:00:35. > :00:40.Hello and welcome to The Daily Politics. Our top story today - at
:00:41. > :00:43.the last election, he opposed airport expansion in the South-East,
:00:44. > :00:46.but a government-backed report out today suggests David Cameron will
:00:47. > :00:53.eventually support a new runway at either Heathrow or Gatwick.
:00:54. > :00:58.Fracking for gas could create 30,000 jobs - if the industry is allowed to
:00:59. > :01:02.develop to its full potential. We will debate the controversial new
:01:03. > :01:05.source of energy. Lawrence of Arabia, The Usual
:01:06. > :01:15.Suspects or King Fu Panda - what does a politician's favourite movie
:01:16. > :01:24.say about them? And how much do looks affect
:01:25. > :01:28.political success? Labour might lose out on their majority in the next
:01:29. > :01:32.election, simply because a lot of people cannot vote for Ed Miliband,
:01:33. > :01:43.because, and I quote, he looks like a human platypus, unquote.
:01:44. > :01:47.I am saying nothing. All that in the next hour - and with us for the
:01:48. > :02:01.whole programme today is the actor, comedian and writer David Schneider.
:02:02. > :02:04.Today's report on airport capacity has narrowed down the options from
:02:05. > :02:09.an initial field of 58 to just three, although Sir Howard Davies
:02:10. > :02:14.has not ruled out building a brand-new airport in Kent. The
:02:15. > :02:18.commission admitted in October that extra runway capacity is needed in
:02:19. > :02:23.the south-east, but they have now approved three options for where the
:02:24. > :02:27.extra runway could go. Two of the proposals involve expanding Heathrow
:02:28. > :02:30.in west London. The first option would be to build a new 3,500-metre
:02:31. > :02:34.third runway, constructed to the north-west of the existing airport.
:02:35. > :02:36.third runway, constructed to the north-west of the existing The
:02:37. > :02:39.second option at Heathrow is a fairly radical proposal to extend
:02:40. > :02:43.the airport's existing northern runway to the west to at least 6,000
:02:44. > :02:49.metres - this would allow it to be used for both take-offs and
:02:50. > :02:52.landings. The third option that has been short listed is a brand new
:02:53. > :02:57.runway at Gatwick Airport to the south of London. The Davies
:02:58. > :03:01.Commission haven't ruled out building a brand new hub airport in
:03:02. > :03:06.the Isle of Grain, which is favoured by London Mayor Boris Johnson. The
:03:07. > :03:10.Commission says they will look at it in detail next year before deciding
:03:11. > :03:13.whether to rule it in or out. Of course the issue of airport
:03:14. > :03:16.expansion has been kicked into the long grass for political reasons,
:03:17. > :03:20.and no final decisions will be made until after the next election.
:03:21. > :03:22.Speaking on the BBC this morning, Howard Davies said the UK was crying
:03:23. > :03:36.out for more airport capacity. We have tried to look at it from a
:03:37. > :03:40.passenger perspective, and the fact is that British business people need
:03:41. > :03:43.to travel to overseas business markets, people need to visit
:03:44. > :03:47.friends and relatives abroad, and people need to go on holiday, and I
:03:48. > :03:51.think we need to allow people to do that if they wish, as long as the
:03:52. > :03:54.overall environmental obligations can be matched. This is not about
:03:55. > :03:58.airports competing with other airports, it is about responding to
:03:59. > :04:01.the demands of a growing economy. Howard Davies there. Meanwhile,
:04:02. > :04:06.Mayor of London Boris Johnson says he is glad the option of a brand new
:04:07. > :04:12.hub airport to the east of the city remains on the table. There is a
:04:13. > :04:17.tough decision that has to be taken. I hope that it will be the brave,
:04:18. > :04:22.the right decision, for the long-term. This is the greatest city
:04:23. > :04:27.on earth, the place everybody wants to come to. I am fed up to the back
:04:28. > :04:33.teeth with having to circle over Heathrow. Everybody understands
:04:34. > :04:36.that. How do you solve that? You cannot expand Heathrow in my view,
:04:37. > :04:41.because you are going to create a monster in West London. We need now
:04:42. > :04:43.to go for the right option. With us now is Zac Goldsmith, the
:04:44. > :04:46.Conservative MP for Richmond Park, who has campaigned against Heathrow
:04:47. > :04:49.expansion. We're also joined by Baroness Valentine, whose London
:04:50. > :04:51.First group campaign on behalf of London's business community, and the
:04:52. > :05:02.former Transport Minister Simon Burns. Welcome to you all. First of
:05:03. > :05:06.all, Zac Goldsmith, at what point will you consider your position as a
:05:07. > :05:10.Conservative MP? I said clearly before the election, on the back of
:05:11. > :05:14.a promise made by David Cameron directed towards my constituents in
:05:15. > :05:18.West London, which was that if my party changes its position on
:05:19. > :05:27.Heathrow expansion, I will automatically trigger a by-election.
:05:28. > :05:31.Except that it now looks impossible for the Conservatives to go into the
:05:32. > :05:36.next election being able to rule out expansion at Heathrow. Is that when
:05:37. > :05:41.you say, game is up? I am applying maximum pressure, and I know a lot
:05:42. > :05:44.of other backbenchers, even those who support Heathrow expansion, are
:05:45. > :05:48.putting pressure on the Government to get off the fence. In fact, the
:05:49. > :05:54.only real news today I think is that the pressure on all three leaders to
:05:55. > :05:57.get off the fence this side of the election has massively escalated. It
:05:58. > :06:02.is no longer tenable to imagine any of them going into the election with
:06:03. > :06:06.ambiguity. And on that basis, if the Conservative manifesto does not roll
:06:07. > :06:10.out Heathrow expansion, is that the point at which you say... ? Then I
:06:11. > :06:15.would have to repeat my pledge, which, after the election, if there
:06:16. > :06:20.is a U-turn, then I would trigger a by-election. But the position has
:06:21. > :06:25.changed, we now know that Heathrow would be on the table. As you say,
:06:26. > :06:30.the interim report has come out with a Heathrow bias anyway. And I think
:06:31. > :06:35.from day one, that was always going to be the case. If you listen to Sir
:06:36. > :06:39.Howard Davies in any of the interviews he has been doing today,
:06:40. > :06:44.he is using the language of the AA, he has adopted their line, hook,
:06:45. > :06:48.line and sink, in a very impressive PR operation, and he has managed to
:06:49. > :06:52.substitute whatever thoughts he may have had with their own thoughts,
:06:53. > :06:57.and completely bought into the Heathrow argument. Would you be
:06:58. > :07:01.prepared to stand as an independent? Absolutely, but this is not
:07:02. > :07:05.something I have worked out and I hope I will not have to. If my party
:07:06. > :07:10.does a U-turn on this issue, I will trigger a by-election. I remain
:07:11. > :07:14.clear on that. What happens after that, I hope I do not have to deal
:07:15. > :07:16.with that. It is going to be a political nightmare from now until
:07:17. > :07:22.the election, with this interim report. You are not going to be able
:07:23. > :07:26.to go into the election, as a party, without clearly setting out what
:07:27. > :07:29.your favoured option would be? No, I do not think that is the case. We
:07:30. > :07:36.made it clear when the commission was set up that here is an
:07:37. > :07:40.independent body which is set with the task of, once and for all,
:07:41. > :07:44.trying to sort out what is the best option for the expansion of our
:07:45. > :07:51.capacity, and something that we can seek to get consensus about amongst
:07:52. > :07:57.the political parties. Heathrow is the favoured option here. It is not
:07:58. > :08:03.the favoured option, it is one of 3.5 options. It leans very much
:08:04. > :08:08.towards Heathrow as an option. That is your interpretation. The fact is,
:08:09. > :08:11.there are two options in this short list for Heathrow. There is the
:08:12. > :08:16.third option of a second runway at Gatwick, and there is a kind of half
:08:17. > :08:22.measure at the moment, and we will have to wait until June next year,
:08:23. > :08:26.where the commission is going to look in greater detail at the Isle
:08:27. > :08:31.of grain proposal, because that will also be coming into the mix. We do
:08:32. > :08:33.not know at the moment, and we will not know, until the final
:08:34. > :08:38.recommendations are made in the summer of 2015, exactly what the
:08:39. > :08:46.commission believes is the right solution to airport capacity. I
:08:47. > :08:50.understand that, but the timing of the report was set by politicians,
:08:51. > :08:54.not by Howard Davies. I do not think there is anyone who believed that it
:08:55. > :09:00.was anything other than a political decision. It was time to conclude
:09:01. > :09:04.after the election, -- it was timed to conclude after the election, so
:09:05. > :09:09.that the party leaders would not have to grapple with the issue
:09:10. > :09:14.before the election. That is not true, because I was part of the
:09:15. > :09:19.reason that was given was because this is a horrendously complex
:09:20. > :09:24.issue... That you do not want to make. It is not that at all. It has
:09:25. > :09:29.got to be looked at properly and thoroughly. If you put an
:09:30. > :09:32.unrealistically short timetable, anyone who did not like whatever the
:09:33. > :09:37.final decision was would turn around and say, you cannot deal with such
:09:38. > :09:41.complexes issue in such a short period of time. But you would think
:09:42. > :09:46.that Heathrow will be on the table, not, as David Cameron has said in
:09:47. > :09:50.the past, off the table in 2015 average it will, insofar as it is
:09:51. > :09:54.one of the final recommendations on the short list. What do you say
:09:55. > :10:01.about the argument of those who say that the case for Heathrow is not
:10:02. > :10:03.there? As a business community, I am hugely depressed by this
:10:04. > :10:09.conversation. We should have taken a decision maybe 50 years ago. We have
:10:10. > :10:12.had lots of plans and thoughts for more than 50 years and we are still
:10:13. > :10:16.waiting for political consensus. What we need is political
:10:17. > :10:21.consensus, and we are just seeing one bit of the fractious nature of
:10:22. > :10:25.this. What would your option B? We want to be able to get to global
:10:26. > :10:30.markets as soon as possible. We want people in China to be able to get to
:10:31. > :10:36.us. China is building 82 airports. Where are all of those aeroplanes
:10:37. > :10:40.from China going to land? We are open-minded about the solution to
:10:41. > :10:46.this. We need to be able to get to and from the global economies. I
:10:47. > :10:50.sympathise with some of the issues around Heathrow. There are more
:10:51. > :10:54.people exposed to noise around Heathrow than anywhere else in
:10:55. > :10:58.Europe, and we are advocating a noise ombudsman, because I do think
:10:59. > :11:03.there has been a breach of trust in residence and the aviation industry.
:11:04. > :11:07.And we need to get better data, and a better trade-off. This is all
:11:08. > :11:11.about trade-offs. No solution will make everybody happy. But which will
:11:12. > :11:17.be the best for competitiveness? You say this is a PAA case, and it is a
:11:18. > :11:21.very plausible case, when you look at the figures, and you look at an
:11:22. > :11:24.airport which has to be seen around the world as the place to fly into,
:11:25. > :11:32.not just for the UK, but from around the world. There are so many
:11:33. > :11:39.arguments. There is a quality of life argument, which we know. It has
:11:40. > :11:44.a disproportionate impact. Increasing that impact around
:11:45. > :11:49.Heathrow would be intolerable. But there is an economic argument as
:11:50. > :11:55.well. My party is a free party, who believes in taxpayers paying for
:11:56. > :12:00.this fast thing on one edge of the city, when we have three perfectly
:12:01. > :12:04.good airports... Why are you saying taxpayer funded, I would've thought
:12:05. > :12:10.estuary airport would be far more taxpayer funded than Heathrow? I
:12:11. > :12:16.oppose the expansion of Heathrow very strongly. It is a monopoly. I
:12:17. > :12:19.am very much in favour of Gatwick, Stansted and Heathrow competing, as
:12:20. > :12:24.well as they possibly can, in the interests of the customer. Gatwick
:12:25. > :12:29.has become a good airport in the last few years because of
:12:30. > :12:33.competition. Absolutely, we have got to make the rail links better to
:12:34. > :12:37.both Gatwick and Stansted to allow them to compete, and we have got to
:12:38. > :12:45.deregulate them and let them compete with Heathrow. Heathrow is 98% full.
:12:46. > :12:50.Other airports are at about 75%. We cannot pretend there is not a
:12:51. > :12:54.problem at Heathrow. So we are nearly at full capacity, and this
:12:55. > :12:58.decision is going to be delayed. A party which says it is pro growth is
:12:59. > :13:01.going to go into the next election saying, we don't know. We're going
:13:02. > :13:08.to wait until just after the election, conveniently, so that you
:13:09. > :13:16.conduct the issue? That is a simplistic approach. Which bit of it
:13:17. > :13:19.was not true? What Davies has said in this interim report is that
:13:20. > :13:25.capacity is not critical yet, so we do have some time... How long does
:13:26. > :13:32.it take to build a runway or a new airport? I would think from start to
:13:33. > :13:35.finish about ten years. That is if you can get consensus amongst all of
:13:36. > :13:40.the political parties, as we have got with HS2. We have said that we
:13:41. > :13:44.want a thorough and proper investigation of what is a highly
:13:45. > :13:49.complexes and difficult issue, and we do not want to curtail the time
:13:50. > :13:54.to an unreasonably short time span, so that people would be able to
:13:55. > :14:00.accuse us of trying to fix it. How much business have we lost to other
:14:01. > :14:06.cities? There are numbers thrown around, and ?14 billion is one of
:14:07. > :14:11.them. So, a lot of money. You know if you work in London that people
:14:12. > :14:14.are coming in and coming out to do business. It is absolutely vital, as
:14:15. > :14:19.one of the most cosmopolitan cities in the world, to be able to get to
:14:20. > :14:25.and from our markets. It is a lot of money that we have lost. You can
:14:26. > :14:28.pluck these figures out of midair. There are only two countries in the
:14:29. > :14:33.world with more extensive aviation networks, and one of those is the
:14:34. > :14:37.United States, the other is China. We are third in the world, despite
:14:38. > :14:42.being a very small country. More people fly in and out of London than
:14:43. > :14:45.any other city on earth. The idea that we are languishing behind is a
:14:46. > :14:49.lot of nonsense. Is a question about where we go in the future, which is
:14:50. > :14:53.what this discussion is about, but the idea that we are shrivelling up
:14:54. > :15:00.because of this discussion is complete and utter PAA Brother
:15:01. > :15:07.Gander. What do you say to that? -- propaganda. Yes, we can muddle along
:15:08. > :15:11.with our existing links to the old Commonwealth economies and ignore
:15:12. > :15:17.the emerging economies for the next ten years, I think it is pretty
:15:18. > :15:21.self-evident! I would agree. We have modelled along for far too long,
:15:22. > :15:24.under successive governments. That is why we have set up this
:15:25. > :15:31.commission to seek a solution once and for all, to be able to move
:15:32. > :15:36.forward in what is in the best interests of aviation, business and
:15:37. > :15:46.the local communities. So, whatever he comes up with, after the
:15:47. > :15:51.election, you will do it? Provided it is not off the wall, I would
:15:52. > :15:56.accept. The estuary airport will be dropped next year, won't it? Do you
:15:57. > :16:04.think it is a credible idea? Is it bonkers? It is visionary. I think
:16:05. > :16:08.this is another trade-off which the commission needs to think about
:16:09. > :16:13.because it costs a lot of money but it is a solution to reducing
:16:14. > :16:23.congestion at Heathrow. Which one do you favour? I really do not
:16:24. > :16:28.think... For London business, all we care about is that somebody does
:16:29. > :16:32.something. We need that global market. I think this commission is
:16:33. > :16:38.the best shot we have. It is complicated. There are economic
:16:39. > :16:45.arguments and social arguments. To be honest, Simon, you have done your
:16:46. > :16:50.U-turn. By not ruling out Heathrow in the commission, rightly or
:16:51. > :16:58.wrongly, you have done a U-turn. Why not make the decision ahead of the
:16:59. > :17:03.election? Conservative backbenchers would say it is better to take the
:17:04. > :17:09.hits now than later on. It seems bizarre to call it a U-turn when you
:17:10. > :17:14.set up an independent commission with a full three minutes to look at
:17:15. > :17:19.all the options and come up with a final decision. It is not a U-turn
:17:20. > :17:24.at all. It is a comprehensive enquiry to get the right decision to
:17:25. > :17:30.solve the problem. It is not technically a U-turn but is a big
:17:31. > :17:38.step towards a potential U-turn. What would it do to trust? I think
:17:39. > :17:43.it would be catastrophic for the Conservative party. David Cameron
:17:44. > :17:51.went to every single constituency affected by this expansion. He came
:17:52. > :17:54.to Richmond. A U-turn of this magnitude would break the
:17:55. > :17:58.relationship between the Prime Minister and West London. People
:17:59. > :18:05.would notice and wonder what else would be broken. It should be taken
:18:06. > :18:10.with a pinch of salt. The discussion is about the South East and London,
:18:11. > :18:16.but what about other airports? What about expanding regional airports?
:18:17. > :18:29.Yellow there is expansion at Manchester. Birmingham has ambition
:18:30. > :18:33.to expand its airport. It will not address completely the whole issue
:18:34. > :18:40.of capacity and demand in the South East, and that is what we cannot
:18:41. > :18:48.affect and we need to address. Heathrow is full up and Gatwick is
:18:49. > :18:54.nearly full up. Stansted has some slack with capacity. Let's leave it
:18:55. > :18:58.there. Thank you. It's often said that "politics is showbiz for ugly
:18:59. > :19:01.people". Present company excepted! But in an increasingly televisual
:19:02. > :19:04.age, even politics can be a challenge if you have. How can we
:19:05. > :19:06.put this delicately? An "aesthetically-challenged
:19:07. > :19:09.physiognomy". Anyway, our guest today, David Schneider, has railed
:19:10. > :19:13.against what he describes as the "scourge of uglyism" in our
:19:14. > :19:34.political system. We gave him a day out at London Zoo to make his point.
:19:35. > :19:40.I was shocked to read in an opinion poll that 78% of voters said they
:19:41. > :19:46.would be likely to vote Labour if Ed Miliband changed his face. Actually,
:19:47. > :19:49.I made that up, but it would not surprise me if the lead shot into
:19:50. > :20:02.double figures if he changed his face for someone else is's, properly
:20:03. > :20:08.his brother's. We know looks are important but in a scientific
:20:09. > :20:13.survey, it was revealed that Labour might lose out because many people
:20:14. > :20:27.would not vote for Ed Miliband because, and I quote, he looks like
:20:28. > :20:32.a human platypus. Is it really all about looks now? What do people
:20:33. > :20:42.want? A Labour manifesto that guarantees above inflation taxes or
:20:43. > :20:49.an elimination of the mono brow? Was the struggle to get elected is in
:20:50. > :20:54.the 80s and 90s about moving from elderly leaders struggling to get
:20:55. > :21:00.elected towards someone who was reasonably hot? As an actor, I have
:21:01. > :21:06.profited from being funny looking but as a politician it can be a
:21:07. > :21:10.problem. I am not voting for you! There have been times when I have
:21:11. > :21:19.been frustrated by Ed Miliband. I wanted him to stand up straight and
:21:20. > :21:23.look prouder, but I am appalled by people who would never judge a
:21:24. > :21:29.person by the colour of their skin or sexuality, judges someone because
:21:30. > :21:40.he looks like he has his lips pressed up against the window. Let's
:21:41. > :21:44.make sure we judge someone on policies and not look because we
:21:45. > :21:54.might as well replace the leadership debate with a swimsuit competition.
:21:55. > :22:01.I do not want to see politicians in their swimming costumes! Can you
:22:02. > :22:07.tell me about your policies? ! House-building? Will you build more
:22:08. > :22:12.houses? What do you think of the welfare cap? Will there be one? Can
:22:13. > :22:19.you guarantee more police on the streets? I am not sure you are going
:22:20. > :22:22.for the right topics there, David. Sadly, we're still waiting for the
:22:23. > :22:26.penguins to give us a response to David's questions. But David is
:22:27. > :22:33.still with us - and we've been joined by the broadcaster Nick
:22:34. > :22:39.Ferrari. David, well done, you got here in the end. I got here through
:22:40. > :22:43.the traffic! At least you were not trying to fly into one of the
:22:44. > :22:48.airports! What about looks? Is it that much of a worry to you that
:22:49. > :22:53.people are actually being sidelined because they are not good looking
:22:54. > :22:59.enough? I think I was just shocked. People who seem very fashionable and
:23:00. > :23:06.who would never say they are not voting for that person because they
:23:07. > :23:12.are black, they would say of Ed Miliband that, because of this human
:23:13. > :23:16.platypus look, they could not imagine him at Number Ten, and
:23:17. > :23:22.therefore could not vote for him. It did not matter what his policies
:23:23. > :23:28.were. Is that the level of discourse that the television age has brought
:23:29. > :23:32.us do? Are talented politicians being put beyond where they can
:23:33. > :23:36.reach? David is blessed because he has the looks of George Clooney and
:23:37. > :23:43.has had them since the beginning of his career! I disagree with David on
:23:44. > :23:49.a couple of runs. Firstly, we select most things in life by looks.
:23:50. > :23:57.Whether it be a House, a partner of a car. The idea that people have
:23:58. > :24:02.been held back, I do not think that is strictly true. Look at the last
:24:03. > :24:08.couple of politicians who were like. The late Mo Mowlam or Ann
:24:09. > :24:19.Widdecombe. And Widdecombe was loved by the people. I think you know
:24:20. > :24:25.different people from me! And Widdecombe is complicated because
:24:26. > :24:35.there is a patronising, Leicester, kind of looked to have. I think that
:24:36. > :24:41.supports my argument. -- bless her. Look at Angela Merkel! If you have
:24:42. > :24:45.talent it will come out. It is harder to come out. It is
:24:46. > :24:48.interesting that you compare choosing a wife and a card to
:24:49. > :24:54.someone who is running the country. That is exactly my point. We should
:24:55. > :24:58.not be choosing people to run the country in the same way we choose a
:24:59. > :25:07.wife. These people will feature in our lives so much, why can they not
:25:08. > :25:11.be decent to look at? You are saying that in your ideal world, you would
:25:12. > :25:22.have better looking people running the country? Oh, yes, absolutely!
:25:23. > :25:31.Does it matter if they are good-looking? Let's Jesse... Let's
:25:32. > :25:38.make it simple and have a swimsuit competition. We do, to certain
:25:39. > :25:44.extent. There must be brains as well. If they are that good then I
:25:45. > :25:49.would point you again to Angela Merkel. It is about personality, is
:25:50. > :25:56.it not? It is about the whole package. People become more
:25:57. > :26:04.attracted to the leaders by the character they are. Angela Merkel is
:26:05. > :26:09.the mother figure. People trust, she is wrong. She has run with the looks
:26:10. > :26:20.and has understood what the image is, and presented it. You should not
:26:21. > :26:25.judge her on her looks and judge her on her policies. It is a truism that
:26:26. > :26:29.we are judging people in this television age but Ed Miliband is a
:26:30. > :26:34.perfect example. He is handicapped by the fact people do not like what
:26:35. > :26:41.he looks like. Baby they cannot look past it. If you look at the demotic
:26:42. > :26:50.type of politicians like Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan, it is
:26:51. > :26:55.true. There was charisma. Charisma is not just about looks. It is
:26:56. > :27:01.important and I am not saying we should have all openly politicians
:27:02. > :27:06.or anything like that! Some would say we already do! I think we need
:27:07. > :27:17.to listen more carefully. Let's do it like The Boys. If you like it,
:27:18. > :27:24.the policies, hit the Red Button. -- The Boys. They laughed at William
:27:25. > :27:34.Hague to some extent. They laughed at Neil Kinnock. Iain Duncan Smith,
:27:35. > :27:42.he was challenged. Is that not unfair? Was it to do with the way
:27:43. > :27:45.they looked? Not just that. You could look at all three of them and
:27:46. > :27:51.said there were glaring problems with their policies. It is not just
:27:52. > :27:57.that they needed a wig! Would Winston Churchill get elected now?
:27:58. > :28:01.Sadly, properly not. He was old, walked with a stick, he had a funny
:28:02. > :28:10.way of talking. He is not very televisual. What about Gordon Brown?
:28:11. > :28:18.He is not ugly but was seen as being quite awkward. That speaks more of
:28:19. > :28:27.charisma. Whatever you say about Tony Blair, there was a charisma. He
:28:28. > :28:32.was fairly comfortable in his own skin which is possibly a product of
:28:33. > :28:38.being good-looking. With Gordon Brown, that was not there. Both of
:28:39. > :28:44.you are quite successful. Is that because of your looks? I am on the
:28:45. > :28:50.radio! Being funny looking has been great for me! I was described once
:28:51. > :28:54.as being grotesque and it was a compliment! I took it as such! I am
:28:55. > :29:01.lucky where I can be in a career where I can make something out of my
:29:02. > :29:06.looks! I hope people hear what I have to say rather than inking I am
:29:07. > :29:13.a funny looking bloke! Thank you very much. Now it's time for our
:29:14. > :29:16.daily quiz. The question for today is... Google has published its
:29:17. > :29:20.annual list of top internet searches for the UK in 2013. So which
:29:21. > :29:25.politician has seen the biggest increase in people looking them up
:29:26. > :29:30.online? Was it a) Theresa May b) Stella Creasy c) Boris Johnson or d)
:29:31. > :29:40.Barack Obama? At the end of the show, David will give us the correct
:29:41. > :29:43.answer. Fracking, a way of extracting shale gas from the
:29:44. > :29:48.ground, is heating up as an issue once again. It did not cool down!
:29:49. > :29:52.The chief executive of Total says he hopes Britain will become a major
:29:53. > :29:55.source of his firm's shale gas production in Europe. We've learnt
:29:56. > :29:58.this morning that David Cameron has written to Brussels to protest
:29:59. > :30:01.against new EU legislation which he fears will delay the development of
:30:02. > :30:04.the industry. And the energy minister Michael Fallon says today
:30:05. > :30:15.that thousands of new jobs could be created if fracking is allowed to
:30:16. > :30:18.reach its full potential. The report shows there is far more potential
:30:19. > :30:22.for shale gas than we originally thought. There could be 30,000 jobs
:30:23. > :30:26.created in this industry. The highest scenario is that there could
:30:27. > :30:31.eat enough shale gas to satisfy three times our gas demand. So, we
:30:32. > :30:36.are sitting on a lot more shale gas than we thought. We do not yet know
:30:37. > :30:39.if we can get it out as easily as they have got it out in the United
:30:40. > :30:45.States, but it has huge potential for our economy. And we've been
:30:46. > :30:51.joined by the Lib Dem MP Tessa Munt and the Conservative Peter Lilley.
:30:52. > :30:56.Welcome to you both. First of all, what is your objection to this,
:30:57. > :31:02.after all, it is going to create thousands of jobs, Tessa Munt? My
:31:03. > :31:07.contention is that this appears to be cutting down on a completely
:31:08. > :31:14.front bases to what was done in America, where methane is clearly
:31:15. > :31:18.the unwanted by-product, methane, butane and propane, the feedstock
:31:19. > :31:22.for the petrochemical industry. You are not against it in principle? I
:31:23. > :31:27.think we have to be very careful. Does that mean you do not want it to
:31:28. > :31:31.happen at all? No, I do not think that is the case. A number of my
:31:32. > :31:36.coalition colleagues are very keen for this to happen, but I sit in a
:31:37. > :31:43.seat in Somerset, which is the Mendip Hills, surrounding it, and it
:31:44. > :31:50.is completely inappropriate. This is the basis of our business, in
:31:51. > :31:57.tourism, and we have little else that is going on. 26,000 jobs in
:31:58. > :32:02.Somerset depend on tourism. To have a landscape which is covered with
:32:03. > :32:07.oil drilling wells, effectively, gas trilling, nobody can say that will
:32:08. > :32:12.enhance the beauty of Somerset. It is not appropriate in the Mendip
:32:13. > :32:18.Hills. Where would you put it? Wherever the shale gas is. Including
:32:19. > :32:26.the Mendip Hills? Including the Mendips, if it is available. Are you
:32:27. > :32:32.against windmills on the Mendips? We have one, which is absolutely fine.
:32:33. > :32:37.These gas rigs can be easily hidden by trees and bushes. I have got a
:32:38. > :32:42.picture somewhere of a wind farm, interspersed with gas wells. They
:32:43. > :32:46.are invisible, compared with the windmills. It is not a serious
:32:47. > :32:51.problem. I agree you should do it seriously, you should be worried
:32:52. > :32:53.about visual appearance, as well as every other aspect, but it is
:32:54. > :32:59.actually marvellous technology. And it could transform, according to
:33:00. > :33:06.people like Peter, the country, in terms of gas. The US has gas imports
:33:07. > :33:12.by 50%, that would be transformational, for your
:33:13. > :33:15.constituents this is being done on a completely different premise. What
:33:16. > :33:22.we are looking at is drilling for methane. In the US, they are using
:33:23. > :33:25.the butane, methane, protein, as part of the feedstock for the
:33:26. > :33:30.petrochemical industry. We only have ten pet or chemical sites as far as
:33:31. > :33:34.I know in the UK, and methane is an unwanted by-product. They flare it
:33:35. > :33:39.off, or now they have found that they can supply that. Our area is
:33:40. > :33:46.very dependent on quality water, and we have to be very careful. Let's
:33:47. > :33:50.talk about the gas itself. Gas is three times as valuable here as it
:33:51. > :33:54.is in the States, because the price is three in the states, they use it
:33:55. > :34:01.primarily for generating electricity, as they have been
:34:02. > :34:07.phasing out coal stations. But methane is an unwanted product. No,
:34:08. > :34:12.it is hugely important. They are not allowed to flare it off, normally.
:34:13. > :34:19.You only do that until you connect up to the mains. The purpose of
:34:20. > :34:27.drilling for gas is defined gas. We are in porting those extra products
:34:28. > :34:30.now into Aberdeen. -- importing. If there is a by-product here, we will
:34:31. > :34:34.be able to produce it legally, as well as methane. Ought about the big
:34:35. > :34:40.concern about water, that when you are fracking, you could affect the
:34:41. > :34:44.water table? They have fractured 2 million wells in North America, not
:34:45. > :34:57.a single person has suffered poisoning from the water supply. We
:34:58. > :35:02.have actually done nearly 200 wells in this country. There was no fuss
:35:03. > :35:07.about it until there was concern among the extreme environmentalists
:35:08. > :35:10.that it might be terribly successful and discover lots of gas, and they
:35:11. > :35:20.do not like fossil fuels, so they have engineered every kind of fear
:35:21. > :35:26.and scaremongering. Are you scared? I am very wary. ABI am an extreme
:35:27. > :35:30.environmentalist, I do not know. I think there are quite a few extreme
:35:31. > :35:37.ones, in that case. Because it is an unknown. How long has fracking been
:35:38. > :35:45.around? Since 1949. In what quantity? Rowing quantity, over the
:35:46. > :35:49.years. I feel there are worries about the water, worries about Earth
:35:50. > :35:55.tremors, we do not really know the effects. That is true, isn't it? It
:35:56. > :36:03.is still a politically unknown quantity. It is very we had in this
:36:04. > :36:05.country a study prepared by the royal society, and it's opening
:36:06. > :36:12.words are, the health, safety and environment or risks associated with
:36:13. > :36:17.hydraulic fracturing to extract shale gas can be managed effectively
:36:18. > :36:21.in the UK... Why have France and Bulgaria bandit, then? France,
:36:22. > :36:27.because they have got blocked as of nuclear electricity, and because of
:36:28. > :36:34.the antinuclear vote. Wasn't this government meant to be the greenest
:36:35. > :36:38.government ever? Because I do not know what has happened with all of
:36:39. > :36:41.the green stuff. There are other solutions which have been massively
:36:42. > :36:46.neglected. I do not know how long fracking will keep us going. We need
:36:47. > :36:50.to look at and infrastructure and the plan, renewables which are
:36:51. > :36:53.definitely safe. There is a legitimate argument, which I share,
:36:54. > :36:58.that you should keep all fossil fuels in the ground. If you take
:36:59. > :37:04.that view, fair enough. Those people take that view, they then cannot
:37:05. > :37:06.persuade other people to go along with it, so they invent worries
:37:07. > :37:13.about earthquakes and water pollution. Why is it invented? The
:37:14. > :37:18.earthquakes are a fact. I would accept that it is shown that there
:37:19. > :37:23.are Earth tremors at various times for various reasons, and I
:37:24. > :37:27.completely accept that you might not want to get completely hysterical
:37:28. > :37:31.about earthquakes, but I cannot have faith in the Environment Agency. Its
:37:32. > :37:36.processes at the moment, its practices say that they should call
:37:37. > :37:43.ahead one week in advance, or at least 24 hours, before they
:37:44. > :37:49.inspect. At that point, anyone who is running the company in a way in
:37:50. > :37:52.which we would not want has the opportunity to close everything down
:37:53. > :37:55.and make sure everything is in order by the time the Environment Agency
:37:56. > :38:00.terms up. We need to have a completely different regime to make
:38:01. > :38:03.sure we can test whether these companies are behaving. There have
:38:04. > :38:06.been a number of incidents, you know, where things have been pretty
:38:07. > :38:10.poor on fracking. The other thing is, the fracking process which has
:38:11. > :38:14.been proposed for my area and for some other areas is different from
:38:15. > :38:19.what has been going on in this country for the last 40-50 years,
:38:20. > :38:23.and that modernisation process needs a new at how we do this. Nour party
:38:24. > :38:29.colleague said it would not contaminate water supplies. I am
:38:30. > :38:33.glad Ed Davey has said that, because we are totally dependent on the
:38:34. > :38:37.water in the Somerset levels, which is a patchwork of waterways, and we
:38:38. > :38:41.need to be absolutely certain that if anything is going to happen on
:38:42. > :38:44.the Mendips, and I do not believe it should, but if it should, then we
:38:45. > :38:45.have to make sure we have got completely rigorous testing. Thank
:38:46. > :38:53.you very much. Lemurs, lorises. Gibbons, gorillas.
:38:54. > :38:58.Chimps, capuchins. It's estimated that 3,000 rare primates are being
:38:59. > :39:02.kept as pets in homes across the UK. Now a Conservative MP has called for
:39:03. > :39:05.an end to the sale of primates, condemning it as "outdated and
:39:06. > :39:10.cruel". Mark Pritchard has introduced a ten-minute rule bill to
:39:11. > :39:14.Parliament. He has warned that "time is running out" for the world's apes
:39:15. > :39:16.and monkeys.The bill comes at a time when primates are diminishing in
:39:17. > :39:22.numbers because of climate change, deforestation, and being hunted for
:39:23. > :39:25.bush meat. A study by the International Union for Conservation
:39:26. > :39:32.of Nature has reported that 48% of primate species face extinction if
:39:33. > :39:36.no action is taken by governments. Mark Pritchard believes that the UK
:39:37. > :39:39.can help tackle the problem by reducing the number of primates
:39:40. > :39:47.being caught and sold on for exotic pets. Mark Pritchard joins us now.
:39:48. > :39:51.What are you hoping to achieve? First of all, I am glad that the
:39:52. > :39:55.DEFRA select committee are going to hold an inquiry into the keeping of
:39:56. > :40:01.primates as pets in the UK. Any people that I speak to are shocked
:40:02. > :40:04.to learn that the numbers range from 3000 to 7000. That seems to be an
:40:05. > :40:12.incredible number of people, are you surprised by that? I am surprised,
:40:13. > :40:17.yes. And this has cross-party support. I introduced a bill in the
:40:18. > :40:23.last Parliament, and my colleague from Cornwall introduced a bill last
:40:24. > :40:26.year. I think the law is outdated. Gone are the days where people
:40:27. > :40:30.needed to have a particular animal in their possession to understand
:40:31. > :40:35.nature. We have great BBC programmes, we have online, people
:40:36. > :40:41.travel more. And this is an outdated practice, and I hope what the
:40:42. > :40:45.Government -- and I hope the Government will support this. Do you
:40:46. > :40:51.want to ban the sale of the primates or the ownership, or both of which
:40:52. > :40:55.there are about 32,000 plus primates being sold into the international
:40:56. > :41:00.pet market. These are wild primates, the fathers of the forest. The
:41:01. > :41:05.Government says it supports I/O diversity and the ecosystem, and one
:41:06. > :41:08.way of protecting the forests, just one way, is protecting primates,
:41:09. > :41:17.because when they are taken out of the wild, that actually does not
:41:18. > :41:21.help the ecosystem. I would like to CNN and to the sale of primates, and
:41:22. > :41:25.also the keeping of primates. We would have a sunset clause so that
:41:26. > :41:28.people who currently have them, either they could put them into
:41:29. > :41:33.sanctuaries, or eventually, when the primates dies, that would be the end
:41:34. > :41:39.of them keeping primates. I have to say, primates do live a long time.
:41:40. > :41:46.Many people that take them on, whether they are movie stars or
:41:47. > :41:52.singers, they can live 35-45 years. On 24th of December two years ago,
:41:53. > :42:00.Tarzana's chimpanzee, Cheater, died at the age of 80. Not wanting to be
:42:01. > :42:05.too cynical, but with climate change and deforestation, your ten minute
:42:06. > :42:11.rule bill is hardly going to change the world, is it? Many people accuse
:42:12. > :42:15.the coalition government of not being animal welfare friendly. I
:42:16. > :42:20.disagree with that, but I do think there needs to be more evidence that
:42:21. > :42:25.they are animal welfare friendly. There are ministers who were not
:42:26. > :42:30.ministers in the past who backed my bill in the last element. We have
:42:31. > :42:35.got shadow ministers supporting, we have got ministers openly and
:42:36. > :42:40.secretly supporting a ban. Would it be popular, would it win your vote?
:42:41. > :42:44.I am not saying it is the major issue, people are not going, it is
:42:45. > :42:49.the primates, stupid, but yes, credit to you for doing it just I am
:42:50. > :42:55.not going to try to strike some leftie blows about, why can't you
:42:56. > :42:58.have more care for the poor and the disabled to being these things do
:42:59. > :43:01.matter as well. But whether it is going to be a vote winner or not
:43:02. > :43:06.does not matter. It seems the right thing to do. Exactly, it is not
:43:07. > :43:13.about winning votes, it is about doing the right thing by the planet,
:43:14. > :43:21.by the animal kingdom, by Cindy at beings like ourselves. -- by CIA
:43:22. > :43:31.beings like ourselves. -- sentient beings. Justin Bieber had a monkey,
:43:32. > :43:35.didn't he? In role model terms, young people might think, it is
:43:36. > :43:42.fine. Monkeys, primates, they need to be in their own environment. They
:43:43. > :43:46.often live in groups of up to 50. But many of these pets are kept
:43:47. > :43:53.alone, in solitary conditions, often very small cages. In the wild, you
:43:54. > :43:57.can roam across 130 hectares. Diet, sunlight, a whole range of issues
:43:58. > :44:01.affecting the welfare of primates being kept in this country. That is
:44:02. > :44:06.why we need to end keeping primates as pets.
:44:07. > :44:11.Around one in six Brits is a pensioner. But do politicians pay
:44:12. > :44:14.them enough attention? Our next guest thinks not - and is proposing
:44:15. > :44:24.a new forum to get their views across. Here's Conservative MP Peter
:44:25. > :44:30.Bottomley. As a schoolboy, I listened from the public gallery.
:44:31. > :44:36.Now at 69, I listened in the chamber. Some people might think my
:44:37. > :44:41.generation could be pensioned off. I think the mature, the experienced,
:44:42. > :44:47.should be heard more clearly. The Government would do well to listen.
:44:48. > :44:52.Mr Speaker, at the moment, the tuition fees system benefits either
:44:53. > :44:54.the extremely rich... Youth Parliament has represented
:44:55. > :45:00.youngsters for over ten years. Youngsters between 11 and 18 have a
:45:01. > :45:05.chance to vote. They have shaped public debate about issues of
:45:06. > :45:08.importance to young people. They come here to Parliament each year.
:45:09. > :45:15.Let's create something similar for older members of our society. Some
:45:16. > :45:20.pensioners only see Parliament on a tour. I think their views matter,
:45:21. > :45:23.and the government could hear them more clearly if they were in the
:45:24. > :45:31.chamber, but in their points of view across. The government would gain,
:45:32. > :45:37.the country would gain. A Parliament was launched for pensioners in 2011
:45:38. > :45:42.in Northern Ireland. Mr Speaker, I note the concerns and comments
:45:43. > :45:46.expressed by members of the Parliament for pensioners and I
:45:47. > :45:52.welcome the debate. It is time the government took into account the
:45:53. > :46:03.views of pensioners. We want a Parliament for pensioners. When do
:46:04. > :46:07.we want it? Now. Because you asked nicely, I am sure they will listen
:46:08. > :46:13.to you. Do we really need it? They are very well represented. They are
:46:14. > :46:16.more likely to vote than other sections of the population. As you
:46:17. > :46:24.know, the information suggests they are doing well in terms of their
:46:25. > :46:30.income versus GDP. Members of Parliament must represent all their
:46:31. > :46:39.constituents. You can argue, yes, you are right. What harm will it do
:46:40. > :46:42.if we gave up Parliament for one day of the year? Let's see what impact
:46:43. > :46:48.that will have. They could raise issues that matter such as elderly
:46:49. > :46:55.people who are claiming for their grandchildren. When the family
:46:56. > :47:01.break-up, do the grandparents keep access to their grandchildren? Half
:47:02. > :47:08.of elderly people overseas cannot vote. There are a whole series of
:47:09. > :47:15.issues that could be raised and put on the public agenda by a Parliament
:47:16. > :47:22.for pensioners. Are those issues not being dealt with already? Because
:47:23. > :47:27.pensioners are already active themselves, we hear about these
:47:28. > :47:33.issues quite a lot of the time. It is the other end of the scale, the
:47:34. > :47:36.youth Parliament, the young people who cannot vote, they are the ones
:47:37. > :47:43.who are struggling to get their issues across. Most people of some
:47:44. > :47:49.maturity would be concerned for the young. People of my age are asking
:47:50. > :47:57.how we can bring things into the open and avoid the mistakes we made.
:47:58. > :48:04.How do you avoid a third of teenagers taking up smoking, for
:48:05. > :48:09.example? One concrete example is the exploitation of leaseholders and
:48:10. > :48:14.that was raised. If it was raised in the Parliament for pensioners, the
:48:15. > :48:19.Ministry of Justice would take it up and you would not have elderly
:48:20. > :48:29.people being exploited in the open. Do you think it a good idea? Why
:48:30. > :48:33.would I say no! In the youth Parliament, both sides were
:48:34. > :48:40.applauding the Speaker! It seemed like a strange dream! I have to
:48:41. > :48:45.agree. We are all in this together apart from those who are older than
:48:46. > :48:51.67 or whatever it is. Everything is fine until we talk about making
:48:52. > :48:57.cut. I think pensioners are looked up to because they vote. Sorry,
:48:58. > :49:02.Peter, one last point. You look at the Youth Parliament and it seems
:49:03. > :49:09.that they are still being ignored. The danger is that the Parliament
:49:10. > :49:16.for pensioners would be as ignored. I suspect that if we had a joint
:49:17. > :49:22.session of the youth and pensioners Parliament you would find the same
:49:23. > :49:29.thing. You may get some mature, experienced comedians who come onto
:49:30. > :49:32.give us an entertainment. Would it achieve anything? Would it be a
:49:33. > :49:39.symbolic gesture and a bit of theatre, but that is it? As we give
:49:40. > :49:45.more people the boat, we discover that the pension system is a good
:49:46. > :49:57.idea. As we gave more people the boat we discovered that people like
:49:58. > :50:02.me could go to university. -- vote. Taking one person's experience,
:50:03. > :50:10.having it expressed, I think people will be ignored less often. If you
:50:11. > :50:18.take the people who run voluntary organisations, for them, for their
:50:19. > :50:28.children who may be critically ill, we play our part, not because I want
:50:29. > :50:37.to be regarded as a pensioner! Is it really necessary? Today, with the
:50:38. > :50:41.economic situation, there may not be a great wave of support for it. The
:50:42. > :50:51.Institute for Fiscal Studies has said the gap is even more striking
:50:52. > :51:00.than 20 years ago. The gap is very large. We have got their, not for
:51:01. > :51:04.pensioners, but in a way, they have achieved so much without a
:51:05. > :51:16.Parliament for pensioners. Many have, yes. I know a woman who cared
:51:17. > :51:22.for her dying child and had not had a boiler working for two years. She
:51:23. > :51:28.did not have benefits, and I reckon it is the job for people like me or
:51:29. > :51:33.a Parliament for pensioners to ask how do you fix this? I would say, on
:51:34. > :51:39.average, pensioners are better off than they were. I would say students
:51:40. > :51:44.often spend more money on beer than they spend on food each week! That
:51:45. > :51:48.individual case is obviously important and all politicians should
:51:49. > :52:03.look out for cases like this. I suspect that our focus groups for
:52:04. > :52:08.the parties. In that case, why not get people from charities, people
:52:09. > :52:13.from work, people who are carers? I think they could come along and they
:52:14. > :52:23.would be immensely impressed. How would they be elected? I would have
:52:24. > :52:30.people like you. There may be a retired forecaster! Many, many
:52:31. > :52:34.years' time! Now, the actor Peter O'Toole died at the weekend, and
:52:35. > :52:37.he'll perhaps best be remembered for the part that catapulted him to
:52:38. > :52:38.fame, as the lead in the Oscar-winning epic Lawrence of
:52:39. > :52:54.Arabia. Let's have a look. CHEERING
:52:55. > :53:12.No criminals! No criminals! Peter O'Toole in the 1962 classic
:53:13. > :53:16.Lawrence of Arabia. The Prime Minister was among those paying
:53:17. > :53:19.tribute to the actor at the weekend, and he reminded us that Lawrence of
:53:20. > :53:23.Arabia is his favourite film. It's pretty common now to ask politicians
:53:24. > :53:27.for their favourite movie - but what if anything does it really tell us
:53:28. > :53:34.about them? We're joined now by Dan Hodges from the Telegraph who's been
:53:35. > :53:40.writing about this. What did it tell you? Lawrence of Arabia is David
:53:41. > :53:43.Cameron's favoured. It tells us that political leaders have good taste in
:53:44. > :53:54.films. I thought he would go for a more political choice. I was
:53:55. > :54:00.sceptical. If you look at it, it is a deep, classic film. Certainly.
:54:01. > :54:16.Were you surprised? It takes a few boxes. -- takes a few boxes. It is
:54:17. > :54:23.complex. Everyone liked Lawrence of Arabia, did they not? It was quite
:54:24. > :54:36.controversial when it came out. What about Ed Miliband? We discussed this
:54:37. > :54:45.in the office. 12, Angry Men was his favourite but he has changed it to
:54:46. > :54:53.the Usual Suspects. That is an unusual choice. Those are two great
:54:54. > :55:05.films. I think the thing is that it is hard to get the truth as of
:55:06. > :55:16.leaders. You hear on Desert Island Disks when they are thinking whether
:55:17. > :55:26.they should like Coldplay. I was surprised by Usual Suspects. I can
:55:27. > :55:36.see this image of him sitting there thinking about Ed Balls. Why could
:55:37. > :55:44.he not have the Usual Suspects? Is he not trendy enough to pick a film
:55:45. > :55:57.like that? Ed Balls, not trendy? ! You are not being fair. When I was a
:55:58. > :56:04.child, my favourite film was dumbo, but now it is not! You progress. It
:56:05. > :56:19.does not change your view about the leader, does it? What about Nick
:56:20. > :56:27.Clegg? He went for Kung-Fu Panda. Kung-Fu Panda? ! Do you think he
:56:28. > :56:42.sees himself as a Kung-Fu Panda? He said he is a big fan. He did say he
:56:43. > :56:49.liked The Class. Have you seen it? I have not seen it. You are dammed if
:56:50. > :56:55.you do and dammed if you don't when it comes to these choices. Favourite
:56:56. > :56:58.songs, favourite films. Whatever you say, it is going to be over
:56:59. > :57:03.analysed. When I worked as a researcher, we spent hours thinking
:57:04. > :57:11.about our favourite films and favourite books. I was shocked to
:57:12. > :57:17.learn that Tony Blair's favoured film is Rush Hour starring Jackie
:57:18. > :57:24.Chan. I think that is quite refreshing. We asked Nigel Farage.
:57:25. > :57:31.Have a go at what you think is his favourite film. I would not want to
:57:32. > :57:41.go there! I thought maybe the Great Escape. But it is not. It is The
:57:42. > :57:46.Longest Day. Are you surprised? Do you think he watches it in reverse?
:57:47. > :57:56.It is about with drawing from Europe! You could put that to him,
:57:57. > :58:03.could you not? That doesn't fit Nigel Farage. Favourite film? I like
:58:04. > :58:13.Galaxy Quest. That is my favourite comedy. I also like Downfall. What
:58:14. > :58:21.about you? Casablanca. Casablanca, very good. There's just time before
:58:22. > :58:25.we go to find out the answer to our quiz. The question was... Which
:58:26. > :58:28.politician has seen the biggest increase in the number of people
:58:29. > :58:31.searching for them in 2013, according to Google? Was it a)
:58:32. > :58:40.Theresa May b) Stella Creasy c) Boris Johnson or d) Barack Obama? So
:58:41. > :58:44.David, what's the correct answer? I think it is Stella Creasy because
:58:45. > :58:48.she has become much more prominent. Stella Creasy is not right. A good
:58:49. > :58:51.guess. Boris is the top trending politician. May is at five and
:58:52. > :58:55.Stella at eight. That's all for today. Thanks to David Schneider and
:58:56. > :58:59.all my guests. Andrew and I will be back at 11.30 tomorrow for the last
:59:00. > :59:03.Daily Politics of 2013 and of course we'll have Prime Minister's
:59:04. > :59:05.Questions live from midday. Do join us if you can. Bye bye.