
:17:29. > :17:33.common supervision for the whole of the single market? Britain says no,
:17:33. > :17:40.so it is going ahead without Britain, but that is Britain's
:17:40. > :17:44.choice. What is the view in Europe? We read in Der Spiegel that for
:17:44. > :17:49.Angela Merkel she is getting fed up because everything that is proposed
:17:49. > :17:52.a Britain drags its feet and slows down everyone else. Is there a
:17:52. > :17:59.growing feeling in Europe that Britain should make up its mind? If
:17:59. > :18:03.you are not part of the programme, get out of the way. You hear voices
:18:03. > :18:07.saying that more and more, on the other hand people can point to
:18:07. > :18:12.other policy areas where Britain has been in the lead. In recent
:18:12. > :18:20.years it was in the lead on climate change, for instance. Quite often
:18:20. > :18:24.it is in the lead on foreign and security policy issues. It is not
:18:24. > :18:30.in the lead, obviously, in things relating to the euro because
:18:30. > :18:37.Britain is not part of the euro. Let me ask you, the position of the
:18:37. > :18:40.Conservative Party is they want to renegotiate Britain's arrangements,
:18:41. > :18:46.Britain's settlement with the European Union. They want to
:18:46. > :18:53.repatriate a wide range of powers back to London. Is there any
:18:53. > :18:57.appetite for the major European powers to agree to that? Up to now
:18:57. > :19:03.the British Government, as opposed to any political party, has not
:19:03. > :19:09.asked for any such renegotiation. You know what I am saying. If that
:19:09. > :19:12.happened, it would need a treaty change agreed for the most part.
:19:12. > :19:18.understand that as well, but I am asking you is there any appetite on
:19:18. > :19:23.behalf of the French, the Italians, the Dutch, to agree to a major
:19:23. > :19:28.repatriation of powers to Britain, powers that would not be
:19:28. > :19:35.repatriated to Berlin, Paris, Rome or the Hague? I have not heard of
:19:35. > :19:39.any enthusiasm for such a thing! not go away. At last, Andrew, you
:19:39. > :19:45.have been trying hard for the last 10 minutes to get some kind of
:19:45. > :19:51.issue you can get your teeth into it and at last. What is your answer
:19:51. > :19:56.to it? He has just said there is no appetite to repatriate powers.
:19:56. > :20:00.answer is this. There are a number of signs that the core members of
:20:00. > :20:07.the European Union are moving closer together, they are moving
:20:07. > :20:11.closer together to a federal union. If they continue to move in that
:20:11. > :20:15.direction, they are likely to need a treaty change. If they need a
:20:15. > :20:21.treaty change, that would present an opportunity for the Government
:20:21. > :20:25.of the United Kingdom to move in the direction I was talking earlier.
:20:25. > :20:30.To be my semi-detached. I would not say semi-detached, we are never
:20:30. > :20:34.part of the core, but to create a more flexible kind of structure for
:20:34. > :20:39.the European Union in which not every member state has to sign up
:20:39. > :20:45.to everything. So they would have to repatriate powers back to us?
:20:45. > :20:49.would not say they have to, it would be a process of negotiation.
:20:49. > :20:55.They would once certain things which needs our agreement. What
:20:55. > :21:00.sort of things? You have a process of negotiation. They want things
:21:00. > :21:06.from us and we will want things from them. We have a civilised
:21:06. > :21:11.discussion and that would present us with a great opportunity. I will
:21:11. > :21:17.give you the final word, Mr Corbett. Give me your reaction to what
:21:17. > :21:24.Michael Howard has just said. that a serious or probable likely
:21:24. > :21:29.way it will pan out? The further deepening relates to the euro-zone
:21:29. > :21:33.which we are already not part of. It could deepen further by means of
:21:33. > :21:38.a treaty or an amendment or it could deepen further by a treaty
:21:38. > :21:44.among themselves. It is not certain this further deepening in an area
:21:44. > :21:49.in which Britain is not involved in any way, that that further
:21:49. > :21:53.deepening would imply opening other areas of the treaty. Why should
:21:53. > :22:00.deepening mean that Britain should opt out of justice and police
:22:00. > :22:05.matters? It does not necessarily follow. That is very interesting.
:22:05. > :22:10.Come back and talk to us and we are on once a month and we do politics
:22:10. > :22:14.Europe, and we hope you join us on that as well.
:22:14. > :22:18.At the moment secret recordings made by the police or MI5 cannot be
:22:18. > :22:22.used in court and the security services would like to keep it that
:22:22. > :22:26.way, arguing it could compromise their intelligence-gathering
:22:26. > :22:30.techniques and ruin ongoing operations. But the law has been
:22:30. > :22:34.called into question after the death of Mark Duggan, the man shot
:22:34. > :22:38.dead by police last year in an operation filmed here by a member
:22:38. > :22:45.of the public. His death in Tottenham's sparked days of rioting
:22:45. > :22:48.across England. An inquest has been set for January, but it has been
:22:48. > :22:53.warned that it may not be able to go ahead because some of the
:22:53. > :22:57.evidence will be heard in secret. The Tottenham MP David Lammy joins
:22:57. > :23:03.us from the Central lobby in the House of Commons. Expand for us a
:23:03. > :23:07.little more as to why the inquest will be delayed. We are in the
:23:07. > :23:11.extraordinary situation where following four days of rioting and
:23:11. > :23:17.the death of Mark Duggan because they may have have been the use of
:23:17. > :23:20.intercept evidence, there will have to be a closed inquiry. I think
:23:20. > :23:25.you're viewers will understand that in Britain when someone dies in
:23:25. > :23:30.mysterious circumstances, certainly at the hands of the state, you need
:23:30. > :23:35.a jury at a coroner to determine the truth of what has happened.
:23:35. > :23:40.That is the law. They cannot do that, coroners cannot do that.
:23:40. > :23:45.the moment coroners are not allowed to hear cases that may involve
:23:45. > :23:49.intercept evidence. Indeed, courts are not allowed to hear cases that
:23:49. > :23:54.may involve intercept evidence. This has been knocking around
:23:54. > :24:00.parliament since 2005. The Home Office do not like it and Theresa
:24:00. > :24:03.May now needs to act and amend the law. Explain why that is important
:24:03. > :24:09.because of the police claims about the background to Mark Duggan in
:24:09. > :24:12.the lead-up to that shooting? think it is important, obviously
:24:13. > :24:17.for Mark Duggan's family, but it is important for the country to
:24:17. > :24:20.understand the circumstances surrounding the shooting, what
:24:20. > :24:27.happened in the lead-up and why he was shot outside his car where he
:24:27. > :24:32.was in broad daylight. And obviously the consequent emotions
:24:32. > :24:36.that followed in those ensuing days. That is very important for this
:24:36. > :24:42.country to fully understand. This is the first major domestic case, I
:24:42. > :24:45.think, where this use, or non-use of intercept evidence is thwarting
:24:45. > :24:52.justice and that is why we are bringing it back to the House of
:24:52. > :24:55.Commons. Do you have much support? I am joined by David Davis, a
:24:55. > :25:00.former spokesman for the Conservatives on home affairs, and
:25:00. > :25:04.other backbenchers across parties that are concerned about intersect
:25:04. > :25:09.thwarting justice in this country. Every other major country in the
:25:09. > :25:12.world they use intercept evidence you would not be able to jail
:25:12. > :25:17.people if you did not have intercept evidence in court. It is
:25:17. > :25:22.an anomaly that we here in Britain stand in the way of this in the way
:25:22. > :25:27.that we do. It has the support of the police and the Metropolitan
:25:27. > :25:31.Police Commissioner. Absolutely and the Home Secretary has said she
:25:32. > :25:37.would like to change the law and is waiting on the Chillcott inquiry to
:25:37. > :25:42.look at this again. But they have looked at it seven times since 2005,
:25:42. > :25:47.so I think because of its impact on domestic cases, I think because
:25:47. > :25:51.really in the end we need an open, democratic justice system and we
:25:51. > :25:55.need an amendment that enables a judge or a coroner to look at the
:25:55. > :26:01.material. I do not think we should know the means by which this
:26:01. > :26:06.evidence is got because, quite rightly, we need an intelligence
:26:06. > :26:10.service that can do that. Michael Howard, why should the law not be
:26:10. > :26:13.changed? David Lammy has put forward a very powerful case and is
:26:13. > :26:19.joined by other figures mentioned to have the use of intercept
:26:19. > :26:28.evidence. I am in had -- inhibited by what I can say because I am a
:26:28. > :26:33.member of the Chillcott committee. We will very shortly be giving our
:26:33. > :26:36.file advice to the Home Secretary. What I would say is this, I am on
:26:36. > :26:42.record in the past as being in favour of the use of intercept
:26:42. > :26:46.evidence. I started off from a principle similar to the one David
:26:46. > :26:49.Lammy has just put forward. All I can say is it is a great deal more
:26:49. > :26:54.complicated and a great deal more difficult than might at first sight
:26:54. > :27:00.appear. The Home Secretary will have to decide and the committee
:27:00. > :27:05.will give her our advice. Why is it more complicated? I do not want you
:27:05. > :27:11.to go into detail. The simplistic view is it is the security services
:27:11. > :27:17.to do not like it. They have to protect sources. Allies like the
:27:17. > :27:23.Americans will not give us information. In a word, or in a few
:27:23. > :27:28.words, David Lammy tried to make a distinction between the content of
:27:28. > :27:34.the evidence and the source, the way in which you obtain that
:27:34. > :27:39.evidence. That sounds like a very neat distinction. But the truth in
:27:39. > :27:45.the real world is that very often you would be able to tell from the
:27:45. > :27:50.content of the evidence how it was obtained. That leads you into great
:27:50. > :27:55.difficulties. I do not think I'd better go any further. Do you think
:27:55. > :27:58.the Home Secretary's own native a little bit when it comes to siding
:27:58. > :28:03.with the intelligence services when they become the Home Secretary?
:28:03. > :28:11.I do not, I think she will reach a balanced view and take all the
:28:11. > :28:15.advice she is given into account. Now there has been the unmistakable
:28:15. > :28:22.sound in Westminster of a prime ministerial announcement
:28:22. > :28:25.unravelling at full speed this morning. It dominated the lobby,
:28:25. > :28:30.the off-the-record briefings as the Government tried to clarify what
:28:30. > :28:36.the Prime Minister said yesterday. This is what David Cameron told the
:28:36. > :28:40.House of Commons yesterday. I can announce, which I am sure he will
:28:40. > :28:43.welcome, is there that we will be legislating said that energy
:28:43. > :28:47.companies have to give the lowest tariff to their customers,
:28:47. > :28:52.something Labour did not do in 13 years even though the leader of the
:28:52. > :28:58.party could have done. That sounds pretty good to you and me, doesn't
:28:58. > :29:03.it? Diligent journalists checked the details of the announcement
:29:03. > :29:07.with the Energy Department, which you would think would be fully
:29:07. > :29:15.across this, they would have got the draft and the wording right,
:29:15. > :29:21.but they could not offer any details. There were suggestions it
:29:21. > :29:27.could even increase the costs for consumers or break competition laws.
:29:27. > :29:32.This morning, the energy minister, John Hayes, was called to the House
:29:33. > :29:36.to answer, not surprisingly, an urgent question. Following the
:29:36. > :29:39.Prime Minister's announcement yesterday, I am pleased to confirm
:29:39. > :29:45.we will be bringing forward legislation to help energy
:29:45. > :29:49.consumers get the best deal. We have already regulated and have
:29:49. > :29:53.plans to improve competition, simplifying tariffs for the retail
:29:53. > :29:57.market and we will improve liquidity and competition in the
:29:57. > :30:03.wholesale market through the energy bill in weeks rather than months.
:30:03. > :30:06.There are a number of options being considered. For example, the
:30:06. > :30:11.voluntary agreement in April secured a number of measures which
:30:11. > :30:15.will be evaluated to make the legislation binding. This is a
:30:15. > :30:25.complicated area and we will discuss with the industry, consumer
:30:25. > :30:32.
:30:32. > :30:38.We wanted to speak to him Minister about this on your behalf, but we
:30:38. > :30:40.were told, surprise, surprise, that none was available. But undaunted,
:30:40. > :30:48.we are joined by Stephen Fitzpatrick of Ovo Energy, never
:30:48. > :30:53.heard of them, crazy name - and the shadow energy minister, Luciana
:30:53. > :30:59.Berger. I have just seen an open goal for you to kick the ball
:30:59. > :31:04.through. Let me come to you first. Do you know what government policy
:31:04. > :31:08.is on this? 12 months ago, I was in a meeting with David Cameron and
:31:08. > :31:12.the heads of the large energy companies. And they agreed to write
:31:12. > :31:16.to their consumers and say, you could be paying less. And I
:31:16. > :31:25.suggested it might be better if you just got the energy companies to
:31:25. > :31:29.charge them less. A year on, having seen that nothing much has changed,
:31:29. > :31:34.the Prime Minister has decided it is time to take action. It is a
:31:34. > :31:39.brave move. Except that what the Prime Minister said yesterday was
:31:39. > :31:43.that energy companies should give consumers the lowest tariff, not
:31:43. > :31:51.offer them the lowest tariff, just give it to them. On the briefings
:31:51. > :31:59.we have since had, from what Mr Hayes said, that is not what the
:31:59. > :32:04.Government policy seems to be. The word offer was much softer than
:32:04. > :32:09."give". We will wait to see what comes out in the energy bill.
:32:09. > :32:13.you don't know what the policy is. Nobody knows what the policy is
:32:13. > :32:18.until we see it. The intention is to force the big six to treat
:32:18. > :32:21.customers fairly. I understand that, and I understand that you are in
:32:21. > :32:29.favour of that because you are a smaller energy company which would
:32:29. > :32:33.like to take on the Big Six. I know the Labour leader and others have
:32:33. > :32:39.been trying to encourage people to be given lower tariffs. But what do
:32:39. > :32:43.you think of the prime minister's idea for these energy companies to
:32:43. > :32:48.give the lowest tariff, not ask or offer, but just to say, it is
:32:48. > :32:54.yours? This is another shambles from the prime minister. We have
:32:54. > :32:59.established that. Don't milk it. I have milked it. I am sorry your
:32:59. > :33:02.video did not big enough up of the cackles of laughter. I have never
:33:02. > :33:06.heard such a farce. People thought it was the most entertaining half-
:33:06. > :33:12.hour of Parliament they have ever heard. I can assure you, that is
:33:12. > :33:17.not true. I am sorry that the Secretary of State Ed Davey did not
:33:17. > :33:22.grace us with his presence. I know it is an open goal. You have kicked
:33:22. > :33:26.the ball in the back of the net. What is the answer? Were don't want
:33:26. > :33:36.to see tinkering with the edges, we need an overhaul of the energy
:33:36. > :33:37.
:33:37. > :33:41.market. But I would like an answer to my question. I take the point
:33:41. > :33:46.that you don't want tinkering. But the Prime Minister is saying energy
:33:46. > :33:52.companies should give customers of the lowest tariff. That would be a
:33:52. > :33:57.major change of policy. Would you favour that? We have said the
:33:57. > :34:00.Labour Party would favour giving over 75s the cheapest tariff. They
:34:00. > :34:06.are the most likely to suffer from the cold and the least likely to
:34:06. > :34:09.have access to the internet. they suffer from rising fuel bills.
:34:09. > :34:19.And cold winters. And they are least likely to have access to a
:34:19. > :34:21.
:34:21. > :34:25.bank account. And then? We have not yet seen any detail of this policy.
:34:25. > :34:32.Their prime minister announced it yesterday. There is nothing in the
:34:32. > :34:37.forthcoming electricity market reform bill... That bill relates to
:34:37. > :34:44.wholesale markets. The retail reform bill relates to the retail
:34:44. > :34:47.market, which is what we are discussing. But could the
:34:47. > :34:54.Government simply mandate that the energy companies to give everybody
:34:54. > :34:58.the lowest tariff? The easiest change to policy with the biggest
:34:58. > :35:02.benefit is to say that for any given payment method, whether it is
:35:02. > :35:07.direct debit, cash or cheque or pre-payment, you automatically put
:35:07. > :35:13.every customer on to the cheapest tariff. And if they want to opt out,
:35:13. > :35:19.they can. If in case they want to pay more. For 15 years, the energy
:35:19. > :35:23.companies have relied on apathy and confusion. And it has become more
:35:23. > :35:26.confusing. The energy companies have relied on this apathy. They
:35:27. > :35:34.write to customers saying, you could pay less, but why not write
:35:34. > :35:41.to them and say, we are going to charge you less? We need to take a
:35:42. > :35:49.step up the backwoods. Why not for what? I do not want to wait until I
:35:50. > :35:55.and 75. We know that when the wholesale price of energy goes up,
:35:55. > :36:03.N G companies are quick to put their prices up. It is an important
:36:03. > :36:09.point to make. I understand that. More competition is the answer.
:36:09. > :36:15.are in the delicious position here, Luciana Berger, of the prime
:36:15. > :36:18.minister proposing defectively and administered price, a government
:36:18. > :36:25.mandated administered price. Whereas you and the Lib-Dems are
:36:25. > :36:32.talking about more competition. it would be the energy companies
:36:32. > :36:36.setting that price. Energy companies don't pass on a changes
:36:36. > :36:43.in wholesale prices to their customers. They are very slow to
:36:43. > :36:48.put them down. Michael Howard, you don't have to be on-message for
:36:48. > :36:52.every question I ask you. I think most people watching think this is
:36:52. > :36:56.a good idea, even though the Prime Minister is running away from it
:36:56. > :36:58.now. What would be wrong with having a law that said to the major
:36:58. > :37:04.energy companies that they have to put you on the lowest, most
:37:04. > :37:07.beneficial tariff? It is a good idea. Luciana Berger has just said
:37:07. > :37:13.that Labour will have a comprehensive overhaul, of which
:37:13. > :37:18.the major feature is that over 75s will get the benefits. Why just
:37:18. > :37:25.them? Exactly, everybody should get it. How long have you got to go
:37:25. > :37:28.until 75? I am almost there. That was just one element of that. We
:37:28. > :37:33.also had Ed Miliband an ounce but what we would like to get rid of
:37:33. > :37:37.Ofgem and replace it. That is a good idea. We think there should be
:37:37. > :37:45.a separate regulator for the wholesale market and one for the
:37:45. > :37:49.retail market. If it is right to give the over 75s at the lowest
:37:49. > :37:54.tariff, and if that can be done, and presumably you think it can,
:37:55. > :37:58.why not give it to the rest of us? I come back to the point about
:37:58. > :38:02.doing that in isolation. If the energy market is broken and the
:38:02. > :38:06.energy companies are setting prices too high anyway, you can look at
:38:06. > :38:10.tinkering around the edges, but that will not fix the energy market.
:38:10. > :38:13.I talked about replacing the regulator. We would also like to
:38:13. > :38:17.see the big six energy companies but in the energy they generate
:38:18. > :38:22.into a pooled so that all entrants can have access to that market.
:38:22. > :38:28.are the UK's leading independent energy supplier, and we are
:38:28. > :38:38.confused about this from the Labour Party. Most people listening will
:38:38. > :38:39.
:38:39. > :38:44.think, great, somebody is in our corner. But usually, it is the
:38:44. > :38:48.energy companies that lose out or, I am sorry to say, the opposition
:38:48. > :38:58.have not been bold enough in their point of view. We will have to
:38:58. > :39:05.
:39:05. > :39:09.leave it there. We could have a Howard energy policy here.
:39:09. > :39:12.Right, according to today's Daily Telegraph, the world is about to
:39:12. > :39:16.find out which MPs and former MPs are renting their properties,
:39:16. > :39:19.presumably bought with taxpayers' money, two other parliamentarians,
:39:19. > :39:23.who are renting at our expense. The Telegraph reports that an attempt
:39:23. > :39:26.by the Speaker to block the publication of these after a
:39:26. > :39:29.Freedom of Information request has failed. Some MPs have expressed
:39:29. > :39:34.concern that the release of this information could compromise
:39:35. > :39:39.security. One of those is the New Forest MP, Julian Lewis. And he is
:39:40. > :39:46.with us. Why is it a security threat? In just a question of
:39:46. > :39:49.putting together pieces of a jigsaw. In 2008 and 2009, Parliament
:39:49. > :39:55.decided that MPs' home addresses should never be revealed in
:39:55. > :40:02.response to Freedom of Information request. At the time when people
:40:02. > :40:05.are nominated for elections, the law was changed. Some don't agree
:40:05. > :40:08.with that, but that is the situation and there are good
:40:08. > :40:13.arguments for it. But isn't this going to get you into this a to
:40:13. > :40:20.trouble that all MPs ran into over expenses? People see it as a lack
:40:20. > :40:25.of transparency again. I have not even got to where I want to get. It
:40:25. > :40:30.is a complex matter. The law is that MPs' addresses will not be
:40:30. > :40:35.revealed. If you reveal the name of a landlord, and if you reveal the
:40:35. > :40:38.first part of an MP's home address postcode, so you can see if people
:40:38. > :40:42.are flipping addresses, if you then put that into a search engine, the
:40:42. > :40:46.first part of the postcode, together with the name of the MP's
:40:46. > :40:50.landlord, that can often give you a full postcode which will give you
:40:50. > :40:55.the address either of the MP themselves where it is a small
:40:55. > :40:59.landlord, or of a house close to the MP's address. If that happens,
:40:59. > :41:02.that undermines what Parliament has decided, which is that MPs' home
:41:02. > :41:07.addresses should not be revealed. There are other ways of doing this,
:41:07. > :41:12.but this is not the right way. what is the other way? People might
:41:12. > :41:17.say, how about we just get the name of the landlord? As I understand it,
:41:17. > :41:20.they are just doing the name of the landlord. But if you Google the
:41:20. > :41:24.name of the Landlord and that those three letters of the MP's addresses,
:41:24. > :41:28.you get the two. If I were the Daily Telegraph, and I think there
:41:28. > :41:32.is a public interest in knowing if MPs are renting to each other,
:41:32. > :41:35.would be to ask how many MPs are renting two other MPs. When you
:41:36. > :41:42.have got the answer, the answer is to take it up with the body
:41:42. > :41:50.concerned and say, how come you are allowing this to happen? At the
:41:50. > :41:54.moment, the Speaker is attempting to block the publication of MPs'
:41:54. > :41:58.addresses in order to prevent at that link being shown. That is how
:41:58. > :42:03.it will seem to viewers. The Dilnot the Speaker attempting to block the
:42:03. > :42:08.publication of MPs' addresses. Everybody accepts that MPs'
:42:08. > :42:17.addresses must not be revealed, by law. The Speaker is just trying to
:42:17. > :42:21.stop a way of publishing landlords' names which will reveal details and
:42:21. > :42:25.could lead to the undermining of the existing legal position, which
:42:25. > :42:30.is that the MP's personal address should not be revealed. Michael
:42:30. > :42:34.Howard may not like it, but that is how it is. Michael Howard, there
:42:34. > :42:38.are good security reasons, and we have heard the complicated way of
:42:38. > :42:43.building of the jigsaw, but are they valid reasons? I was against
:42:43. > :42:47.the law to which Julian referred. We have had this argument before.
:42:47. > :42:54.My constituents knew where I lived, and I did not have a problem with
:42:55. > :42:59.that. It also has to be said that transparency and disclosure are the
:42:59. > :43:03.best disinfectant to the kind of concern we have seen. But to be
:43:03. > :43:08.fair to Julian, in relation to the particular issue we are talking
:43:08. > :43:16.about it, MPs renting from each other, he has suggested a way
:43:16. > :43:21.forward. It would achieve that objective. So I lost the argument
:43:21. > :43:27.with him in the Act of Parliament, because it is on the statute book.
:43:27. > :43:30.To be fair to him, he has suggested a way forward which would meet the
:43:30. > :43:36.objectives the Daily Telegraph want to meet. What do you think of MPs
:43:36. > :43:42.renting to each other? I have not kept up with all the changes in the
:43:42. > :43:48.rules since I left the House of Commons, but apparently, it is
:43:48. > :43:55.specifically allowed. A but is it right? Julian will know more about
:43:55. > :44:02.this than I do. But bearing in mind the background, is it right that
:44:02. > :44:07.MPs should be able to rent to each other? They will then be busy
:44:07. > :44:11.building up a nest-egg, as many think. A few had the kind of
:44:11. > :44:14.transparency, which one way or another can be achieved, you would
:44:14. > :44:18.find out whether Members of Parliament themselves thought it
:44:18. > :44:24.was right. Julian, do you agree that MPs should be allowed to rent
:44:24. > :44:27.to each other? It is one of those practical problems. If they didn't
:44:27. > :44:33.rent to each other, they were probably rent to a member of the
:44:33. > :44:36.public. In many cases, MPs have acquired flats, and then the rules
:44:36. > :44:40.changed and said their mortgage interest payments could not be met
:44:40. > :44:44.from public funds. So they would either have to sell the flat or
:44:44. > :44:48.rent it to somebody, so they rented it to somebody. But I think it does
:44:48. > :44:53.not look great for MPs to be scratching each other's backs in
:44:53. > :44:58.this way. But in that case, the fault lies with the regulator. It
:44:58. > :45:07.is up to them to change the rules. I hasten to add that I do not rent
:45:07. > :45:11.from anybody. But I would say that those MPs would have some reason to
:45:11. > :45:21.say to the regulator, we asked you in good faith and you said it was
:45:21. > :45:29.
:45:29. > :45:34.How do we get more bright kids from poor backgrounds into our top
:45:34. > :45:37.universities and into the top jobs and the top professions? In the
:45:38. > :45:44.moment we will be talking to the Government's social mobility
:45:44. > :45:47.minister, Alan Milburn. He says universities need to work more
:45:47. > :45:54.closely with deprived schools in deprived areas and encourage pupils
:45:54. > :45:59.to apply to the best institutions. We put a lot of time and effort
:45:59. > :46:04.into working with schools. If you go down to Imperial College you
:46:04. > :46:08.will find Robert Winston, a fantastically inspired academic,
:46:08. > :46:13.working in his lab with sixth-form students from a school in a
:46:13. > :46:18.deprived area in London, trying to help them get higher grades in
:46:18. > :46:22.their chemistry A-levels. We are very hands on in trying to help the
:46:22. > :46:27.schools in tackling what we think is a big challenge for them. We all
:46:27. > :46:32.need to help, but universities cannot do it by themselves. We need
:46:32. > :46:37.help from a whole range of stakeholders. The group
:46:37. > :46:43.representing the top Big yin -- research universities. And welcome
:46:43. > :46:49.Alan Milburn back to the programme. You have been keeping yourself busy.
:46:49. > :46:54.That is a compliment. If the state schools produce poor exam results,
:46:54. > :46:59.why is that the responsibility of the universities? It is the
:46:59. > :47:04.responsibility fundamentally of the schools, but the universities
:47:04. > :47:08.generally want to grow the group of talent. The best way of a kid
:47:08. > :47:13.getting into university is to do well at A-level. Universities are
:47:13. > :47:18.spending a good deal of money trying to ensure that happens there
:47:18. > :47:24.with summer schools, outreach programmes and mentoring and so on.
:47:24. > :47:28.My plea to the universities is to become more focused about that. We
:47:28. > :47:33.know that whatever the problems are with City academies, they have
:47:33. > :47:38.improved standards in disadvantaged areas. That is why Michael Gove is
:47:38. > :47:42.continuing the programme Labour began. I would like to see more
:47:42. > :47:47.universities sponsoring City academies so they can work with the
:47:47. > :47:50.communities and teachers and pupils in those disadvantaged communities
:47:50. > :47:56.and raise their expectations and aspirations as well as the
:47:56. > :48:00.standards. But in some cases is it not too late for the schools Quetta
:48:01. > :48:04.and Mark big gap begins to start very early on Ant is full of
:48:04. > :48:12.complicated associate economic factors. A off course and there is
:48:12. > :48:17.no magic, silver bullet. There are a lot of factors. Family, cultural,
:48:17. > :48:21.economic, but we know that if there is one thing that makes the biggest
:48:21. > :48:26.difference for social mobility, it is education that unlocks
:48:26. > :48:30.everything. That is the most important thing. Performance in
:48:30. > :48:36.school and attainment at A-level is a guide to what happens later on in
:48:36. > :48:40.life. Let me put this to you to get your reaction. I remember going too
:48:40. > :48:45.hard in the United States and they go around the country looking for
:48:45. > :48:51.bright kids. They have a huge team of people doing it, but in LA they
:48:51. > :48:58.had a choice. They had two kids, one had gone to a very good school
:48:58. > :49:03.in a posh area. The other came from East LA, a black kid, a single-
:49:03. > :49:09.parent mother in the ghetto where the riots were. Her grades were not
:49:09. > :49:13.quite as good as the boy's, but they gave the place to the single-
:49:13. > :49:19.parent mother on the basis that it had grades were that good going to
:49:19. > :49:25.a pretty poor school, it she had gone to the same school, she could
:49:25. > :49:30.have done Betty -- are better. universities here are taking
:49:30. > :49:37.contextual data into account. They are doing it very quietly. The top
:49:37. > :49:40.universities do it, but in a quiet way. And that is a good thing?
:49:40. > :49:45.is a good thing because what a higher education should be about,
:49:45. > :49:51.admission to university should be about the potential benefit. A-
:49:51. > :49:57.levels are a great guide, but they are not foolproof. You are not
:49:57. > :50:02.comparing apples and pears. If a child has gone to a disadvantaged,
:50:02. > :50:09.failing school and has got freebies and you compare that to a kid at
:50:09. > :50:15.Eton with three A's. Who has had to work harder? Nobody pretends it is
:50:15. > :50:21.easy, it is a trade-off. Have they learned from America about doing
:50:22. > :50:29.this? The interesting thing about the States, the Ivy League, the top
:50:29. > :50:36.universities, it is they all do it. They priorities -- prioritise
:50:36. > :50:41.equity. You here with the Russell group St if we do it with equity,
:50:41. > :50:48.we have to compromise excellence, but they do not do that in the US.
:50:48. > :50:52.I am immensely sympathetic. I am worried about whether today a boy
:50:52. > :50:56.growing up in Wales going to a state school could get into
:50:57. > :51:03.Cambridge as I was lucky enough to do. The grammar school I went to is
:51:03. > :51:08.no longer there. I hope my concerns are necessary, but I worry about it.
:51:08. > :51:12.The problem is in the schools. That is why what Michael Gove is doing
:51:12. > :51:17.is so immensely important and that is why I agreed. Universities have
:51:17. > :51:24.got to look for potential. A-level results are a very good guide, but
:51:24. > :51:30.they are not the only guide. I want to make one other point. I was very
:51:30. > :51:35.start this morning hearing somebody say on the Today programme is we
:51:35. > :51:40.hear a great thing about teenagers going to universities to see what
:51:40. > :51:44.they are like and there are children who cannot afford the
:51:44. > :51:48.money to go to an Open Day. Universities ought to be helping
:51:48. > :51:53.children from those families. Should more began at 16 to keep
:51:53. > :51:59.pupils on? To build on that, I think that is right. One of the
:51:59. > :52:07.things that is regrettable was the abolition of thick educational
:52:07. > :52:14.maintenance allowance. I do not agree with that type of argument.
:52:14. > :52:18.We are running out of time. Is the Government listening to you? They
:52:18. > :52:22.have asked me to do this, so I never know it. I take it at face
:52:22. > :52:27.value, I have produced a report and I have spoken to Michael Gove. I
:52:27. > :52:32.hope it is something they are serious about. If they are serious
:52:32. > :52:35.about social mobility, they need to get into this area. The Scottish
:52:35. > :52:39.National Party are gathered for their annual conference in Perth.
:52:39. > :52:44.The good news is the deal with Westminster over an independence
:52:44. > :52:49.referendum. The less good news is a debate that might prove awkward.
:52:49. > :52:54.For many years the SNP have wanted Scotland to leave NATO and that is
:52:54. > :53:01.closer than ever, but they have changed their minds.
:53:01. > :53:09.This is the most advanced air defence warship in the world. The
:53:09. > :53:15.British destroyer on radar looks the size of a fishing boat. The
:53:15. > :53:19.Govan shipyards on the Clyde have been the makers and maintainers of
:53:19. > :53:22.the sharp end of British naval power. But ironically defence is
:53:22. > :53:28.the one area where an independent Scotland provides politically
:53:28. > :53:34.something of a problem for the SNP. You see Britain, and at the moment
:53:34. > :53:40.Scotland, is a nuclear power within NATO. In Faslane outside Glasgow it
:53:40. > :53:45.is where our nuclear arsenal resides. For 30 years the SNP's
:53:45. > :53:50.stance has been independence would mean being neither Nuclear non in
:53:50. > :53:57.NATO and that could be about to change. The Scots do not want to be
:53:57. > :54:01.neutral sitting out in the North Atlantic in the big rush for wrong
:54:01. > :54:09.materials and trade routes. Scotland needs to be in a group of
:54:09. > :54:14.other countries with collective self-defence, NATO. And also an
:54:14. > :54:19.independent Scotland that walked out of NATO would be upsetting all
:54:19. > :54:23.of our closest neighbours. Alex Salmond now wants his party and
:54:24. > :54:28.country to stay in NATO, but have Scottish and non-nuclear state has
:54:28. > :54:32.written into any constitution. For opponents of the U-turn that is not
:54:32. > :54:38.enough, it is about whether you are anti- nuclear weapons, not just
:54:38. > :54:44.anti-nuclear weapons on Scottish soil. My concern about Scotland
:54:44. > :54:51.continuing to be in NATO is twofold. Firstly, it is whether or not we
:54:51. > :54:55.can reasonably expect to get rid of nuclear weapons and continue to
:54:55. > :55:01.shelter under an organisation of a first strike policy. Also there is
:55:01. > :55:06.the wider issue of what the force is for in the wider world. Many
:55:06. > :55:10.will look across the water to Norwich who are in NATO, but not
:55:10. > :55:15.nuclear fought a compromise. But for a summit does not bridged the
:55:16. > :55:19.gap. Let's look at Sweden, Finland, Austria, all countries in Europe
:55:19. > :55:24.are not in nature and they do not feel the need to be in NATO and
:55:24. > :55:29.that is the same for Scotland. There is a practical point about
:55:29. > :55:33.the nuclear weapons on this Clyde. It would take a long time, a very
:55:34. > :55:39.long time to move those nuclear weapons submarines to England in
:55:39. > :55:44.the event of independence. It might take 15 years, maybe longer at
:55:44. > :55:49.quite considerable cost. Both sides say the debate is healthy and will
:55:49. > :55:53.abide by the boats. But who would risk embarrassing a leader just
:55:53. > :55:58.when they are closer than ever to delivering what their party exists
:55:58. > :56:05.to achieve? It is funny what Scottish institutions pop up when
:56:05. > :56:08.you are looking in the film archives. Three years ago... Here
:56:08. > :56:12.is that blip at the end of that cell?
:56:12. > :56:17.He should never be allowed on television!
:56:17. > :56:25.He looks very familiar. Michael Howard, stop laughing.
:56:25. > :56:26.Raymond Buchanan joins us from the SNP conference in Perth. An
:56:26. > :56:35.independent Scotland for most Scottish Nationalists would have
:56:35. > :56:38.meant not being part of NATO. It is an issue for the SNP, and the idea
:56:38. > :56:47.that the UKIP brief prepared to abandon that, how big an issue is
:56:47. > :56:54.that? Can you hear us? I was struggling, but I heard most of the
:56:54. > :56:57.report at. That is about the big dividing line in the conference
:56:57. > :57:01.between those who believe the SNP should stick to their traditional
:57:02. > :57:06.anti-Nato policy and those who wish to follow the leadership, the
:57:06. > :57:11.charge led by Angus Robertson, the leader of the MPs at Westminster
:57:11. > :57:17.for the SNP, who says the vast majority of people in Scotland
:57:17. > :57:24.believe an independent Scotland should remain a part of NATO. They
:57:24. > :57:28.are trying to build up a credible argument for a defence. They think
:57:28. > :57:33.it is the time to change of that traditional policy and go for
:57:33. > :57:38.something which gets rid of nuclear weapons, but also ensures the
:57:38. > :57:42.majority of people in Scotland get their way and this country, post-
:57:42. > :57:48.independence, stays in NATO. Will they get it through the leadership,
:57:48. > :57:52.yes or no? I do not think Raymond can hear us and we have not got
:57:52. > :57:55.that answer. You have stunned him into silence,
:57:55. > :57:58.bat is the nature of your interviews.
:57:59. > :58:04.Let's go back to that young chap and get the answer.
:58:04. > :58:10.That is all I needed to know. It gives us time to find out the
:58:10. > :58:20.answer to our quiz. Yesterday Lord Marland told reporters he was off
:58:20. > :58:20.
:58:20. > :58:26.to keep his suntan up. But where was he after? Mozambique. What is
:58:26. > :58:30.the answer? It is. Do I get a trip there as
:58:30. > :58:36.well. Yesterday we did not have time to
:58:36. > :58:46.pick guess the Year when there's and the answer was 1963. Michael, a
:58:46. > :58:49.
:58:49. > :58:54.press that buzzer. Who is it? Anyway, whoever you are, you have