:00:40. > :00:45.Good afternoon, welcome to the Daily Politics. Waging war on modern-day
:00:46. > :00:48.slavery, the Government has published plans for tougher
:00:49. > :00:51.sanctions to tackle slavery and human trafficking. To tackle slavery
:00:52. > :00:58.and human trafficking. Tourism a has vowed to make eradicating the
:00:59. > :01:03.practice her personal priority. A report by the BBC into payoffs into
:01:04. > :01:09.senior managers... The Public Accounts Committee report says the
:01:10. > :01:13.corporation put its reputation at risk. Will another runway at
:01:14. > :01:18.Heathrow get liftoff? The Airports Commission is due to publish its
:01:19. > :01:21.recommendations tomorrow. And Christmas cheer is here, what
:01:22. > :01:30.political book would you like to find in your Christmas stocking?
:01:31. > :01:33.All that in the next hour, and with us for the first half of the
:01:34. > :01:36.programme today is political strategist, for the first half of
:01:37. > :01:38.the programme today is political strategist, former ad buyers to Tony
:01:39. > :01:41.Blair, amongst others, John McTernan, welcome to the programme.
:01:42. > :01:46.Now, we are in festive spirits today, we have even blown what is
:01:47. > :01:52.left of our amazingly large budget not on a Christmas tree, but we have
:01:53. > :01:56.got Christmassy music. First of all today, let's talk about politics,
:01:57. > :02:02.how is Ed Miliband doing? I think he is dull setting the national
:02:03. > :02:07.conversation, and he has been doing that since his party conference
:02:08. > :02:11.speech. -- still. David Cameron and Number Ten are spooked. Ed is doing
:02:12. > :02:16.something on housing today, I do not think the Tories know what to do
:02:17. > :02:19.about that. The Central Office responses that Labour presided over
:02:20. > :02:24.the worst recession in 100 years, but it is hard to blame Ed Miliband
:02:25. > :02:27.for that, he and Ed Balls did not sell mortgages to Americans who
:02:28. > :02:31.could not afford to pay them. What you have seen is Ed starting to
:02:32. > :02:35.perform as well as the party, there has been a like between him and the
:02:36. > :02:39.party in popularity, and he is getting to a place where people
:02:40. > :02:43.think, actually, this guy might be a Prime Minister. But the polls have
:02:44. > :02:47.stayed in the same place, steadily ahead but not by a massive margin,
:02:48. > :02:52.and even with the cost of living crisis, which most people would
:02:53. > :02:59.argue has set, if you like, the debate, there has not been any
:03:00. > :03:02.movement in that for Labour? I think that is actually good news for
:03:03. > :03:08.Labour, they have not got a fluctuating vote, they are backed by
:03:09. > :03:11.38% of the vote and sticking there, and they are sticking because the
:03:12. > :03:15.flow in politics is on the right, it is the Tory party and UKIP, that is
:03:16. > :03:18.where votes are going back and forth. The difficulty for David
:03:19. > :03:23.Cameron is that every single election in British history has been
:03:24. > :03:26.won in the centre, even Thatcher won in the centre, and he is tempted to
:03:27. > :03:31.go to the right to battle UKIP, and every time he does that, he does not
:03:32. > :03:36.bring you give voters to him, but more centre voters think, maybe Ed
:03:37. > :03:41.Miliband is the answer. The economy is, as everybody says, the thing to
:03:42. > :03:46.play for, and on that issue, the polls still indicate that Ed Balls
:03:47. > :03:49.and Ed Miliband are not trusted. Whatever you say, that link between
:03:50. > :03:54.saying they spent too much and messed up, public spending was far
:03:55. > :03:58.too big, that is why we are in the mess, that is the mantra from the
:03:59. > :04:02.Conservatives, it strikes a chord with many voters. The Obama campaign
:04:03. > :04:07.faced this even when he was president, and throughout the
:04:08. > :04:11.election campaign, Mitt Romney polled loads better on the simple
:04:12. > :04:14.question of who managed the economy better. Obama reframed it, because
:04:15. > :04:18.they polled better on the question, who would fight hardest for the
:04:19. > :04:23.middle classes? That is where we are at the moment, a battle of two
:04:24. > :04:28.frames. If you want to go to the factual one, you have got the Tories
:04:29. > :04:34.in the lead, but on the, do you understand me, are you on my side?
:04:35. > :04:37.Ed Miliband is creating space. That is the narrative both parties will
:04:38. > :04:42.follow, but is one of the reasons that Labour cannot get to 40% is
:04:43. > :04:47.because Ed Miliband has reached his popularity limit. You say he has
:04:48. > :04:52.improved, and maybe he has, but he has gone as far as he can in terms
:04:53. > :04:58.of popularity. Well, the first thing to say is that political parties,
:04:59. > :05:03.since 2001, have found it virtually impossible to get to 40% of the
:05:04. > :05:07.vote. The Tories have not done that in 21 years, Labour have not had
:05:08. > :05:11.more than that in 12 years. The public as a whole standing of
:05:12. > :05:15.political parties and giving them both more promiscuously to other
:05:16. > :05:20.parties. 38% looks terrible in historical terms, but it is a solid
:05:21. > :05:27.group of votes to hold onto. Does Ed want to get more? Of course, he
:05:28. > :05:31.wants a mandate for the he wants to bring in. Can the Tories get more
:05:32. > :05:35.than 35%? The fight, in a way, is an awful one between the Tories who,
:05:36. > :05:38.quite recover, they seem to have peaked, Labour cannot break through
:05:39. > :05:42.to 40, and we are still waiting for the moment when somebody says, you
:05:43. > :05:46.know what? Britain could be great again if we did this, and people are
:05:47. > :05:52.looking for that, the next step in the vision, on either side, if I am
:05:53. > :05:57.honest. Is Ed Balls a problem or a benefit as far as Labour is
:05:58. > :06:00.concerned? Should he stay? Everybody needs a bruiser, Ed Balls is a
:06:01. > :06:06.bruiser. You cannot have a front bench without somebody who is
:06:07. > :06:10.willing to throw punches. My favourite quote from Clinton's
:06:11. > :06:15.advisor is, if your business down somebody's throat, they cannot say
:06:16. > :06:20.bad things about you. -- if your fist is down somebody's throat.
:06:21. > :06:27.Without him, he would have a blander front bench. Is he clever? Easy a
:06:28. > :06:33.strategy -- is he a strategist? Yes, he is. Does he get on with Ed
:06:34. > :06:38.Miliband? In the end, in politics, anybody who goes into politics to
:06:39. > :06:43.find a friend has been misled. They don't really get on, do they? I
:06:44. > :06:48.don't know, and I don't care. The point is not to get on, the point is
:06:49. > :06:54.to work together well. Do they cover different sides of the street? Yes,
:06:55. > :06:58.could they be better in a harsher economic narrative? Yes, but Ed
:06:59. > :07:01.Balls is clear that Labour are sticking to the spending plans of
:07:02. > :07:05.the Tories, and that is a big thing to say. They are bringing together
:07:06. > :07:11.the kinds of discipline on Labour finances, if they were a government,
:07:12. > :07:14.that have not been done before. Next year is the testing ground for all
:07:15. > :07:18.the political teams on all sides, but I think Ed Balls has got the
:07:19. > :07:23.character for this, and it is hard to imagine who you would replace him
:07:24. > :07:29.with. Alistair Darling is the one that people talk about, but he is
:07:30. > :07:34.busy. He is saving the nation! Now, time for our daily quiz, and the
:07:35. > :07:37.question for today, which fictional spin doctor is sometimes said to
:07:38. > :07:43.have been based on our guest of the day, John McTernan? Is it Toby
:07:44. > :07:47.Ziegler from the West Wing, Malcolm Tucker from The Thick Of It,
:07:48. > :07:52.Borgen's Kasper Juul, right up to date with this quiz, or Bernard from
:07:53. > :07:57.Yes Minister? In a bit, we will get the correct answer from John.
:07:58. > :08:01.Something to look forward to! Now, a report into payoffs to senior
:08:02. > :08:06.managers at the BBC has accused it of cronyism and failing in its duty
:08:07. > :08:10.to protect public money. The Public Accounts Committee says that the
:08:11. > :08:14.payments revealed a system of oversight that was dysfunctional and
:08:15. > :08:18.broken. Some of the BBC bosses past and present were questioned by the
:08:19. > :08:22.committee back in September. The outgoing director of HR, Lucy
:08:23. > :08:25.Adams, was asked if she had viewed the additional payments to departing
:08:26. > :08:30.staff as sweeteners. When you look at the total amounts on severance,
:08:31. > :08:37.8% of that was spent above contractual... Ms Adams, my question
:08:38. > :08:45.was, we have been through that, my question was specific. Did you
:08:46. > :08:53.suggest to HR colleagues that these sort of payments should be viewed by
:08:54. > :08:57.them as sweeteners? Sweeteners? Yeah. That is a strange term. What
:08:58. > :09:00.we are talking about is enabling people to leave the business in a
:09:01. > :09:06.way that minimises disruption, that avoids legal risk, as a shorthand
:09:07. > :09:11.term possibly, but I do not recognise it. We asked the BBC trust
:09:12. > :09:15.for an interview, but no-one was available. They issued a statement
:09:16. > :09:19.that said, we greatly regret that licence fee payers were let down by
:09:20. > :09:24.this episode, they are untitled to expect that their money is spent
:09:25. > :09:29.wisely. Since 2009, the Trust has worked successfully to drive down
:09:30. > :09:32.senior manager pay, and we support Tony Hall's speedy action to impose
:09:33. > :09:38.a cap on severance payments in the future. That is now limited to
:09:39. > :09:41.?150,000. With me was the chair of the Public Accounts Committee,
:09:42. > :09:46.Margaret Hodge, welcome back to the programme. Can we be clear, are you
:09:47. > :09:52.accusing BBC executive and the Trust of wasting money, or are you saying
:09:53. > :09:55.they handled it badly? Both. I think that is the truth. I think they
:09:56. > :09:59.handled the process very badly, and if you had watched the whole of the
:10:00. > :10:01.hearing, you would have seen that members of the executive would
:10:02. > :10:06.disagree with each other as to what they knew, how and when, and members
:10:07. > :10:10.of the executive were disagreeing with the Trust as to who knew what
:10:11. > :10:14.and who authorised these payments. Did they waste money? Yes, they did,
:10:15. > :10:19.because they paid over the contractual commitments in a number
:10:20. > :10:24.of cases, the worst probably being the Mark Byford case, but he is not
:10:25. > :10:29.alone, where he got two years' salary, whereas his contractual
:10:30. > :10:35.commitment was just one. He got one year in lieu of redundancy, one year
:10:36. > :10:40.in lieu of redundancy, he should not have had that. Not an edifying
:10:41. > :10:45.spectacle to watch in terms of the blame game, you might call it, but
:10:46. > :10:49.in terms of wasting money, the US set the view of the former
:10:50. > :10:54.director-general Mark Thompson, who said the process save the money? --
:10:55. > :10:57.do you accept. People were paid beyond their contractual obligations
:10:58. > :11:02.but in order to avoid painful salaries for another year or so, so
:11:03. > :11:09.in a way, ironically, the BBC save money. -- paying for salaries.
:11:10. > :11:14.Cutting the top tier saves money, cutting salaries would also save
:11:15. > :11:20.money, but that does not justify then wasting money on giving people
:11:21. > :11:26.in that top tier more than they were contractually committed to. Lots of
:11:27. > :11:31.people have left the BBC, I meet people in the studio, not in the
:11:32. > :11:35.studio, in the building who have left the BBC. It is only the top
:11:36. > :11:39.tier who get these very generous payoffs. When we looked at it, the
:11:40. > :11:44.higher you were in the pecking order, the more you got. Of the very
:11:45. > :11:51.senior management team of four, three got one year's salary in lieu
:11:52. > :11:56.of salary, and two got above their contractual commitment. But if you
:11:57. > :11:59.pay someone on ?200,000 per year and extra 20,000 fans to leave, and they
:12:00. > :12:03.leave immediately because contractually they probably have to
:12:04. > :12:09.work out some long notice period, you have saved ?200,000, haven't
:12:10. > :12:14.you? The point is two things, one, in the case of Mark Byford, they
:12:15. > :12:20.wanted him to actually work his time, so there was no reason to pay
:12:21. > :12:23.him one year in lieu of notice. In a number of cases, I think three in
:12:24. > :12:29.total, people went to another job and still picked up the full
:12:30. > :12:32.redundancy pay. And let me just say, in other cases, people were given
:12:33. > :12:39.very generous payoffs to retrain, I think about 70,000, and consultancy
:12:40. > :12:43.to come back and consult at the BBC. So yes, over time, they saved money,
:12:44. > :12:51.because they cut the top tier, but that does not justify wasting
:12:52. > :12:57.licence fee payers' money. To put it into context, Jo, ?25 million was
:12:58. > :13:03.the amount spent on the top people's payoffs. ?25 million is
:13:04. > :13:08.half what Radio 4's budget is, two thirds of Radio 1's budget, so even
:13:09. > :13:12.in terms of the BBC, it is a lot of money, and I do not think licence
:13:13. > :13:16.fee payers want to see the money used in that way. Watching from the
:13:17. > :13:21.outside, John McTernan, the other point that is made by Lucy Adams in
:13:22. > :13:24.that clip we showed you is that people could have legally challenged
:13:25. > :13:28.the BBC, they could have said, we will take you to a tribunal that
:13:29. > :13:33.will cost millions potentially if you try to push us at the door more
:13:34. > :13:36.quickly. Well, it is probably stupid to put yourself in a position where
:13:37. > :13:39.you want to sack people but they can challenging, and secondly, you
:13:40. > :13:42.should have contracts which have high pay, but because of the high
:13:43. > :13:48.risk of leaving, they have conditions which say, you get paid a
:13:49. > :13:51.lot now but not much if you leave. When you follow all this stuff, the
:13:52. > :13:57.BBC trust seems to be in a complete muddle, who is in charge of the BBC
:13:58. > :14:00.in terms of oversight? That seems to be a failure of leadership. In the
:14:01. > :14:04.good old days, the chairman of the ABC would sort it out by knocking
:14:05. > :14:08.heads together, but I do not see there is that much wrong with that,
:14:09. > :14:12.you either go to full regulation, like the private sector gets in
:14:13. > :14:16.television, or do stick with what the BBC had. The BBC Trust thing, I
:14:17. > :14:20.am not clear the people who run that have any clue of what the governance
:14:21. > :14:25.is, the role they have to play. With a sitting on their hands? I think
:14:26. > :14:28.they did not know what was going on, and that is ridiculous. You cannot
:14:29. > :14:33.imagine that would have happened under the previous system. What
:14:34. > :14:38.about trust in the BBC? What has done to the reputation? Will blow?
:14:39. > :14:42.Of course, it has damaged the reputation, and there are literally
:14:43. > :14:46.thousands of wonderful people not being paid enormous salaries, like
:14:47. > :14:52.yourself, who produce wonderful, creative content, and make the BBC
:14:53. > :14:57.the institution that we love, and it is terrible, you are damaged by
:14:58. > :15:02.this! But let me also say that, hopefully, the new regime has got
:15:03. > :15:05.the message. Are they doing enough? Is there anything else you want to
:15:06. > :15:10.see done? Have they taken on board what you have said? The only
:15:11. > :15:14.question mark that I have, and time will tell, is the one John talked
:15:15. > :15:20.about, whether the governance is right, because what we found is, who
:15:21. > :15:24.was responsible, who knew what? We felt that, actually, things fell
:15:25. > :15:27.through the middle in that, and you want clear lines of accountability
:15:28. > :15:33.and responsibility for what is your and my licence fee payers' money. I
:15:34. > :15:41.hope we will get the BBC Trust next time. The government is publishing
:15:42. > :15:44.proposals to increase punishments fit human trafficking following a
:15:45. > :15:48.recent string of high-profile slavery cases in the UK. The draft
:15:49. > :15:51.Modern Slavery Bill will be the first of its kind in Europe when it
:15:52. > :15:55.is published today, but what is being proposed? The bill will
:15:56. > :15:59.increase the maximum prison sentence for offenders with prior convictions
:16:00. > :16:04.for serious sexual or violent offences from 14 years to life. A
:16:05. > :16:09.new post of anti-slavery Commissioner will be created. The
:16:10. > :16:14.idea is that that they will hold law enforcement and other organisations
:16:15. > :16:19.to account. The Modern Slavery Bill aims to consolidate the offence is
:16:20. > :16:23.used to prosecute those who enslave others into a single act. Alongside
:16:24. > :16:26.the legislation, a review into modern slavery commissioned by the
:16:27. > :16:30.Home Office and carried out by Labour MP Frank Field will also be
:16:31. > :16:35.published. Thank the other estimates that there are 10,000 victims of
:16:36. > :16:38.slavery in the UK, and some charities say the focus of the bill
:16:39. > :16:43.is too narrow and should offer more protection the victim 's. But
:16:44. > :16:48.Theresa May says tougher sentences will help reduce the number of
:16:49. > :16:53.slavery victims. We need to ensure that we have got the sentence that
:16:54. > :16:55.is right for the crime. This is a horrendous crime, people being
:16:56. > :17:02.forced into a life of misery and servitude, Labour or sexual
:17:03. > :17:08.exploitation or sometimes a life of crime. We need to get tougher on the
:17:09. > :17:11.slave drivers. If we can catch more of them, prosecute them and put them
:17:12. > :17:17.behind bars, there will be fewer victims in future. With me now is
:17:18. > :17:21.the Labour MP Frank Field, whose report into modern slavery is being
:17:22. > :17:25.published today. We also hoped to be joined by someone from the Home
:17:26. > :17:32.Office, but no one was available. They are all doing their Christmas
:17:33. > :17:36.shopping! 10,000 victims that you have said you think are going on in
:17:37. > :17:41.the UK, that is a shocking figure. How have you come up with that? Weak
:17:42. > :17:48.that is a figure from the human trafficking foundation my colleague,
:17:49. > :17:59.Fiona McTaggart, is doing digging on how we can get better data. The
:18:00. > :18:05.report today is clear that it is both about having an act which is
:18:06. > :18:13.prosecution friendly and does not trip up the prosecutors trying to
:18:14. > :18:19.get these individuals. But of course it is right for those organisations
:18:20. > :18:24.who have said it must be victim focused. They say that unless we are
:18:25. > :18:29.victim focused, we will not get more prosecutions. We should be more
:18:30. > :18:32.victim focused, because anyone who has spoken to a victim of slavery
:18:33. > :18:36.for a few minutes knows the devastating effect on their lives.
:18:37. > :18:43.Morally, we should do the right thing. But for once, by being moral,
:18:44. > :18:49.we are also being politically effective. What would you'll I to
:18:50. > :18:54.see being done? Our proposal will go to a giant committee of both houses
:18:55. > :18:58.after Christmas, and then the Home Secretary will make up her mind. We
:18:59. > :19:03.want two things. One is that whenever you seek help as a victim
:19:04. > :19:08.of modern slavery, you will get the same standard of help. But also, the
:19:09. > :19:13.Lord chief justice has been clear that the victims of slavery should
:19:14. > :19:16.not be prosecuted for crimes which it is clear that they committed only
:19:17. > :19:25.because of the pressure of the slave owner. People are still being sent
:19:26. > :19:32.to young people's institutions and prison, and it is a difficult task
:19:33. > :19:42.the Lord Chief Justice has given us. How receptive is Theresa May to
:19:43. > :19:51.this? I have just left the launch of our report, and she did not have to
:19:52. > :19:54.do this bill. Then why is she? The accusation is that it is a vanity
:19:55. > :20:00.project for her and has been rushed through. There are something about
:20:01. > :20:04.the centre-left that always wants to dispute people's motives. John will
:20:05. > :20:08.recognise this. They never actually look at what will come from this.
:20:09. > :20:13.She may have the best or worst motives, but that is irrelevant. She
:20:14. > :20:17.has not only started the process of the bill, which she did not have to
:20:18. > :20:21.do. She did not have too asked the panel I chaired to report on how to
:20:22. > :20:26.make it better. She did not have to make life difficult I having a giant
:20:27. > :20:31.committee of both houses consider the proposal. But will she consider
:20:32. > :20:38.your terms on not prosecuting the victims? We will be pushing hard on
:20:39. > :20:43.that. If the Lord Chief Justice once this, surely he will carry some
:20:44. > :20:49.weight. The government has to decide whether we have a good bill or a
:20:50. > :20:54.great bill which other countries look to as a model to follow. My
:20:55. > :20:59.guess is that a government with any sense will reach for the skies. Are
:21:00. > :21:03.you impressed that this sort of deal is being brought forward in a
:21:04. > :21:07.cross-party way and will lead the way in Europe in terms of
:21:08. > :21:15.legislation in this area? I think involving Frank shows how important
:21:16. > :21:20.this is as an issue. In the end, this has to be international. We are
:21:21. > :21:26.at a moment in time when there is more slavery in the world than ever
:21:27. > :21:29.in history, which is shocking. To counter that, we have to deal with
:21:30. > :21:32.this with proper policing and intelligence. It is cross-border
:21:33. > :21:40.traffic, so it has to be done openly. I think Theresa May feels
:21:41. > :21:45.passionately about this. There are issues about the full
:21:46. > :21:52.implementation, but we need to tie this more closely to the work we do
:21:53. > :21:55.internationally against slavery in other countries where it is more
:21:56. > :22:01.tolerated. We use slave to goods all the time in Britain, and we
:22:02. > :22:06.shouldn't. Frank, you said focusing on the victims is not only a moral
:22:07. > :22:12.issue, but will also help push up the number of prosecutions. Why do
:22:13. > :22:22.you think that? It is the convictions we are after, beyond the
:22:23. > :22:27.prosecutions. John is right in that it is not just slavery in our own
:22:28. > :22:32.country. Some slaves are clearly recruited within our own borders,
:22:33. > :22:37.but we are suggesting two things. One is that the prime minister
:22:38. > :22:41.pushes the issue at G8 summit. Since apartheid, the Commonwealth has not
:22:42. > :22:46.had a great big moral issue around which it can group. I am hoping the
:22:47. > :22:49.prime minister puts this to the Commonwealth and says, instead of
:22:50. > :22:53.fighting amongst ourselves, why don't we get a really important
:22:54. > :22:56.issue and put our efforts into that? But you want to get the
:22:57. > :23:02.legislation on the statute book here first. Extending support to victims
:23:03. > :23:08.beyond the 45 days allotted to process their case has been raised.
:23:09. > :23:13.Victim charities say it will not be in the legislation, is that right?
:23:14. > :23:21.It does not have to be in the legislation. Why should
:23:22. > :23:25.organisations working in the field know the difference between what you
:23:26. > :23:28.need a law to do and what you have already got the power to do as Home
:23:29. > :23:36.Secretary? The Home Secretary wants a new act of Parliament so that she
:23:37. > :23:42.has got additional powers. Of course we will press for more than is in
:23:43. > :23:48.the bill. The worry is that a lot of your research will not end up in the
:23:49. > :23:50.final bill. I think that once it gets into the House of Lords, the
:23:51. > :23:58.government has less control over it. It is bad enough when they try
:23:59. > :24:03.and control it and they lose it. Theresa May wants this to be the
:24:04. > :24:09.best will in the world. She has made that clear. One also heard this
:24:10. > :24:16.morning from Yvette Cooper, who supports it.
:24:17. > :24:19.The year is 2017. A government committed to either reforming
:24:20. > :24:24.Britain's relationship with the EU, or failing that, a referendum on
:24:25. > :24:28.whether to leave altogether, is in power. But what might that
:24:29. > :24:32.renegotiation process looked like, and how might the talks pan out?
:24:33. > :24:37.Well, we can give you a games of how it might work, tanks to the
:24:38. > :24:40.think-tank Open Europe. They organised a role-playing exercise
:24:41. > :24:46.which tried to get as close as it could to what might happen in just a
:24:47. > :24:50.few years' time. European leaders gather round the
:24:51. > :24:53.conference table to thrash out one of the most important political
:24:54. > :24:59.issues of our time, the future of the EU and Britain's place within
:25:00. > :25:03.it. These talks have one aim - to determine Britain's future
:25:04. > :25:09.relationship with Europe. Should it renegotiate and stay in, or could
:25:10. > :25:13.the British exit from Europe become a reality? This is not for real, it
:25:14. > :25:17.is a war game organised by the think-tank damn Ann, but after the
:25:18. > :25:22.next election, something very much like it could happen -- it was
:25:23. > :25:26.organised by the think-tank Open Europe. We bring in people who have
:25:27. > :25:32.to play in character, negotiating the fundamental issues over European
:25:33. > :25:34.reform. So the French are obstreperous. The Dutch want
:25:35. > :25:41.everyone to get along, and the British try to stay in Europe, but
:25:42. > :25:44.on that terms. And we will see what happens so that we can look at the
:25:45. > :25:49.simulation and see if that is how the real world will work. First,
:25:50. > :25:54.renegotiation, keeping us in a reformed EU. Britain was played by a
:25:55. > :25:58.Tory MP and it seemed to be going quite well, until this happened. If
:25:59. > :26:07.Britain is the only country not taking part in the Eurozone and we
:26:08. > :26:11.have not formed the new architecture of the EU, we will not hold Britain
:26:12. > :26:19.back from leaving the EU. Which left Britain somewhat un-chuffed. In
:26:20. > :26:22.spite of the fact that Britain has a permanent opt out of ever joining
:26:23. > :26:25.the euro, is it really fans's national position that if we are
:26:26. > :26:31.simply not prepared to change our minds, we may as well leave? But not
:26:32. > :26:37.entirely alone. The real wild card was the Nordic region negotiator,
:26:38. > :26:41.who was extraordinary supportive and quite antagonistic towards the
:26:42. > :26:47.French position, which was to kick Britain out. I was cheering inside
:26:48. > :26:51.for her. Which took us to part two, the negotiation of a British exit
:26:52. > :27:01.from the EU altogether, led by a former Foreign Office minister who
:27:02. > :27:05.was not popular around the table. You will be more and more isolated,
:27:06. > :27:11.I think. Despite that, David thought the only way for us to stay in was
:27:12. > :27:14.to threaten to get out. They will only get serious if they understand
:27:15. > :27:18.that if we don't deliver a substantial package of reforms, we
:27:19. > :27:27.will leave. After all that, what did we learn? It was excruciating. It
:27:28. > :27:31.will not be simple at all. It will be very tough to make this decision.
:27:32. > :27:36.Whatever you do, there will be negatives and pluses. If that was
:27:37. > :27:42.all that came out of this, it was worth the time.
:27:43. > :27:44.Something you could take part in in a few years' time, how to
:27:45. > :27:53.renegotiate Britain's relationship with the EU. Is it possible? I don't
:27:54. > :27:55.think it is necessary. We are in a strange situation where, in my view,
:27:56. > :28:01.David Cameron is putting partisan interest above those of the
:28:02. > :28:04.country. It would undoubtedly be a disaster for Britain to leave the
:28:05. > :28:13.European Union. David Cameron knows that, but his party wants to have
:28:14. > :28:17.this thing in the future. He also knows that most of what he wants to
:28:18. > :28:21.change in Europe, he can already do under existing treaties. So in one
:28:22. > :28:26.sense, it is theatre, but it is dangerous because there are people
:28:27. > :28:30.who want Britain out of Europe. Some of them are outside his party, and
:28:31. > :28:36.he should argue with his party and see that this is good for Britain,
:28:37. > :28:39.so the Tory party should not flirt with the possibility of leaving.
:28:40. > :28:44.He's playing with fire not because he believes in it, but because it
:28:45. > :28:48.gives him an easier life. But he has made it clear that by offering a
:28:49. > :28:53.referendum on a renegotiated on a ship with the EU, he would campaign
:28:54. > :29:01.to stay in. So he has made his position clear, and surely all
:29:02. > :29:05.parties in government put their parties to the fore when it comes to
:29:06. > :29:09.these issues. Hasn't he answered his Eurosceptic critics by saying, the
:29:10. > :29:16.referendum is what you want, so wait till after the election? But he's
:29:17. > :29:23.not answering the question, what is the problem with Europe? Well, he
:29:24. > :29:26.wants reform. I was in Berlin last week, and there seems to be sympathy
:29:27. > :29:31.to an extent the reforming the commission and tightening up some of
:29:32. > :29:34.the institutions and trying to get more accountability. You are right
:29:35. > :29:41.that those things may not achieve a lot, but he does have some hearing
:29:42. > :29:46.for that. He has got people who are tolerant of this pantomime. He wants
:29:47. > :29:52.reform, they say they want reform . We know how slowly reform takes
:29:53. > :29:55.place. David Cameron is the prime minister and has not touched the
:29:56. > :30:00.civil service. He runs it and could reform it, but he prefers to talk
:30:01. > :30:06.about this thing that will take far longer and takes 28 other countries
:30:07. > :30:11.to sign up to. He needs to take the beam out of his own eye. So
:30:12. > :30:18.renegotiation is not really necessary. What about a referendum?
:30:19. > :30:23.It is ridiculous. People want it. I don't care. People want the death
:30:24. > :30:27.penalty back. If you ask people if they want a referendum, most voters
:30:28. > :30:33.say, of course. They like to be asked. If asked, do they think
:30:34. > :30:37.Europe is one of the critical issues facing Britain, they will not put
:30:38. > :30:41.Europe there. Then why is Ed Miliband not being clear about what
:30:42. > :30:49.Labour would do in terms of a referendum?
:30:50. > :30:53.In the end, what I would do in his position as say, do you know what?
:30:54. > :30:58.This referendum is about party management, it is not in Britain's
:30:59. > :31:02.interest. If you want this stunt, calm down your party. We will have a
:31:03. > :31:06.government after the election, and you can still fight afterwards. If I
:31:07. > :31:10.win, you can still be fighting about Europe. The best thing for Ed
:31:11. > :31:14.Miliband is to keep a wedge between the Tories and UKIP for as long as
:31:15. > :31:19.possible, let them fight each other about who is more pure about
:31:20. > :31:22.Europe. This is not a fight that is in the country's interest, not a
:31:23. > :31:26.fight people are arguing about in pubs and clubs up and down the
:31:27. > :31:34.country. Compared to the NHS, education, compared to getting the
:31:35. > :31:40.housing market sorted, it has no big impact on people's way of life. It
:31:41. > :31:43.is a very, very strange debate, and Ed should have nothing to do with
:31:44. > :31:50.it. De think there will be a referendum after the election? No, I
:31:51. > :31:57.don't. You think whatever happens there will not be a referendum on
:31:58. > :32:02.our relationship with the EU? Look, I think that a Labour government
:32:03. > :32:05.would not have a referendum, because it is strategically very silly to
:32:06. > :32:10.have a referendum, to have your term dominated by that issue. Just
:32:11. > :32:15.quickly, before you go, don't forget about the answer to the quiz, which
:32:16. > :32:20.fictional spin doctor is said to be based on you? Toby Ziegler from the
:32:21. > :32:25.West Wing, Malcolm Tucker from The Thick Of It, Borgen's Kasper Juul,
:32:26. > :32:33.or Bernard from Yes Minister? Well, I am meant to be Malcolm Tucker, but
:32:34. > :32:39.I think I am Jamie. Is that right? I think Malcolm Tucker is really
:32:40. > :32:44.Alistair Campbell. Malcolm Tucker, the man full of expletives, are you
:32:45. > :32:49.more aggressive to people behind the scenes than you have been on the
:32:50. > :32:56.show? I am the same off the show as an! When I went to Australia to work
:32:57. > :33:00.for Julia Gillard, people thought, he is Scottish, he must be Malcolm
:33:01. > :33:06.Tucker, and I did not bothered is abusing them of that. I am sure you
:33:07. > :33:10.didn't! It is useful to have that reputation. What about those leaked
:33:11. > :33:15.e-mails, some of them were rather rude! Do you regret that? Do think,
:33:16. > :33:19.I should have written e-mails if they were going to be reprinted on
:33:20. > :33:24.the front page of newspapers? Nobody expects the males to be stolen from
:33:25. > :33:31.their workplace. But look, that is ancient history. -- e-mails. We will
:33:32. > :33:34.leave it there, thank you for being guest of the day.
:33:35. > :33:39.Let's look at the political agenda for the week ahead, later today the
:33:40. > :33:44.Home Secretary is in front of the Home Affairs Select Committee for a
:33:45. > :33:47.one-off annual session. On Tuesday, Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt and Sir
:33:48. > :33:51.David Nicholson, chief executive of NHS England, give evidence to the
:33:52. > :33:56.Health Select Committee. Tuesday also sees the publication of the
:33:57. > :33:59.Davis report into that you just of UK airports. It is the last PMQs
:34:00. > :34:04.before Christmas on Wednesday. On Thursday, school is out! The House
:34:05. > :34:08.of Commons rises and MPs go for their Christmas holidays. Joining us
:34:09. > :34:11.to discuss what they will be doing before that, Kate Devlin from the
:34:12. > :34:17.Herald and Sam Coates from the Times, welcome to both of you. Kate,
:34:18. > :34:21.a round-up, if you like, of the year since we are approaching the end of
:34:22. > :34:25.term, let's look at that Scottish referendum, where do things stand
:34:26. > :34:28.for the two campaigns? They stand pretty much where they stood this
:34:29. > :34:32.time last year, which is interesting when you think about how much has
:34:33. > :34:36.happened, how much mud has been slung from both sides. It does not
:34:37. > :34:40.seem as if the polls have changed, it does not seem as if either side
:34:41. > :34:43.is particularly getting momentum, but of course that is not to say
:34:44. > :34:47.that it cannot happen in the next year as we get closer to the
:34:48. > :34:53.referendum finally happening. But also, what it does do is mean that
:34:54. > :34:58.any change in the opinion polls, even very small towards yes, will be
:34:59. > :35:01.seen as momentum, and could start to build some momentum. There are
:35:02. > :35:07.dangers for both sides in the fact that the polls appear not to have
:35:08. > :35:11.moved at all. Sam, the state of the coalition, how would you summarise
:35:12. > :35:15.the state of the coalition now in December 2013? It is interesting,
:35:16. > :35:19.actually, that it has held together so well. Long. We have just had an
:35:20. > :35:25.Autumn Statement that was described as one of the most harmonious there
:35:26. > :35:30.has ever been. -- for so long. Different impetus from the two
:35:31. > :35:34.backbenchers, and a huge desire from the respective party leaders to show
:35:35. > :35:38.as much distance from one another, but it seems like at the top more or
:35:39. > :35:42.less it is functioning. There are difficult issues, particularly
:35:43. > :35:45.around Europe, and some elements of immigration, and the kind of
:35:46. > :35:50.controls the Tories want to bring in, but I think the basic
:35:51. > :35:53.architecture of the coalition is still working. But sort of more
:35:54. > :35:58.worryingly, I think, are the political pressures that are coming
:35:59. > :36:01.to bear on both the Tories and the Lib Dems, and over because of the
:36:02. > :36:06.last 12 months neither party has seen a particular uptick in their
:36:07. > :36:10.fortunes. Labour have somewhere around a 7-point lead, meaning that
:36:11. > :36:15.both Tories and the Lib Dems are starting to feel and increasing
:36:16. > :36:18.urgency to do something, do anything, ahead of the general
:36:19. > :36:21.election in 2015, something big and striking that might change the way
:36:22. > :36:26.that voters look at them. At the moment, there is no sign of them
:36:27. > :36:32.having found that. Put your answers on a postcard! What about Labour? We
:36:33. > :36:35.have just been discussing with John McTernan about what they need to do,
:36:36. > :36:40.bearing in mind the polls have not really moved there either. A lot has
:36:41. > :36:43.moved for Labour, HMO to do, bearing in mind the polls have not really
:36:44. > :36:45.moved there either. A lot has moved for Labour, H multi was year with a
:36:46. > :37:00.lot happening, a terrible summer... A lot of those questions were
:37:01. > :37:06.answered during the party conference. But they appear to have
:37:07. > :37:11.a fairly steady lead in the polls, and it is a lead that some of their
:37:12. > :37:17.own MPs are worried will crumble as we get closer to a general election.
:37:18. > :37:22.What about the economy, Sam? We have a clear narrative, Labour talking
:37:23. > :37:26.about the cost of living, the Conservatives wanting to focus on
:37:27. > :37:33.the bigger picture, on the, if you like. Is that how it is going to
:37:34. > :37:36.stay until the general election? George Osborne wants to maximise
:37:37. > :37:40.GDP, however that might be, whether it is increasing the value of houses
:37:41. > :37:43.or through targeted tax breaks of the sort we saw in the Autumn
:37:44. > :37:48.Statement, and he is hoping that he can go into 2015 being able to say,
:37:49. > :37:53.we made a lot of progress fixing the economy, but let us finish the job.
:37:54. > :37:57.The Conservative Party, indeed the whole coalition, have got
:37:58. > :37:59.increasingly distracted by the arguments Labour have been making
:38:00. > :38:05.about the cost of living, and how people are not feeling their share,
:38:06. > :38:09.their share of the benefits that an uptick in terms of the GDP numbers
:38:10. > :38:13.suggests. So there has been an awful lot of argument inside the coalition
:38:14. > :38:16.about whether or not to play on Labour turf and take on some of the
:38:17. > :38:22.issues they have been addressing. There is no doubt we should be
:38:23. > :38:25.around 2% around the time of the 2015 general election, but as Obama
:38:26. > :38:31.showed in America, you can win an election not being the candidate is
:38:32. > :38:37.thought manages the overall economy best, so long as you are the team,
:38:38. > :38:40.as it were, that stands up for people's interests and helps the man
:38:41. > :38:46.on the street, the voter at the ballot box, with their own issues.
:38:47. > :38:50.Very briefly, Kate, will the question still be from Labour, do
:38:51. > :38:57.you feel better than 2015 and 2010? It will be, and within that lies
:38:58. > :39:03.quite a few dangers. All the advice seems to be that we are going to
:39:04. > :39:08.enter a period of a few years and it will take a while for it to trickle
:39:09. > :39:13.down into pockets. We are joined for the rest of the
:39:14. > :39:17.programme by Conservative MP Harriett Baldwin, Labour impede Lisa
:39:18. > :39:22.Nandy, and Liberal Democrat MP Lynne Featherstone, welcome to you all.
:39:23. > :39:25.We're also joined by broadcaster and campaigner Esther Rantzen, because
:39:26. > :39:29.first of going to talk about the Care Bill, which is due to be
:39:30. > :39:33.debated in the House of Commons this afternoon. -- first off. Before we
:39:34. > :39:36.get into the details of the cap that everyone is talking about in terms
:39:37. > :39:43.of what you can get from the Government to pay for your care, how
:39:44. > :39:49.well is Silver Line working? It is a free, confidential telephone line, I
:39:50. > :39:55.will not sing the number to you! It is Christmas, you can! We have had
:39:56. > :39:58.20,000 calls, and the biggest single problem that older people are
:39:59. > :40:04.bringing to us is loneliness, and I think it is very relevant to the
:40:05. > :40:07.Care Bill. Loneliness erodes everything, and perhaps the saddest
:40:08. > :40:12.thing, as well as the physical impact, which has been described as
:40:13. > :40:16.more dangerous than smoking or obesity, because you do not look
:40:17. > :40:21.after yourself, because as one lady would to me, I feel my life is
:40:22. > :40:29.hopeless, I am a waste of space. Now, what that does is it means that
:40:30. > :40:34.depression can lead, well, we have saved lives from people who were
:40:35. > :40:37.really feeling suicidal, so it is loneliness that we have focused on,
:40:38. > :40:42.and I think the Care Bill has a lot to offer. The Care Bill will look,
:40:43. > :40:46.and we will find out more from our other guests, but it will look at
:40:47. > :40:52.the length of time of visits that are given to old people on their
:40:53. > :40:56.own. 15 minutes, does that do it? Of course it doesn't. What people say
:40:57. > :41:01.to us is, what they really want is a good chat. In fact, people tell me
:41:02. > :41:05.that the first thing that an older person will say to a carer is, would
:41:06. > :41:10.you like a cup of tea? And what they be lean mean is, can we have a cup
:41:11. > :41:15.of tea together? -- what they really mean. That needs does not diminish
:41:16. > :41:20.as you get older, and the care people need is not just the
:41:21. > :41:24.physical, washing or reading all toilet, which may take longer than
:41:25. > :41:30.15 minutes. It is also that bit where you sit down and just say, how
:41:31. > :41:34.are you feeling today? What do you think about Strictly? Have you seen
:41:35. > :41:37.the kids recently? That is what people bring the Silver Line four.
:41:38. > :41:42.Because they want contact, and that is why people on their own sometimes
:41:43. > :41:47.go to their GP, because they just need somebody to talk to. How long
:41:48. > :41:54.is needed for a carer to spend with an elderly person, or somebody on
:41:55. > :41:59.their own? Our phone calls tend to last 40 minutes. That is the length
:42:00. > :42:02.of time. If professional carers cannot offer that time, maybe they
:42:03. > :42:07.could link up with volunteers who could be making a cup of tea, who
:42:08. > :42:09.could be settling down with a newspaper and talking about current
:42:10. > :42:15.events while the more practical things are going on. Do you know, a
:42:16. > :42:18.policeman in the north-western rang the Silver Line and said, some older
:42:19. > :42:22.people are committing petty crimes in order to get a hot meal and a
:42:23. > :42:28.chat in the evening? That is desperate, isn't it? 15 minute is
:42:29. > :42:31.not long enough, is it? It is wonderful to hear about the sort of
:42:32. > :42:35.thing is that so many wonderful charities are doing to help
:42:36. > :42:38.loneliness among older people at Christmas, but you are right that
:42:39. > :42:42.the Care Bill is going to tackle one of the issues, which is the fact
:42:43. > :42:45.that people have been facing this completely unpredictable and
:42:46. > :42:49.unlimited liability in old age, so it is more of a financial solution,
:42:50. > :42:54.where about ?2 billion is being put into extend the certainty that
:42:55. > :42:56.people have around the amounts they are going to have this bend on
:42:57. > :43:11.terror. But of course, you are right, my counsel is trying to
:43:12. > :43:16.bend... -- amounts they are going to have to spend on care. What about
:43:17. > :43:19.extending that length of time to half an hour? That would make a
:43:20. > :43:25.massive difference to a lot of people. There will be councils where
:43:26. > :43:28.they put a focus on that, but it is very much something that will be
:43:29. > :43:33.assessed by the individual. At the same time, I think what we are doing
:43:34. > :43:38.today with the bill is putting some security around that financial
:43:39. > :43:42.limit. Let's see how much security is being put around those costs,
:43:43. > :43:51.because the cap is at ?72,000, is that right? My concern is, what is
:43:52. > :43:55.included in the cap, because the reports today predict that many of
:43:56. > :43:58.the costs will not be included, which means you will have to spend
:43:59. > :44:05.farm or before you actually breached the cap level and the government
:44:06. > :44:10.step in. -- spend far more. The average person will have to spend
:44:11. > :44:15.?150,000 before that cap kicks in, so it is because it does not take
:44:16. > :44:18.into account the gap between what a care placement actually costs and
:44:19. > :44:22.what a council is prepared to pay for that care placement. People will
:44:23. > :44:25.have to fund those costs themselves. The difficulty with that is that a
:44:26. > :44:29.lot of this was designed to make sure that people have the certainty
:44:30. > :44:32.that Harriet talks about and that they did not have to sell their
:44:33. > :44:36.homes when they have worked hard. Unfortunately, this will do nothing
:44:37. > :44:40.to address it in its current form. It really is time for the government
:44:41. > :44:44.to look seriously at what Andy Burnham is proposing, which is to
:44:45. > :44:48.bring together health and social, to give people decent support to be
:44:49. > :44:52.able to live in their own homes. We will come back to that, but it looks
:44:53. > :44:57.like people are still going to have to sell their homes, if you have to
:44:58. > :45:03.spend ?150,000 to get to the cap level, for most people that is their
:45:04. > :45:05.home. This bill is about people not being frightened, not
:45:06. > :45:11.scaremongering, not having to sell their home at the ?72,000 cap. I
:45:12. > :45:14.will come to it in a moment, but the main thing that has been worrying
:45:15. > :45:17.people is whether they will have to leave their homes in order to pay
:45:18. > :45:23.for care. They will no longer have to do that. There is a cap of 72 and
:45:24. > :45:28.deferral of paying it until after... Will it cover residential
:45:29. > :45:36.costs? It's did not do that under Labour, it did not do it under Andy
:45:37. > :45:41.Burnham, and free personal Ken Scotland does not cover
:45:42. > :45:48.accommodation. Will it cover the gap between... ?72,000 is the cap from
:45:49. > :45:53.2016, so I think you are being very naughty, because you are arguing
:45:54. > :45:57.something that you have never argued in the 13 years you were in
:45:58. > :46:02.government. Will it cover the cost of living? Will it cover
:46:03. > :46:08.accommodation? No, I have been absolutely clear. I have said it
:46:09. > :46:14.will not cover hotel accommodation costs. Will it cover the gap between
:46:15. > :46:17.cost and what people pay? You are talking about the level of care
:46:18. > :46:20.between a council and the level of care you would pay privately, there
:46:21. > :46:29.would be a gap because most private care costs more, will that be
:46:30. > :46:35.covered? When people go into care at the moment, they are expected to put
:46:36. > :46:39.money into the pot to help care cover their live in costs. I wonder
:46:40. > :46:47.whether Lisa is making a massive unfunded spending commitment here.
:46:48. > :46:54.When we say we want to give older people the centre 's -- certainty
:46:55. > :47:08.they deserve... Why did Labour do nothing about it? Wrote that is a
:47:09. > :47:11.bit rich coming from your party. Do women argue about politics the same
:47:12. > :47:14.way men do? It is interesting sitting here. Here is the thing I
:47:15. > :47:18.would like to throw into this mix. I had a masterclass on the Care Bill
:47:19. > :47:23.and the funding, and at the end of it, I still did not understand it. I
:47:24. > :47:27.think people argue about what it covers and does not cover. The other
:47:28. > :47:35.thing is, I have sold my family home. What many older people are
:47:36. > :47:43.saying is that they would like to move. To a smaller property? To an
:47:44. > :47:48.appropriately built type of accommodation with community areas.
:47:49. > :47:54.Then we should be honest about that. We should not pretend they would not
:47:55. > :48:00.have to move. Sorry to bang on about loneliness, but it is such a big
:48:01. > :48:02.problem and if we cared for old people properly, they could share a
:48:03. > :48:06.common vision and enjoy each other's company.
:48:07. > :48:10.Now, the government says it has not ruled anything out when it comes to
:48:11. > :48:13.airport expansion. Crucially, that could mean building an extra runway
:48:14. > :48:19.at Heathrow. Tomorrow, the commission is looking at this and
:48:20. > :48:23.will publish an interim report, but could there be a split in the offing
:48:24. > :48:28.among senior Conservatives? George Osborne is said to favourites
:48:29. > :48:31.banding Heathrow. The mayor of London, Boris Johnson, is dead
:48:32. > :48:36.against the idea. The Conservatives promised to block an extra runway at
:48:37. > :48:40.the last election, but what about after 2015? The Conservative MP for
:48:41. > :48:44.Richmond in west London is Zac Goldsmith. He told Newsnight last
:48:45. > :48:49.week that a change of position would be disastrous for the prime
:48:50. > :48:52.minister. David Cameron has to think carefully about this. Politically, a
:48:53. > :48:56.U-turn on this issue would be catastrophic for him . David Cameron
:48:57. > :49:02.went to every constituency affected and stood up and said no ifs, no
:49:03. > :49:07.buts, there will be no Heathrow expansion. This was not a throwaway
:49:08. > :49:11.line, he went to places like Richmond to deliver that line. On
:49:12. > :49:15.the back of it, people voted for him, so if he does a U-turn on this,
:49:16. > :49:18.he will never be forgiven in West London. People outside of West
:49:19. > :49:25.London who perhaps don't care about Heathrow will also take note. They
:49:26. > :49:28.will wonder how many other promises can be trusted and how much the
:49:29. > :49:32.prime minister can be trusted if he is willing to break a promise that
:49:33. > :49:40.was so still clear. It is a big deal for David Cameron. Harriet Baldwin,
:49:41. > :49:48.no ifs, no buts, no Heathrow expansion, said David Cameron. Can
:49:49. > :49:55.you rule it out after 2015? Well, obviously it has not happened yet.
:49:56. > :50:00.Then why have you not ruled it out after 2015? I am not writing the
:50:01. > :50:05.manifesto. I am a backbencher who will argue the case for being a West
:50:06. > :50:08.Midlands MP, the something West of London making more sense than
:50:09. > :50:13.something in the Thames estuary east of London, and also backing
:50:14. > :50:19.expansion or the Birmingham airport. It is down to each constituency's MP
:50:20. > :50:24.to represent our constituents. But will it be disastrous for David
:50:25. > :50:28.Cameron if he is seen to do an aerial U-turn on something he made
:50:29. > :50:32.clear would not happen if the Conservatives were in power? It is
:50:33. > :50:37.not happening in this Parliament, but he has set up this commission to
:50:38. > :50:41.look at the options. The terms of reference were not excluding
:50:42. > :50:46.Heathrow. So we will see what is in the report tomorrow. Then it will be
:50:47. > :50:51.for the prime minister to decide what goes into the Conservative
:50:52. > :50:55.manifesto. But as far as you can tell, Heathrow expansion is back on
:50:56. > :51:01.the table? You have heard that, I have not seen the report. For me, it
:51:02. > :51:05.is more to be welcomed than something east of London. Labour
:51:06. > :51:11.flip dropped on this as well. They said yes bring into 2010 and they
:51:12. > :51:18.said no after 2010, and now I am not sure what Labour are doing about a
:51:19. > :51:21.third runway at Heathrow. Well, occasionally, we realise that issues
:51:22. > :51:26.are more complex than they seem on television. Here, you have the need
:51:27. > :51:31.to balance concerns about climate change and the environment against
:51:32. > :51:35.the very real need to address capacity problems and the needs of
:51:36. > :51:40.business. There are arguments to be weighed up. That is why this report
:51:41. > :51:44.was commissioned in the first place. And although we have seen a lot of
:51:45. > :51:48.heat and argument in the papers, we don't know what it will see. So I
:51:49. > :51:54.would like to look at what it says first. The three options that have
:51:55. > :51:59.been touted all include expansion at Heathrow, either a third runway or a
:52:00. > :52:02.third and a fourth, or a third runway and another runway at
:52:03. > :52:07.Gatwick. Do we need expansion of our airport capacity in the south-east?
:52:08. > :52:12.It did not look just at Heathrow. The report considered 58 options,
:52:13. > :52:16.all of which have costs and benefits. The point of commissioning
:52:17. > :52:22.the report was to wire up the cost against the benefits. Harriet talked
:52:23. > :52:25.about being a constituency MP. There are real issues for people whose
:52:26. > :52:30.constituencies are affected around the country, as well as the climate
:52:31. > :52:33.issues and business issues. I know it is disappointing, but I really
:52:34. > :52:38.think we ought to read the report before making a decision. But should
:52:39. > :52:44.a decision be made before the next election? So many businesses say
:52:45. > :52:49.they are losing money. We understand the importance of what it means to
:52:50. > :53:04.business and industry. But quite frankly, for the Liberal Democrats,
:53:05. > :53:11.we are solid. So no expansion? Well, the interim report is tomorrow and
:53:12. > :53:15.then the final report in 2015. I am hoping that we have technological
:53:16. > :53:19.advances, because if there were bigger planes that made no noise and
:53:20. > :53:24.gave no pollution, it would be a different consideration. In the near
:53:25. > :53:27.term, we will look at the report and make a decision. But the Liberal
:53:28. > :53:33.Democrats are committed to no extra pollution and no more noise. Which
:53:34. > :53:43.sounds like no expansion, because however much technology comes along,
:53:44. > :53:49.it will not have fixed that by 2015. I think the report is coming out
:53:50. > :53:54.after the election, but I still think that in manifestoes, it will
:53:55. > :53:58.be difficult for parties not to set out their intentions for airport
:53:59. > :54:02.capacity. How clear would you like to see Ed Miliband on this, bearing
:54:03. > :54:07.in mind that he said no to it after the election because of concerns
:54:08. > :54:10.about the environment? We have to be clear with people about what we are
:54:11. > :54:14.planning. What would be really difficult would be if a decision was
:54:15. > :54:17.not made on this because of the political difficulties that the
:54:18. > :54:21.Conservatives in doing so, rather than looking at the needs of the
:54:22. > :54:24.country as a whole, taking into account the impact on the
:54:25. > :54:34.environment as well as the impact on as Miss capacity. -- is Miss
:54:35. > :54:38.capacity. The climate change commitment is very important. We all
:54:39. > :54:41.have to lay out our stalls before the election. To more important
:54:42. > :54:45.things now, like buying Christmas presents. Have you stopped the
:54:46. > :54:50.larder? As we hurtle towards Christmas, we are all looking
:54:51. > :54:53.forward to relaxing. Keith Simpson, the Parliamentary Private Secretary
:54:54. > :54:56.to Foreign Secretary William Hague, has published his famous Foreign
:54:57. > :55:02.Office reading list for the Christmas holidays. So what could we
:55:03. > :55:09.on the list? Is it 50 Shades, or child more's biography of Margaret
:55:10. > :55:12.Thatcher? -- child more's biography? Well, you don't have to wait any
:55:13. > :55:17.longer, because here he is with his trolley of books. Keith, I wonder if
:55:18. > :55:26.you are expecting everyone to read that huge number of books! I feel
:55:27. > :55:33.like someone from Downton Abbey! The idea of this book list came about
:55:34. > :55:36.slightly tongue in cheek. So many colleagues asked me before Christmas
:55:37. > :55:39.if I would please produce it, because they wanted to find books
:55:40. > :55:48.for their father, mother, uncle, brother, husband. What a service you
:55:49. > :55:53.are performing. What was at the top? The top one is Charles more's
:55:54. > :56:01.biography of Margaret Thatcher, because as a biography, it is
:56:02. > :56:04.outstandingly good. A lot of ardent Thatcherites among my colleagues
:56:05. > :56:11.gulped when they read it. So there is new stuff to be known? There are
:56:12. > :56:16.150 letters that she wrote to her sister, which are incredibly
:56:17. > :56:22.revealing about her as a woman. Lisa, you are making faces. Would
:56:23. > :56:27.that not be top of your list? I was trying to picture Christmas in
:56:28. > :56:32.Keith's house, because mine would not look like anything of those
:56:33. > :56:41.books. I prefer things a bit lighter than that. I don't want to hear
:56:42. > :56:45.that! My sister is having a rage about the number of books I have
:56:46. > :56:55.got. How many of those have you read? Nearly all of them. Do you
:56:56. > :57:01.speed read them? I can't stand that. No, I am a fast reader. Lynne
:57:02. > :57:06.Featherstone, any of those take your fancy? The list came to me
:57:07. > :57:10.yesterday, and I chose Lawrence of Arabia. But I did not know Peter
:57:11. > :57:17.O'Toole was sadly going to pass away. So now might be quite timely.
:57:18. > :57:22.Indeed, and in terms of why the Middle East is so intractable, I
:57:23. > :57:31.thought it might have some clues. Lawrence in Arabia, not Lawrence of
:57:32. > :57:35.Arabia. The serious point is to have a lot of history to understand to
:57:36. > :57:41.understand what is going on in Syria and the Ukraine at present. And of
:57:42. > :57:44.course, William Hague and his opposite number Douglas Alexander,
:57:45. > :57:52.read a lot of history and they think it is relevant. I noticed that on
:57:53. > :58:02.the list, only five out of 37 whereby women. Well, I did not go
:58:03. > :58:07.out of my way to do that. But the women produced of the quality. Well
:58:08. > :58:20.done, Keith! You are bit surrounded. I understood that I was
:58:21. > :58:27.to sit between you ladies. Harriet, what takes your fancy? Keith does
:58:28. > :58:32.intimidate all of us with the depth of his erudition, but there was a
:58:33. > :58:35.book about travelling in the footsteps of Genghis Khan and I
:58:36. > :58:43.thought it would be a good piece of escapism of the Christmas recess.
:58:44. > :58:50.What should he read? I have got 50 Shades Of Grey. Mrs Simpson has now
:58:51. > :58:55.read all three volumes of that. Except the third one, which she left
:58:56. > :59:02.on a tray. Everyone say goodbye!