:00:42. > :00:47.Afternoon, folks, welcome to the Daily Politics. One British man has
:00:47. > :00:50.been killed, up to five more are being held hostage at a gas
:00:50. > :00:55.facility deep in Algeria. The Government's emergency committee is
:00:55. > :00:59.meeting here in London, we will bring you the latest. It is the eve
:00:59. > :01:02.of David Cameron is big speech on Europe, awaited so eagerly by
:01:02. > :01:08.Conservative backbenchers, but will voters be hanging on his every
:01:08. > :01:11.word? Parliament, Fleet Street, the City of London, the BBC, why have
:01:11. > :01:18.all these famous British institutions fallen from Grace? We
:01:18. > :01:27.will ask the custodian of standards in public life. And stand by for an
:01:27. > :01:34.export boom to Germany, princesses Eugenie and Beatrice hit Berlin.
:01:34. > :01:41.They hit Berlin? They do! That is their first trade mission. Wow!
:01:41. > :01:45.More exports. What do they know about it?! Don't ask me, I am not
:01:45. > :01:50.their publicity officer! Stay tuned and you will find out. With us for
:01:50. > :01:55.the duration, the chief executive of YouGov, Stephan Shakespeare,
:01:55. > :02:01.welcome back. Let's starts this afternoon with the ongoing hostage
:02:01. > :02:04.crisis in Algeria. Up to 41 foreign nationals are being held at a gas
:02:04. > :02:09.facility in the south-east of the country. The group includes up to
:02:09. > :02:13.five British nationals, and one British man was among two people
:02:13. > :02:17.killed in the incident when the facility was being taken over by
:02:17. > :02:21.the terrorists, which began yesterday. The Algerian army is
:02:21. > :02:26.surrounding the facility, and the government's Emergency Committee,
:02:26. > :02:31.COBRA, has been meeting. They will be co-ordinating with the other
:02:31. > :02:35.countries involved in this, there are Americans and French and so on.
:02:35. > :02:39.Speaking in Australia, where he is on a visit to give a lecture, the
:02:39. > :02:43.Foreign Secretary said it was an extremely dangerous situation.
:02:43. > :02:47.number of people are held hostage there. This does include a number
:02:47. > :02:51.of British nationals, and this is therefore an extremely dangerous
:02:51. > :02:55.situation. We are in close touch with the Algerian government, their
:02:55. > :03:00.military have deployed to the area, and the Prime Minister has spoken
:03:00. > :03:03.to the Prime Minister of Algeria. We are liaising very closely at all
:03:03. > :03:08.levels with the Algerian government. I have just spoken to our
:03:08. > :03:11.ambassador in Algeria and sent a rapid deployment team from the
:03:11. > :03:15.Foreign Office in order to reinforce our embassy and consular
:03:15. > :03:20.staff. We are joined from the Cabinet
:03:20. > :03:26.Office in Westminster, Whitehall, by Richard Galpin. Good afternoon
:03:26. > :03:31.to you, can you give us the latest? What more do we know at this stage?
:03:31. > :03:36.Well, I mean, essentially, we know, as you were saying, that the
:03:36. > :03:39.emergency committee, COBRA, has been meeting. We have not had any
:03:39. > :03:43.information directly coming out of it, but as you were saying,
:03:43. > :03:47.obviously the emphasis now is on co-ordinating with the other
:03:47. > :03:52.countries involved, and of course specifically with Algeria, to see
:03:52. > :03:57.if they can be a peaceful outcome to this. BP has put out a statement.
:03:58. > :04:03.It has some of its employees taken hostage. They are saying the
:04:03. > :04:08.situation on the ground remains unresolved and fragile, and we know
:04:08. > :04:12.that Algerian troops have surrounded the gas installation,
:04:12. > :04:15.but the Islamist militants have been quoted as saying that there
:04:15. > :04:20.would be a great tragedy if there was to be any kind of military
:04:20. > :04:24.force used to try to free the hostages. They are claiming that
:04:24. > :04:29.they have placed explosives around the installation, and they are also
:04:29. > :04:32.claiming that they are very heavily armed. Is the British government
:04:32. > :04:38.working on the assumption that it is linked to the French
:04:38. > :04:42.intervention in Mali, which has had British support, and do we know the
:04:42. > :04:46.motivation of the hostage takers? We know they are Islamist, but they
:04:46. > :04:50.are also, as I understand it, drug runners and cigarette smugglers.
:04:50. > :04:54.Their boss is called Mr Marlborough! Yes, that is
:04:54. > :04:59.absolutely right, a lot of these Islamist groups, so-called Islamist
:04:59. > :05:04.groups in Algeria are a mix of things. It may be an ideology and
:05:04. > :05:10.religion, but there are also criminal elements as well, and it
:05:10. > :05:14.could be that this is about money. We do not know for sure of. The
:05:15. > :05:18.Foreign Secretary was a little bit cynical about the link with Mali.
:05:18. > :05:22.There are press reports quoting the militants as saying that this is
:05:22. > :05:27.all about trying to stop the French with their military intervention in
:05:27. > :05:31.Mali, but we do not know for sure that that is the case. That is the
:05:31. > :05:36.only demand, or whether there are other demands, such as trying to
:05:36. > :05:40.export a very large amount of money. Certainly, the Government is very
:05:40. > :05:45.tight-lipped about this year, but the standard policy of the British
:05:45. > :05:48.government, as we all know, is that they say that they will not pay any
:05:48. > :05:53.ransoms, if indeed that is what is being demanded by the hostage
:05:53. > :05:58.takers. Richard, thank you very much for joining us, Richard Galpin
:05:58. > :06:05.outside the Foreign Office, not the Cabinet Office, as I said. That is
:06:05. > :06:08.where they have been meeting. Now, time for our daily quiz. With which
:06:08. > :06:15.character from Are You Being Served? Was the Education Secretary,
:06:15. > :06:23.Michael Gove, compared yesterday? What did Mr Humphrys, Mr Grace, Mrs
:06:23. > :06:27.Slocombe or Mrs Slocombe's pet? No sniggering, please! I'm sure our
:06:27. > :06:34.guests will give us the correct answer. I know the answer. You?
:06:34. > :06:39.don't! Don't you read the papers? Perhaps not the comparisons! It was
:06:39. > :06:47.in all the papers... Anyway, David Cameron is no doubt polishing his
:06:47. > :06:51.clogs in preparation for his big speech in Amsterdam tomorrow. It
:06:51. > :06:57.has earned him some tulip bouquets from his backbenchers, but
:06:57. > :07:01.brickbats from those who think a referendum will scare off investors.
:07:01. > :07:05.There have been brickbats from Washington, EU capitals, Tory
:07:05. > :07:10.grandees and political opponents over his long awaited Europe speech.
:07:10. > :07:14.Now it is the turn of the Business Secretary. In a speech later today,
:07:14. > :07:18.Vince Cable is expected to warn it would be a dangerous gamble to try
:07:18. > :07:22.to renegotiate powers from Brussels. The Liberal Democrat MP plans to
:07:22. > :07:27.say that the policy is creating uncertainty for investors and is a
:07:27. > :07:30.terrible time to have the diversion and uncertainty which the build-up
:07:30. > :07:33.to a referendum would entail. Meanwhile, Ed Miliband has this
:07:34. > :07:38.morning accused the government of taking the wrong stance on Europe.
:07:38. > :07:44.I believe that committing now to such an in-out referendum has big
:07:44. > :07:47.costs for Britain. That is where -- that is why I see the Prime
:07:47. > :07:51.Minister is taking us to the economic cliff. I thought Lord
:07:51. > :07:55.Heseltine put it very well, he said we are committing to a referendum
:07:55. > :07:59.on a negotiation that has not yet begun, on a timescale that is
:07:59. > :08:03.uncertain, with an outcome that is unknown, and that is an unnecessary
:08:03. > :08:08.gamble for our country. Just think about this, imagine an investor
:08:08. > :08:12.thinking now, should I be investing in Britain or Germany or Denmark,
:08:12. > :08:16.or a whole range of other countries? I think if we put up a
:08:16. > :08:19.sign around Britain saying, we might be out of the European Union
:08:19. > :08:29.within five years, I do not think that is going to be good for our
:08:29. > :08:29.
:08:29. > :08:33.country. Douglas Carswell and Julian Huppert joined as. What has
:08:33. > :08:36.David Cameron got to say to satisfy you? I hope he will say he will
:08:36. > :08:41.negotiate a new deal and then put it to a referendum of every single
:08:41. > :08:45.person in the country, do we sign up to the New Deal or out? What
:08:45. > :08:50.should be the architecture of that deal? What should be the bold
:08:50. > :08:53.points? In order to persuade me to advise my constituents to vote to
:08:53. > :08:58.stay in, I would want us to be able to negotiate free trade agreements
:08:58. > :09:04.with countries around the world, I would want British law to no longer
:09:04. > :09:08.be subsumed under EU law,... With the European Court of Justice in
:09:08. > :09:11.Luxembourg. And also I believe that in order to compete in a modern
:09:11. > :09:14.world, British companies should only have to comply with single
:09:14. > :09:18.market rules when they are exporting to the single market, not
:09:18. > :09:21.when they are looking to trade domestically or globally. Are you
:09:21. > :09:26.prepared to be disappointed? We both know he will not go as far as
:09:26. > :09:30.that. Well, hang on a second. I have waited a long time, not months,
:09:30. > :09:34.maybe decades for his speech, and I'm looking forward to it. I'm
:09:34. > :09:39.going to wait and listen in good faith, and I'm sure he will speak
:09:39. > :09:45.in good faith. Vince Cable says it is a terrible time to be talking
:09:45. > :09:47.about a referendum, it will undermine business. I'm afraid that
:09:47. > :09:54.the Business Secretary does not speak for British business. If you
:09:54. > :09:58.look at the BCC survey out recently that showed that 35% of their
:09:58. > :10:01.members think that the price of being in the single market
:10:01. > :10:06.outweighs the benefits. Business recognises we need a new deal, and
:10:06. > :10:08.I find it quite extraordinary that the Business Secretary things we
:10:08. > :10:13.should not be prepared to renegotiate at a time when Europe
:10:13. > :10:17.is itself changing. Julian Huppert, what is the threat to business?
:10:17. > :10:21.think it is a huge and very real threat. If businesses are not sure
:10:21. > :10:25.what the rules are going to be in five years' time, that will hit
:10:25. > :10:28.investment. People will be uncertain, and that is bad for
:10:28. > :10:32.business. I'm fascinated that Douglas highlights a pack that a
:10:32. > :10:36.third of businesses in one so they were not keen on being in Europe.
:10:36. > :10:40.That leaves two-thirds who did not say that, of course! Most of the
:10:40. > :10:43.businesses I speak to highlight the fact that what they want his
:10:43. > :10:47.certainty, and it is the same case that David Cameron made about the
:10:47. > :10:50.dangers of the Scottish referendum, that it will be bad for the
:10:50. > :10:54.Scottish economy. There are millions of jobs in the UK who
:10:54. > :10:57.benefit from working with Europe. We are huge beneficiaries, as well
:10:57. > :11:00.as the fact that it allows people to travel freely and are all those
:11:00. > :11:06.other benefits. It would be incredibly damaging to have
:11:06. > :11:08.uncertainty. David Cameron has a tough job. Would you like me to
:11:08. > :11:12.announce the major investments in Scotland that have been announced
:11:12. > :11:16.since the referendum was unveiled? It is the same point. The challenge
:11:16. > :11:21.is to name those which have not been named. Tell me those which
:11:21. > :11:27.have not been named. I do not have a full list. You have any single
:11:27. > :11:30.item on that list? I think the point... Do you? A number of
:11:30. > :11:34.businesses are highlighting that they are concerned about that
:11:34. > :11:38.uncertainty and what it will do. I have to say, Cameron has a tough
:11:38. > :11:41.job to deal with the sensible part of his policy of one to get on with
:11:41. > :11:45.rebuilding the British economy and the European fanatics and are
:11:45. > :11:50.deeply concerned, who talk about Europe at every available
:11:50. > :11:55.opportunity. I think you are talking about Douglas Carswell,
:11:55. > :11:57.let's go back to him! It is at least theoretically possible that
:11:57. > :12:01.uncertainty would deter international business from
:12:01. > :12:05.investing in Britain. Look at the biggest source of uncertainty in
:12:05. > :12:08.Europe at the moment, it is a product of ever-closer integration,
:12:08. > :12:13.monetary union. Take companies that invest in his country in order to
:12:13. > :12:18.manufacture cars. The European market contracted by 7% last year.
:12:18. > :12:22.Honda is going to let go one in four of its workers in Lancashire.
:12:22. > :12:26.And yet a company that invests in this country to export to Asia and
:12:26. > :12:31.the Middle East, Jaguar Land Rover, has announced it is going to be
:12:31. > :12:34.increasing this production and hiring 800 people. I think that is
:12:34. > :12:39.a vivid illustration that actually the European project is not the be-
:12:39. > :12:44.all and end-all. If it feared that it faced tariff barriers if we were
:12:44. > :12:48.outside the EU, that could deter international manufacturers? Why
:12:48. > :12:53.would they come here to face a tariff barrier? Look, they are not
:12:53. > :12:56.going to. If you look at when we were to invoke the relevant clauses
:12:56. > :13:01.to leave the European Union, part of that process would see us
:13:01. > :13:07.negotiate a trade deal. Turkey has free trade and does not face tariff
:13:07. > :13:09.barriers, Switzerland does not. There are good examples of states
:13:09. > :13:14.that border and neighbour the European Union that are not members
:13:14. > :13:17.that have market access. Julian Huppert, if a referendum is such a
:13:17. > :13:21.bad idea, why were the Lib Dems urging us to say a petition saying
:13:22. > :13:25.it is time for a real referendum on Europe? What we have said quite
:13:25. > :13:28.consistently is that when there is a major change, something like the
:13:28. > :13:32.constitution that was proposed, that would be an appropriate time
:13:32. > :13:37.for Europe to reflect, but not when we are struggling to get our
:13:37. > :13:41.economy going. No, excuse me, this was an in-out referendum you were
:13:41. > :13:46.calling for, not on repatriation of powers. He said, it is time, the
:13:46. > :13:50.clue is there, a time for a real referendum on Europe. Why were you
:13:50. > :13:56.saying that only a couple of years ago, asking us to sign a petition,
:13:57. > :14:00.send it to your headquarters? Why were you doing that then? I think
:14:00. > :14:03.the point was, and what our manifesto said was very clearly
:14:03. > :14:09.that it was about having a proper referendum if there was a major
:14:09. > :14:15.change, not this constant sniping... No, and sorry, this referendum is
:14:15. > :14:19.about an in-out referendum, time for a real referendum, not one on
:14:19. > :14:25.powers, but a real one on whether we should stay in or out. Why were
:14:25. > :14:30.you arguing that then, asking us to sign a petition to do so, and now
:14:30. > :14:34.you are saying it is dangerous? suspect... I have not got this
:14:34. > :14:38.piece of paper in front of me, I'm not sure I have seen it. The key
:14:38. > :14:41.point is that it is about when you do that real referendum, when there
:14:41. > :14:46.is a major national trigger, not just the fact that David Cameron
:14:46. > :14:49.has a bunch of right-wing Euro- sceptics to placate. The damage is
:14:49. > :14:54.being done. If you look at the proposed opt-outs from home affairs
:14:54. > :14:57.issues, we have heard from Gbagbo that it would make it much harder
:14:57. > :15:03.for police officers to do their jobs, arresting criminals, reducing
:15:03. > :15:08.crime. -- ACPO. The timing now would be absolutely awful, damaging
:15:08. > :15:11.to British business, damaging to British interests... So why would
:15:11. > :15:15.it not have been damaging to British interests two years ago?
:15:15. > :15:20.but what we were saying then, have a look at the Frazer Clarke
:15:20. > :15:30.manifesto, it was very clear that the timing was one there was a
:15:30. > :15:31.
:15:31. > :15:37.major change. -- have a look at the I brought with me a copy of your
:15:37. > :15:41.referendum, in which you say you remain committed to an in-about a
:15:41. > :15:44.referendum. Let's be clear, what Vince Cable and other Liberal
:15:44. > :15:48.Democrats were fearful of was the idea that the results should be put
:15:48. > :15:52.to the British people. They are absolutely terrified about that.
:15:52. > :15:59.They know that unless it is a very, very good deal, it is going to be
:15:59. > :16:06.out. Let me ask dude two questions, first of all on the attitudes of
:16:06. > :16:10.business that, and I mean including small- and medium-sized companies -
:16:10. > :16:14.what is their overall attitude to the European Union now? From my
:16:14. > :16:20.perspective, the people I know, it is pretty much the same as the
:16:20. > :16:28.public, which is, change is worrying, people do not want to
:16:28. > :16:33.have a significant change with age cannot predict. -- which they
:16:33. > :16:37.cannot predict. I strongly suspect they would prefer to stay in.
:16:37. > :16:41.would they be in favour of staying in roughly on the status quo, which
:16:41. > :16:47.is the position of Labour and the Lib Dems, or would they be in
:16:47. > :16:50.favour of staying in on any possible Cameron deal? Well, any
:16:51. > :17:00.possible Cameron deal would be crucial. If we have a straight in-
:17:00. > :17:05.out question, it is 2-1 out. But with the better deal, everything
:17:05. > :17:11.changes. When we say, if the Prime Minister can convincingly argue
:17:11. > :17:18.that there has been a renegotiation, that some things will be better,
:17:18. > :17:23.how would you vote, it is then positive, it is to stay in fuel
:17:23. > :17:28.stop -- it is to stay in. My view is that this is all about risk, and
:17:29. > :17:34.if people feel there has been some change, positively in that
:17:34. > :17:39.direction, I think it would be relatively likely that there would
:17:40. > :17:44.be an in vote. People have views on this, although it may not be at the
:17:44. > :17:49.top of the list of their problems, but do people want a referendum, or
:17:49. > :17:57.do they think this is not the right time? They always want a referendum.
:17:57. > :18:06.If you ask, do you want a referendum, on almost any subject,
:18:06. > :18:09.in any poll, they will say they want one. I think the news story
:18:09. > :18:14.could be that this actually create agreement. Because if we agree that
:18:14. > :18:19.we are good but the final outcome to the British people, in an in a
:18:19. > :18:24.referendum, in a strange way, I think it could allow us to agree to
:18:24. > :18:29.differ. But it could give the British people the final say. -- an
:18:29. > :18:36.in-out referendum. This petition, which spoke about Britain's
:18:36. > :18:41.membership of the EU, and that only, was this petition circulated during
:18:41. > :18:47.the last election in your Cambridge constituency? I'm not sure that I
:18:47. > :18:52.have ever seen it. Our manifesto was quite clear about the timing
:18:53. > :18:56.issue. But we need to reform Europe, that is absolutely clear. At the
:18:56. > :19:00.moment, we are not able to fix things like the Common Agricultural
:19:00. > :19:04.Policy, or the fact that Brussels does not work as well as it should
:19:04. > :19:12.do. I wish we could have a much more constructive relationship with
:19:12. > :19:17.Europe, so that we could have a better Europe. Now, If Conservative
:19:17. > :19:21.backbenchers, like Douglas, are looking uneasy, it is not our
:19:21. > :19:25.probing questioning style, no, we are pussycats these days, aren't we,
:19:25. > :19:28.Andrew? What they are worried about is the emerging threat from the UK
:19:28. > :19:32.Independence Party. They came second at the last European
:19:32. > :19:36.elections, and some people think they might go one better next year.
:19:36. > :19:40.They are not yet predicted to win a seat at the next general election,
:19:40. > :19:44.but they could threaten the careers of some Tory MPs, and make it
:19:44. > :19:49.difficult for the party to win a majority. So, how seriously should
:19:49. > :19:53.they take the threat from UKIP? UKIP have been going 20 years, but
:19:53. > :19:58.for much of that time, they have been pitiful toddlers, pigeon-holed
:19:58. > :20:03.by the grown-ups as a golf club that became a party, cranks,
:20:03. > :20:09.racists in blazers, odd. But all the while, UKIP has been doing some
:20:09. > :20:15.growing up, and now, the adults are worried. I think they are terrified.
:20:15. > :20:19.The fact that Cameron will be giving this speech on Friday
:20:19. > :20:24.regarding a referendum, even though we are not sure what it would be on,
:20:24. > :20:28.basically tells us just how strong UKIP is, because we have driven the
:20:28. > :20:33.agenda on this subject. What is more scary for the established
:20:33. > :20:37.parties is the research into who is voting for UKIP, which suggests
:20:37. > :20:42.Europe is only third on their list of priorities, allowing the party
:20:42. > :20:45.to attack the fact that it gets labelled as a one-issue party.
:20:45. > :20:51.There is no constitution to give them a legal framework pandered
:20:51. > :20:59.chief executive to give them management of the party machine. --
:20:59. > :21:04.there is a new constitution. This party has tightened up over the
:21:04. > :21:08.years, but not to the extent that we need. People are used to having
:21:09. > :21:12.autonomy, and they will lose some of that, so there will always be
:21:13. > :21:17.resistance. We did have a constitution, but it was devised
:21:17. > :21:21.for the sort of party which UKIP had been, fairly amateur, we would
:21:21. > :21:25.have to admit that. It is inevitable in a small party
:21:25. > :21:29.starting out. But this is a serious game, we are up against highly
:21:29. > :21:33.professional parties, which have been around, some of them, for more
:21:33. > :21:37.than 300 years. You cannot play the amateur for ever. One thing we had
:21:37. > :21:42.to do was to bring in a set of rules to enable us to play the game
:21:42. > :21:46.on a level playing field. Perhaps one of the biggest signs they are
:21:46. > :21:50.much during is that they know they are not grown up yet. Loose cannons
:21:50. > :21:54.have and perhaps will embarrass them. You cannot be a successful
:21:54. > :21:59.political party if you do not know what you stand for. That is the
:21:59. > :22:03.fundamental point. There is room for debate, and we welcome back,
:22:03. > :22:08.but there is certainly no room for people to create their own agendas.
:22:08. > :22:13.The party does that. Also an acceptable to them now is the idea
:22:13. > :22:17.that they were too close to the BNP. That has been illegally tackled in
:22:17. > :22:22.their new constitution. Those kind of people have no place in UKIP.
:22:22. > :22:27.Nigel Farage has been playing about that. I am behind him 100% on that
:22:27. > :22:32.aspect. It is vital. UKIP's big weakness is that they have no
:22:32. > :22:37.geographic base. It is hard to see the winning a seat at Westminster.
:22:37. > :22:41.But that does not mean they are not influencing debate. If we are
:22:41. > :22:45.polling 10-15%, it could be very difficult for the Conservative
:22:45. > :22:53.Party to form a majority, unless at some point they sit down and speak
:22:53. > :23:01.to UKIP. Douglas Carswell and Stephan Shakespeare are still with
:23:01. > :23:06.us. We are also joined by Mark Field. How worried are you by the
:23:06. > :23:10.rise of UKIP? Many supporters feel UKIP speaks for the more than the
:23:10. > :23:14.coalition government. It goes beyond simply the European issue.
:23:14. > :23:18.It covers things like grammar schools, law and order. So, the
:23:18. > :23:22.important thing is that we have to recognise that they are going to be
:23:22. > :23:24.a significant force in politics. They did very well in the European
:23:24. > :23:30.elections, and they will do so again next year, there is no doubt
:23:30. > :23:36.about it. The wrong approach would be to try to dismiss them as being
:23:36. > :23:39.odd. You have got to take head-on their arguments. On Europe, they
:23:39. > :23:44.have a different view to the official Conservative view, which
:23:44. > :23:49.is to stay in the European Union. UKIP obviously want to get out.
:23:49. > :23:52.do you accept that argument that actually UKIP and its supporters,
:23:52. > :23:58.people who might be considering joining UKIP, the main attraction
:23:58. > :24:03.for them is not necessarily the debate about Europe? There is some
:24:03. > :24:07.truth in that. One reason I believe the Conservative Party should adopt
:24:07. > :24:12.something like open primaries is to do with this. A lot of UKIP
:24:12. > :24:16.supporters are attracted to the idea of anti-politics. If we as --
:24:16. > :24:22.as Conservatives want to do something about that, we need to
:24:22. > :24:28.change the way we approach that. But what about Europe? The first
:24:28. > :24:34.lesson in politics is to learn how to count. If you do the maths, you
:24:35. > :24:40.see that if you can get between 10% and 20% in the polls, it is an
:24:40. > :24:47.existential threat. Yes, we need to tackle the Europe question, with
:24:47. > :24:54.brick Nietzschean-about choice, but that is not enough. -- with an in-
:24:54. > :24:59.about choice. I think the difficulty is, my own view is that
:24:59. > :25:03.the befriend am I suspect people will be offered will be something
:25:03. > :25:07.post-2015. The concern I have always had it is the disconnect
:25:07. > :25:11.between the political class and the public at large. In many ways, UKIP
:25:11. > :25:14.are able to tap into that. That's partly because the Liberal
:25:14. > :25:19.Democrats used to be able to do that, but that there are no longer
:25:19. > :25:24.able to do so. Is the issue of Europe, and the banging on about
:25:24. > :25:28.Europe, which David Cameron said he wanted to avoid, is that an
:25:28. > :25:33.electoral desert for the Conservatives? The Conservatives
:25:33. > :25:36.are ahead of UKIP on the economy. If they are going to take them on
:25:36. > :25:39.on Europe, I think that will be a problem for them. If on the other
:25:39. > :25:45.hand they can neutralise that subject and bring the debate back
:25:45. > :25:50.to the economy, that is when they can get Voce back. So, you are not
:25:50. > :25:55.doing your party any favours -- votes -- going on about Europe, you
:25:55. > :25:58.need to tackle the economy. With respect, I would not be sitting
:25:58. > :26:06.here in Westminster if I had not persuaded people in a marginal seat
:26:06. > :26:10.to vote for me not once but twice. One reason why I held my seat was
:26:10. > :26:17.by making it clear that Douglas Carswell wants Britain to have a
:26:17. > :26:21.referendum on Europe. I think there would be more of them if others who
:26:21. > :26:24.had been standing at the last election had taken a similar line.
:26:24. > :26:30.Do you agree that there would have been more Conservative MPs if they
:26:30. > :26:35.had stood on a similar platform? Without question, do the maths.
:26:36. > :26:39.is overstating the number who lost last time, I would say. Something
:26:39. > :26:49.like 20 also lost their seats because of Europe last time. At the
:26:49. > :26:53.next election, you cap will be up to 8%, compared with 3%. -- UKIP
:26:53. > :27:02.will be up. You have got to stand on a platform for what you believe
:27:02. > :27:04.in. There needs to be a sense of leadership, a sense of vision, of
:27:04. > :27:09.where David Cameron once things to be, not in terms of short-term
:27:09. > :27:15.political tactics, but a sense of being led. I think the public at
:27:15. > :27:19.large will take on leadership where AC a sense of vision for the future.
:27:19. > :27:25.I think a Euro-sceptic line would help the Conservative Party at the
:27:25. > :27:30.next election, if... My point is that if it is something that the
:27:30. > :27:34.whole party was unified about. But we know that the consequence of
:27:34. > :27:42.going on a very Euro-sceptic line is a split, and that is what
:27:42. > :27:46.worries voters. So, disunity could be... I'm not sure a division
:27:46. > :27:50.between Ken Clarke and the rest is really a serious thing.... I am not
:27:50. > :27:57.talking about that. You're saying, if we do not repatriate powers, we
:27:57. > :28:00.must pull out. Look at the last time we had a referendum, on
:28:00. > :28:05.electoral reform, it allowed politicians to get over their
:28:05. > :28:10.differences, the sky did not fall down, the world carried on. As far
:28:10. > :28:13.as the coalition is concerned, it is an ongoing problem. Without
:28:13. > :28:17.boundary changes, it is difficult to see how the Conservatives can
:28:17. > :28:23.get an overall majority at the next election. So there is an ongoing
:28:23. > :28:29.impact. This is not just an internal Conservative issue, this
:28:29. > :28:34.is a coalition issue. The European issue is an important strand. There
:28:34. > :28:38.is an appetite for greater direct democracy, and giving people a
:28:39. > :28:43.referendum on Europe is part of that. But there are other
:28:43. > :28:47.democratic changes we need, in order to reach out to people who
:28:47. > :28:51.are disaffected with the whole of the Westminster Establishment.
:28:51. > :28:56.you accept that this could give Britain what it wants in terms of
:28:56. > :29:00.repatriating powers? This is where I think David Cameron is really on
:29:00. > :29:03.to something. If we enter into negotiations saying, can we please
:29:03. > :29:07.have a new deal or else we will leave, I think actually he could
:29:07. > :29:12.achieve something quite extraordinary. That is an absolute
:29:12. > :29:17.illusion. At the margins, we can get a little bit of repatriation...
:29:17. > :29:21.The idea that we are going to be able to have a fundamental
:29:21. > :29:28.renegotiation is an absolute fantasy. But was the last time we
:29:28. > :29:32.tried? Can I just say, just to throw it into the bitch, on Europe
:29:32. > :29:40.spokesman for Mark we to's party has said that David Cameron will
:29:40. > :29:43.not find an ally if he takes this approach. But the Dutch government
:29:43. > :29:48.will not be voting in the referendum, so it is interesting,
:29:48. > :29:51.but it is not central. But they will have a veto over the
:29:51. > :29:56.repatriation negotiations. If we cannot get a deal, then the British
:29:56. > :30:00.people are more likely to vote for out. At the margins, of course we
:30:00. > :30:03.can do a little bit. But one of the biggest difficulties I feel is the
:30:03. > :30:10.City of London, because we are talking about the idea of a
:30:10. > :30:12.headlong rush towards banking and fiscal union, which under pines --
:30:12. > :30:17.undermines one of the most important things which we all feel,
:30:17. > :30:27.which is the single market. We have got plenty of remarks already on
:30:27. > :30:38.
:30:38. > :30:45.Twitter. Douglas Carswell and Mark UKIP will be happy! Yes! Do you
:30:45. > :30:49.know what the parliamentary Stone is? It is the extra weight that MPs
:30:49. > :30:53.gain from all the boozing, schmoozing, the lack of exercise,
:30:53. > :30:59.it is an unhealthy environment that can play havoc with a waistline.
:30:59. > :31:02.Never mind the journalists! To help combat this, MPs have been weighing
:31:02. > :31:07.in to highlight the rise of obesity in Britain and to get people to
:31:07. > :31:10.take urgent action. Susana Mendonca has got a set of scales on College
:31:11. > :31:14.Green! We have transformed College Green
:31:14. > :31:21.into our very own Fight Club, we have the weighing scales, the
:31:21. > :31:26.measuring chart, a very official- looking man with a clipboard. Conor
:31:26. > :31:31.Burns and Michael Gapes, and as you can see, he has just had his height
:31:31. > :31:36.measured. While it is very amusing to watch our MPs doing this, there
:31:36. > :31:42.is a serious point, a campaign to get us thinking more about how much
:31:42. > :31:47.we way. It is a very serious point. One in four adults in the UK is
:31:47. > :31:52.obese, and a third of 11 year-olds, and it costs the NHS �5 billion per
:31:52. > :31:57.year. This is saying to people, if you recognise it, there's lots of
:31:57. > :32:01.things you can do to take responsibility, go for a walk, go
:32:01. > :32:08.for a swim, joy in a gym, take responsibility and save the country
:32:08. > :32:15.a lot of money in the future. You're off from Obesity Management
:32:15. > :32:20.Association, which came up this idea. How do people measure their
:32:20. > :32:23.BMI? It looks quite complicated. is your weight divided by your
:32:23. > :32:26.height, your weight in kilograms divided by your height in metres
:32:26. > :32:32.squared. It can be a little bit complicated, it is much easier to
:32:33. > :32:36.go to the website, you can use the calculator there. And the point of
:32:36. > :32:41.this is to get people like looking at how much their way, because BMI
:32:41. > :32:46.is not a perfect measure, is it? is not perfect, but at the launch
:32:46. > :32:50.we had a group of MPs from across the political spectrum, and on a
:32:50. > :32:58.hole most of them were surprised how high it was. That is typical of
:32:58. > :33:03.the population, it creeps up on you. So, Conor Burns, is he looking
:33:03. > :33:09.good? 27.6 is in the overweight category. The need to keep an eye
:33:10. > :33:19.on it, he is a big guy, it is not too bad. -- he needs. Mike, how are
:33:19. > :33:23.you feeling? Fine! MPs have a lifestyle, lots of lunches, a lot
:33:23. > :33:28.of temptation. People have a lot of temptation, it is difficult to tell
:33:28. > :33:31.people you need to be checking on your weight. Absolutely, and I
:33:31. > :33:36.think all of us who are, and I will come out as the obese, there are
:33:36. > :33:40.millions of people like that, like I am, who have busy lives, and in
:33:40. > :33:47.my case I do not always eat at regular times. I think there is a
:33:47. > :33:52.tendency... Sadly, time is running out, what is is BMI? I'm afraid it
:33:52. > :33:58.is 33.2. You are the loser, how do you feel about that? Not surprised,
:33:58. > :34:02.but I am working on it, giving up alcohol for January. There are no
:34:02. > :34:07.winners and losers, if we reach a few people at home who will make
:34:07. > :34:11.changes, they are the winners. loser will have to do a few laps of
:34:11. > :34:15.College Green! I think I am going to step up here and see if I can
:34:15. > :34:22.work out what might the Emaar eyes. However, sadly, we are running out
:34:22. > :34:25.of time, no time for me to tell you! -- what might BMI is. We will
:34:25. > :34:32.broadcast it tomorrow! For I thought it was an airline that
:34:32. > :34:35.British Airways board. We have just been joined by viewers in Scotland,
:34:35. > :34:41.who have been watching First Minister's Questions. Welcome to
:34:41. > :34:43.you. Parliament, the banks, Fleet Street, at the police, the BBC,
:34:43. > :34:48.there is hardly a British institution that has not fallen
:34:48. > :34:51.from grace. The custodian of Standards in Public Life is
:34:51. > :34:56.Christopher Kelly. In a moment, we will ask him why standards have
:34:56. > :35:06.fallen during his tenure. Not that we are blaming him! But first, a
:35:06. > :35:06.
:35:06. > :35:16.reminder of the scandals we have # Whatever happened to their
:35:16. > :35:16.
:35:16. > :36:01.Apology for the loss of subtitles for 44 seconds
:36:01. > :36:05.# Whatever happened to all of the And the chairman of the Committee
:36:05. > :36:10.of Standards in Public Life, Christopher Kelly, joins us now.
:36:10. > :36:13.Welcome to the Daily Politics. Please explain how you managed to
:36:13. > :36:19.conclude that standards in public life have improved! I don't think I
:36:19. > :36:25.said that. We are in no doubt there is a result that standards in many
:36:25. > :36:31.areas have improved. In many areas, and that is absolutely true. Given
:36:31. > :36:36.the perfect storm and of others, the incidence of the last few
:36:36. > :36:39.months, let alone the last few years, it is easy to fail to
:36:39. > :36:44.recognise that in quite a number of respects standards have improved.
:36:44. > :36:48.There is much greater transparency, there is now much greater emphasis
:36:48. > :36:53.on issues like accountability, proper processes for making
:36:53. > :36:59.appointments and so on. And yet, and yet, if anyone needs reminding,
:36:59. > :37:03.we still get these long series of accidents, to put it at its mildest.
:37:03. > :37:07.You say that all these things have happened, but just to remind you
:37:07. > :37:14.and our viewers, according to Chris Patten, the chairman of the BBC, we
:37:14. > :37:21.at the BBC are and will donate tsunami of filth! -- engulfed in.
:37:21. > :37:26.We have heard of the Xavi abuse, the MPs' expenses bill lingers on.
:37:26. > :37:30.-- Sabha all. We have had the banks rigging LIBOR and being fined
:37:30. > :37:34.millions of pounds. We have had the hacking by newspapers, the
:37:34. > :37:38.investigations into the police for illegal immigrants, and a former
:37:38. > :37:42.Cabinet minister on trial! Many of those things are not in the public
:37:42. > :37:47.sector, although a lot of them reflect cherished institutions. You
:37:47. > :37:51.do not need to convince me of those things! Did you think long and hard
:37:51. > :37:57.before you wrote this?! It is important to keep these things in
:37:57. > :38:00.context. There are a large number of things that need to be done.
:38:00. > :38:05.There are still very many instances which show that people have not
:38:05. > :38:10.fully internalised what needs to be done to maintain high standards.
:38:10. > :38:15.But in a number of respects, things are better. You can ask me about
:38:15. > :38:20.this as long as you like, I do not dispute that there are lots of
:38:20. > :38:22.things that are wrong, and the reason, I imagine, the reason you
:38:22. > :38:28.are vast media is because we produced a report this morning
:38:28. > :38:32.which looks at what are the things that need to be done in order to
:38:32. > :38:39.address these issues. -- the reason you have asked me here. The public
:38:39. > :38:49.cannot agree, never mind me. 2003, 81% of people trusted BBC news
:38:49. > :38:55.journalists. 44% now. ITV was 82, now 41. Your local MP, 44, 37.
:38:55. > :39:02.Senior tier-one. Leading Conservative politicians have gone
:39:02. > :39:05.from 20 down to 19! The red-top papers are down to 10, even
:39:05. > :39:12.upmarket papers, like the Times, the Telegraph, the Guardian,
:39:12. > :39:16.according to the polling, down from 65 down to 38. The standards of
:39:16. > :39:21.journalism and journalists do not fall within my remit. Otherwise you
:39:21. > :39:26.would still be writing the report! We tracked public trust and
:39:26. > :39:31.confidence ourselves, and there has been a long-term decline in trust
:39:31. > :39:36.and confidence in all kinds of public institutions and semi-public
:39:36. > :39:43.institutions. That is evident elsewhere. What pollsters often
:39:43. > :39:46.tell you is that, it was ever thus. What say you? Certainly, it is
:39:46. > :39:52.declining as a result of what we have seen exposed, but the process
:39:52. > :39:56.here is that the more that is exposed, the more people censor
:39:56. > :40:00.themselves, and one day we will not need a committee, because it will
:40:00. > :40:08.be so obvious if you do anything wrong, it is going to be seen by
:40:08. > :40:12.everybody. What does your report think now needs to be done? You
:40:12. > :40:17.think it is getting better in many areas, not everywhere. What needs
:40:17. > :40:23.to be done in your view now to improve standards in public life?
:40:23. > :40:28.OK, well, there or two sorts of sets of things. One is really
:40:28. > :40:32.boring, routine, bread-and-butter stuff. We know what is needed to
:40:32. > :40:39.maintain high standards in organisations, and it is things
:40:39. > :40:43.like a clearly expressed, a clearly expressed set of values relevant to
:40:43. > :40:49.what the organisation is doing. It is things like processes which
:40:49. > :40:53.embed those values. And processes that are aligned with them, and not,
:40:53. > :40:59.as happened at the banks, one set of values expressed and another set
:40:59. > :41:05.of behaviours which were rewarded. And it requires leadership which
:41:05. > :41:09.embeds those values in the culture of the organisation and exemplifies
:41:09. > :41:13.them, and we have known that for a long time. The issue really is, why
:41:13. > :41:20.isn't there more of that happening? The second, if I may, the second
:41:20. > :41:23.set of issues is, in his report, there is a long list of issues
:41:24. > :41:30.which need to be addressed, recognised issues that need to be
:41:30. > :41:33.addressed. Things like party funding, for example, on which my
:41:33. > :41:38.committee produced a report last year. Which has not been
:41:38. > :41:43.implemented. Will it ever be implemented? This is the point.
:41:43. > :41:46.Many issues are quite difficult to address. Addressing party funding
:41:46. > :41:55.requires some people to give up party-political advantage, it
:41:56. > :42:00.requires some people to change a long-standing and highly symbolic
:42:00. > :42:04.relationship with the trade unions. It requires all the parties to
:42:04. > :42:09.address a possible public objection to some of the things. These are
:42:09. > :42:13.difficult issues, but the point is, unless they are addressed in a
:42:13. > :42:16.proactive way, they will come back and hit you, and when they do, by
:42:17. > :42:22.the time that happens, trust has gone down even further. The damage
:42:22. > :42:32.done by these expenses is enormous. It will take a long time. I use
:42:32. > :42:33.
:42:33. > :42:37.that to be going? Am I sat to be going? -- sad. Yes and no. Now you
:42:37. > :42:40.sound like a politician! It is important that people do not do
:42:40. > :42:44.jobs like this for too long. Thank you for coming.
:42:44. > :42:52.1,000 gigabytes makes a terrified, did you know that? 1,000 of them,
:42:52. > :42:57.do not get me started on the next one. We are not talking about
:42:57. > :43:02.another dodgy snack from Tesco. yes, we are! These are names for
:43:02. > :43:07.huge volumes of computer data, the government churns out a lot of it,
:43:07. > :43:13.and our guest of the day has been asked to see if any of it is used
:43:13. > :43:18.for. Here is Adam to explain. You thought CSI was sexy, wait
:43:18. > :43:22.until you hear about Public Sector Information! All the facts and
:43:22. > :43:26.figures generated by the government and its agencies, and there is a
:43:26. > :43:30.lot of it. It includes information from the likes of Ordnance Survey,
:43:30. > :43:35.the Land Registry and the Met Office, and the coalition is
:43:35. > :43:40.serious about releasing as much of it as possible. Here is sum, the
:43:40. > :43:46.Treasury's list of all public spending, called the coins database.
:43:46. > :43:50.Pretty impenetrable, but it is not really for you and me. The idea is
:43:50. > :43:54.that software developers will turn it into use of apps and website
:43:54. > :43:59.that we can use, a whole new growth industry that might boost the
:43:59. > :44:04.economy. But at the same time, politicians are getting seriously
:44:04. > :44:05.worried that releasing too many embarrassing documents through the
:44:05. > :44:15.old-fashioned Freedom of Information Act, so we are getting
:44:15. > :44:18.
:44:18. > :44:20.a lot more numbers and potentially Joining us is the Freedom of
:44:20. > :44:23.Information Campaign and Heather Brooke. Is there any useful
:44:23. > :44:28.information in that, or is it just a case of providing a lot of
:44:28. > :44:33.numbers which do not tell us very much? There is a huge amount of use
:44:33. > :44:37.in this. If you just think about the applications for medicine in
:44:37. > :44:41.the NHS. We had Jeremy Hunt announcing that everything would be
:44:41. > :44:45.digital soon, in about a year's time, and that the courts would be
:44:45. > :44:50.able to be exchanged between hospitals. This means that we can
:44:50. > :44:54.get fantastic efficiencies not only in the Health Service, but across
:44:54. > :44:57.the public services, as we see what's really going on, what works,
:44:57. > :45:03.what doesn't work. Without this information, how can you actually
:45:03. > :45:07.make things better? How can you know what methods in medicine, in
:45:07. > :45:14.surgery, are working better? You need this data, which has been
:45:14. > :45:19.hidden, to suddenly become available. You must welcome this,
:45:19. > :45:25.Heather Brooke? Yes, I have been campaigning about this since at
:45:25. > :45:30.least 2004. It is certainly welcome. There were some ridiculous things
:45:30. > :45:35.which happened in the past, when public data was copyrighted by the
:45:35. > :45:39.Crown, and even the first computer analysts, who were trying to
:45:39. > :45:45.digitise Hansard, and they were threatened with a copyright breach
:45:45. > :45:50.for doing so. So, yes, I welcome this, it is great. Is there a risk
:45:50. > :45:53.that all of this information is out there, and people will be worried
:45:53. > :46:02.about the wrong sort of people getting their hands on the
:46:02. > :46:08.information? There are two points. We have to realise that, is this
:46:08. > :46:13.going to be about the public interest, or is it going to be for
:46:13. > :46:23.business? I think you can do both. There is a strong public interest
:46:23. > :46:27.
:46:27. > :46:35.in relating the data, but there may not be an obvious business case.
:46:35. > :46:40.the idea that it is going to be available to everyone?. You can get
:46:40. > :46:44.schools data already, can't you? Actually, you cannot get very much.
:46:44. > :46:49.You can get very, very basic comparative data. You have to stop
:46:49. > :46:56.worrying about the privacy issue in terms of hiking in all of this, and
:46:56. > :47:02.deal with it through legislation, because there is no way that you
:47:02. > :47:10.can make data completely safe. It is not safe now. You Ruislip
:47:10. > :47:15.somebody 50 quid and... It is not safe now, that is exactly right.
:47:15. > :47:20.The only way to be totally safe is not to keep it in the first place.
:47:20. > :47:25.But I think one has to look in the past. In Britain, access to data
:47:25. > :47:28.and information has always been about class, really. It was not as
:47:28. > :47:35.if certain people could not access information, they have always been
:47:35. > :47:43.able to, but usually they were the people at the very heart of power.
:47:43. > :47:50.I think what this debate brings out is the unease about the regular,
:47:50. > :47:52.common man having access to data. Politicians would argue that with
:47:52. > :47:57.freedom of information, there is a danger of letting the plebs,
:47:57. > :48:01.although they would not use that word... That's not go there! Of
:48:01. > :48:05.letting people have access to all sorts of very sensitive information
:48:05. > :48:13.on things like security... Obviously, on things like national
:48:13. > :48:16.security, that is an issue. But the argument has basically been
:48:16. > :48:20.accepted in government that there is such a thing as freedom of data.
:48:20. > :48:24.As taxpayers, we have paid to create this data, why should we not
:48:24. > :48:28.have it? The issue now is, how do we make it available, how do we get
:48:28. > :48:33.value out of it, and how do we get the capability to turn it into
:48:33. > :48:37.something useful? Rows of numbers are of no use to anyone. You're
:48:37. > :48:45.convinced that it will lead to growth? In America, they have a
:48:45. > :48:48.huge knowledge industry, precisely because they do not restrict.
:48:48. > :48:58.Government documents in America are not copyrighted to the government
:48:58. > :49:03.alone, whereas they are in this country? Yes. That's remarkable.
:49:03. > :49:06.Now, Are You Being Served? By your Education Secretary? That was the
:49:06. > :49:12.question asked by the Commons education Select Committee
:49:12. > :49:15.yesterday? They evoked the spirit of the 1970s sitcom to put Michael
:49:15. > :49:24.Gove in the spotlight. If you listen carefully, you will even
:49:24. > :49:30.here the answer to our daily quiz. I think there is a bit of an
:49:30. > :49:33.upstairs downstairs mentality in the department. The ministers were
:49:33. > :49:39.on the seventh floor. Officials were summoned to the office, when I
:49:39. > :49:45.just wanted to have a quick chat, and it had to be an official
:49:45. > :49:48.meeting put in the diary, and it was put in the diary. Occasionally
:49:48. > :49:53.I actually went to another floor, it was like a state visit! Most
:49:53. > :49:58.officials have never met the Secretary of State. It might be
:49:58. > :50:02.just a few like people for the Christmas party, or something like
:50:02. > :50:11.that, appearing and disappearing like Mr Grace from the Grace
:50:11. > :50:15.brothers. That is no way to run an important department. Effectively
:50:15. > :50:20.now we have only one Children's Minister, for whom I have a great
:50:20. > :50:25.deal of respect, but who now has a huge brief to deal with, and a
:50:25. > :50:28.declining number of officials to help him do that. I think Michael
:50:28. > :50:35.would say that he felt he had confidence in his ministers to get
:50:35. > :50:39.on with it, and that he was focused on his priority, and I did not
:50:39. > :50:44.feel... If I had a battle to fight around government, and there were
:50:44. > :50:48.plenty of battles, as you would expect, particularly on the agenda
:50:48. > :50:52.on special educational needs, for example - Michael went in to bat on
:50:52. > :50:56.those things. If I went to him and said, I need your help on
:50:56. > :51:02.negotiating with this government department, he delivered. One last
:51:02. > :51:10.question from me, why were you sacked? Well, your guess is as good
:51:10. > :51:13.as mine, chairman, and having spent 45 minutes in a pleasant drink with
:51:13. > :51:18.the Prime Minister before Christmas, I came out of that meeting with no
:51:18. > :51:22.greater insight into the answer to that question than I went in with.
:51:22. > :51:26.And having not had any communication with the Secretary of
:51:26. > :51:29.State for Education since the reshuffle, I am none the wiser. So,
:51:29. > :51:38.if you find an answer as a result of this inquiry, I would be
:51:38. > :51:42.delighted to hear it. Not sure we can help him! That was the former
:51:42. > :51:49.Children's Minister Tim Loughton. He is not better, not at all.!
:51:49. > :51:53.Anyway, did you get the answer to the quiz? The question was, with
:51:53. > :52:03.which character from Are You Being Served? Was Michael Gove compared
:52:03. > :52:04.
:52:04. > :52:11.yesterday? And the answer, of course, was the elderly and rather
:52:11. > :52:16.remote Mr Grace. It was a good programme. Now, God Save our
:52:16. > :52:22.Gracias Princess's, Beatrice and Eugenie, who have been chosen by
:52:22. > :52:25.Downing Street to promote British industry. They will hit Berlin,
:52:25. > :52:30.where they will be driving a Mini Cooper from the Brandenburg gate to
:52:30. > :52:34.the British Embassy. The car is British-built but owned by Germans.
:52:34. > :52:44.Next, the princesses, whose sense of style has not gone unnoticed,
:52:44. > :52:47.will attend a so-called bread and butter fashion event. Then they
:52:47. > :52:53.will be scooting back to their roots, the German city of Hanover,
:52:53. > :52:57.where they might bumping to a long- lost cousin or two. We went out to
:52:57. > :53:03.find out what the great British public think. They are women on a
:53:03. > :53:07.mission, riding around the streets of -- of Berlin, in a Union Jack-
:53:07. > :53:16.branded what a. But has Downing Street chosen the right people for
:53:16. > :53:23.the German job? -- Union Jack- branded car. I do not even know
:53:23. > :53:27.them. They are the princesses, sixth in line for the throne..
:53:27. > :53:32.you think they might be the right people for the job? They might be..
:53:32. > :53:38.Who would you have as a trade ambassador? Alan Sugar. He is
:53:38. > :53:43.synonymous with business and trade. Maybe him. You think he should do
:53:43. > :53:53.this help -- the Thelma & Louise thing instead of these girls?
:53:53. > :54:00.I don't know... Maybe if he is going to wear that hat, then yes.
:54:01. > :54:07.That car is not built by British Leyland any more. You could send
:54:07. > :54:10.Richard Branson. Somebody like Hugh Grant, maybe. I think he would be
:54:10. > :54:14.interesting. David Beckham, pretty much. Everybody knows he is British,
:54:14. > :54:18.and he does that kind of stuff already. Do you think he would be
:54:18. > :54:25.better than the Princess's? He is better dressed, he has got more
:54:26. > :54:32.style.. Victoria, she could do it! Who would you send to foreign
:54:32. > :54:37.customers to promote British interest? Certainly not those. I am
:54:37. > :54:46.not sure they would understand what they were supposed to be achieving..
:54:46. > :54:53.An interesting range of views there. How is this going to go down, do
:54:53. > :55:03.you think, in Germany? I think the Germans love the Royal Family, much
:55:03. > :55:03.
:55:03. > :55:11.less so than here are the scene as a home-grown royals, as it were,
:55:11. > :55:14.which is of course what many Brits associate them with. But I think
:55:14. > :55:19.the joy of royal stories continues unabated in Germany. I'm sure they
:55:19. > :55:25.will be given a very warm welcome. Will people know who they are?
:55:25. > :55:29.Probably not. Is that a problem? Unless they remember very well the
:55:29. > :55:37.wedding, the Royal Wedding, and that spectacular hat that one of
:55:37. > :55:41.them was wearing. Yes, what do you call it, the hat? Somebody called
:55:41. > :55:46.it the pretzel hat. It was fairly unforgettable. Is it going to work,
:55:46. > :55:52.do you think, for them, and for us, if they are trying to sell Britain
:55:52. > :55:56.abroad? Well, they are young, everybody is obsessed with youth. I
:55:56. > :56:00.think they are young and royal and they are princesses, and they are
:56:00. > :56:10.actually really charming girls. As long as they do not have the
:56:10. > :56:14.
:56:14. > :56:21.arrogance of perhaps the father, or the profligate... Habits of their
:56:21. > :56:27.mother? Profligacy, I want to say, I don't think it exists, does it?.
:56:27. > :56:30.Oh, yes, it does. I think they will do well. Having said that, they do
:56:30. > :56:33.not want to do this all of the time, because they have got jobs, and
:56:33. > :56:38.they want to work, because they do not want to be criticised all the
:56:38. > :56:46.time for being royal freeloaders. What do they do? I knew you were
:56:46. > :56:54.going to ask that. I think Beatrice works for Goldman Sachs, doing...
:56:54. > :57:00.Something. I dread to think. they style icons, in Germany, for
:57:00. > :57:05.example? No, a kink the cars they are driving. Well done, BMW, they
:57:05. > :57:13.are getting loyalty to promote a German car. Excuse me, it is a
:57:13. > :57:23.British car. What is British about it? It is made in Oxford, last time
:57:23. > :57:29.I looked. Will it work? It is great advertising for BMW. We did a Sagna
:57:29. > :57:39.-- we did a poll on this about a year ago, and it was about two to
:57:39. > :57:43.one sale and the girls should stay at home and have a royal life! --
:57:43. > :57:46.saying the girls. They love to do some charities have occasionally,
:57:46. > :57:50.but they know that they have got to be seen to be working, otherwise
:57:50. > :57:54.they will just be criticised all of the time, and it is horrible and
:57:54. > :57:59.hurtful. They want to be princesses, but they want to get on with their
:57:59. > :58:04.lives. Their father is a trade ambassador, and he gets criticised
:58:04. > :58:11.or of the time for this. I think he is behind this. I do not think it
:58:11. > :58:17.is their mother. Finally, will there be a lot of press coverage in
:58:17. > :58:23.Germany? Interestingly, I believe initially the idea was for the two
:58:23. > :58:28.foreign ministers to drive the car. At the moment, tensions are
:58:28. > :58:35.increasing between Berlin and London. I think they are very
:58:35. > :58:44.interested in Cameron's speech tomorrow. That was going to be a
:58:45. > :58:50.symbol of... That's it for today. We thank all of our guests. I am