10/05/2013 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 10/05/2013. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


the coalition over benefits reform. Some of the backbenchers were


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


threatened to veto plans to change the ratio for nurses and


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


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


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


consultation, not the policy itself.


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


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


whether central government should be involved in laying down by statute


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


activists? There is a sense among the Tories


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


an overwhelmingly blue Queens speech, with things like immigration


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


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


register, has been dumped, plain packaging on cigarettes also


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


come fourth or fifth in the European elections and headless chicken


syndrome breaks out? There is mutually assured destruction going


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


ownership were vastly overstated. Support for that position is growing


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


also, because that will truly reflect the opinion of Conservative


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


general population who might be persuaded if there were a


substantial renegotiation. Is it possible that Conservative


backbenchers will bring forward the referendum Bill calling for an


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


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


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


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


government in a difficult position because this government can pick and


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


that if there is greater integration, Britain will never be


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


think that there is any. Eurozone countries will ultimately


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


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


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


not to give any kind of repatriations that matters in


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


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


question to be decided by the British people and our political


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


minister has complicated it with this attempt at renegotiation, which


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


French people voted against the Lisbon Treaty, and the French


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


for coming in. " Syria first and foremost" ,


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


It still remains a very difficult difference between Britain, America


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


President Putin, yes, we understand your concern about extremists


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


good conference and get lots of information for Monday.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


may be sanctions. But the most decisive consideration will be


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Putting in more arms into this immensely unstable country is


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


States have come sufficiently close together to call for an


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Iranians have not only been supplying weapons, they have not


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


prevent the other 85% of the population wanting a political


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


them because I start with a different set of assumptions.


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


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


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


accepting gradual moves towards a federal Europe or leaving you as


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


be pushed into further forms of social integration and domestic


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


are put forward consistently and hopefully with courtesy, but with


strength, then ultimately other countries, every other head in


Europe is domestically elected and understands that these are important


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


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


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


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


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


the Prime Minister says that will determine the outcome. The


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


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


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


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


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


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


recommend staying in happy has renegotiated, but he has been


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Workers on the Transport Select Committee say that Heathrow need


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


infrastructure alone. Heathrow airport would have to close, with


the massive disruption that that would involve. There are major


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


major problems with finance dislocation and environment.


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


but does it include the massive cost of reconfiguring the infrastructure


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


minimum. That came from an independent assessment made by the


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


traditional manifestation of the Chinese in Britain, but their real


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


International have documented a wide range of human rights abuses ranging


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


increasingly affluent middle-class arise, we have seen workers


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


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


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


rights practice. One of our favourite Chinese imports, but


generally pretty frustrating. The challenge for politicians dashed to


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


the concerns among the leadership about holding the country together.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


still interested in a working relationship. That was significant.


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


complaints that other countries have, for example over cyber


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


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


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


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


listen. Without further ceremony, an item


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


seconds. Queen's Speech time this week, and


surprise appearances included Charles and Camilla. Not so


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


dashed when David Moyes was appointed to replace Alex Ferguson.


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


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


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


have told the British court that if the Jordanian parliament ratifies


this agreement that no evidence obtained by torture can be


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


the Jordanians whereby he is concerned kind of assurances through


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


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


on this referendum now? David Cameron has created this huge


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Download Subtitles