:00:35. > :00:41.The American pharmaceuticals giant Pfizer has begun defending
:00:42. > :00:43.its attempted takeover of Britain's AstraZeneca,
:00:44. > :00:47.Scientists and unions have warned that
:00:48. > :00:54.the move could lead to cuts in jobs, and a loss of UK research skills.
:00:55. > :00:57.Heathrow and Gatwick want another runway, but which airport will win?
:00:58. > :01:06.The bosses of both will be fighting it out in the studio.
:01:07. > :01:13.Would you want this man to troubleshoot your business?
:01:14. > :01:16.And, apparently, MPs don't like being seen at the opera.
:01:17. > :01:20.So we thought we'd bring the opera to MPs.
:01:21. > :01:26.And with us for the whole programme today is the
:01:27. > :01:31.Digby served in Gordon Brown's government,
:01:32. > :01:47.He is stuck in traffic but should be with us soon.
:01:48. > :01:57.Martin Boon is with us, with a headline grabbing pole.
:01:58. > :02:02.The rarest of things, as you say, March 2012 is the last time we saw a
:02:03. > :02:08.small Conservative lead. Labour have been in charge in terms of the polls
:02:09. > :02:16.since then. It suddenly feels like a little something is beginning to
:02:17. > :02:21.happen. Lord Ashcroft had his own poll which reinforced what we had to
:02:22. > :02:28.say, a two points Conservative lead.
:02:29. > :02:32.The Lib Dems are even further down. You say this could be the start. We
:02:33. > :02:38.have seen a pattern of the Labour lead being cut to five percentage
:02:39. > :02:42.points over the last seven months. Is this really the start of
:02:43. > :02:52.something? It could be. We clearly are in a
:02:53. > :02:57.period of political flux. European elections next week. This is a
:02:58. > :03:01.relatively unusual couple of weeks in British politics where we have a
:03:02. > :03:06.new party emerging strongly, potentially winning those European
:03:07. > :03:10.elections, dominating the media narrative. People are focusing on
:03:11. > :03:17.what they can see, Nigel Farage and UKIP. That may be reversed after the
:03:18. > :03:21.elections. But some are thinking a Conservative lead has been a long
:03:22. > :03:28.time coming. Conservatives have been wondering
:03:29. > :03:32.why, in their minds, the effect of improving economic news had not been
:03:33. > :03:36.shown in the polls. Is this the start of that?
:03:37. > :03:44.I have been saying, wrongly, as it turns out! The conditions are
:03:45. > :03:48.therefore a Conservative lead. We have economic optimism. We have
:03:49. > :03:53.David Cameron and George Osborne seeming competent than their Labour
:03:54. > :03:59.counterparts in managing the economy. Positive approval ratings
:04:00. > :04:05.for both those leading conservative politicians, not the case for Ed
:04:06. > :04:10.Miliband and Ed Balls. And good news emerging. Conditions are therefore
:04:11. > :04:15.the Conservatives to grab the polling lead, to build on it and
:04:16. > :04:22.build the kind of numbers you might expect to see with those conditions.
:04:23. > :04:27.All the talk will be whether there is panic at Labour HQ. Let us hear
:04:28. > :04:32.Ed Miliband when he was asked about the polls.
:04:33. > :04:36.Polls go up and down. That is always what you say when you wear down. I
:04:37. > :04:37.have seen that in three and a half years in this job.
:04:38. > :04:44.have seen that in three and a half What matters is the bread and butter
:04:45. > :04:49.issues, energy prices, childcare, NHS, improving GP access, something
:04:50. > :04:53.which Labour is leading the other parties on. We will focus on those
:04:54. > :05:01.questions. The people will make the decisions. Putting a brave face on
:05:02. > :05:09.it, he has too. No doubt, psychologically, this will be a
:05:10. > :05:14.boost for Tory MPs. Let us look at the reliability of the polls.
:05:15. > :05:19.Michael Ashcroft's poll also had a two point lead for the
:05:20. > :05:25.Conservatives, how reliable is that? They are standard classic opinion
:05:26. > :05:34.polls. They were both conducted by telephone which dishes nearly have
:05:35. > :05:39.excellent records. So there is that. Every opinion poll, Ed
:05:40. > :05:45.Miliband is right, there are ups and downs. But they are correct
:05:46. > :05:49.generally two plus or -3%. It is fair to say the parties are running
:05:50. > :05:56.neck and neck. Was about the polls showing the
:05:57. > :05:58.Tories are narrowly first in the European elections bearing in mind
:05:59. > :06:02.most of those polls have put the Tories in third place behind Labour
:06:03. > :06:08.and UKIP? How reliable would that be? I will
:06:09. > :06:13.be the rarest of beasts, a pollster who will not stand. Behind an
:06:14. > :06:20.opinion poll. I am cautious about that. And it comes to European
:06:21. > :06:25.elections, we expect a turnout of 30% which means we are taking out a
:06:26. > :06:32.chunk of our poll sample for a start. When we have fewer numbers to
:06:33. > :06:38.play with, we have wider margins of error so there will be some flux in
:06:39. > :06:44.terms of the shares of the vote. The Tories in the lead in the European
:06:45. > :06:55.elections? Possibly. Possibly not stop briefly, the marginals are
:06:56. > :07:00.where the big battles. I would be interested to see which
:07:01. > :07:07.particular marginals have been polled or whether it is one pole
:07:08. > :07:12.across specific types of marginal areas. Those are confiscated polls
:07:13. > :07:18.to undertake. The devil is in the detail. We need more evidence.
:07:19. > :07:32.Who are these MPs, and who are they pretending to be?
:07:33. > :07:36.At the end of the show, Digby will give us the correct answer.
:07:37. > :07:39.The head of the American drugs company Pfizer faces
:07:40. > :07:42.tough questioning by MPs over the next two days,
:07:43. > :07:46.about the proposed purchase of its British rival, AstraZeneca.
:07:47. > :07:52.before the Business Committee this morning,
:07:53. > :07:55.and he'll appear in front of the Science Committee tomorrow.
:07:56. > :07:58.The MPs want to test Pfizer's claims that it's committed to safeguarding
:07:59. > :08:06.Let's get a flavour of this morning's events.
:08:07. > :08:18.Combined budget of AstraZeneca and Pfizer would not be reduced as a
:08:19. > :08:24.result of this taking over? I mean in this country. Can you just
:08:25. > :08:29.clarify? Yes, our commitment is to 20% of our global RND numbers
:08:30. > :08:37.worldwide would be in the UK. So you're not making that commitment?
:08:38. > :08:40.20% of the headcount of Pfizer in the UK. The Swedish experience is
:08:41. > :08:47.rather concerning and you can understand why people feel this.
:08:48. > :08:54.When the Prime Minister of Sweden said that, following the purchase
:08:55. > :08:58.there, they have had a negative experience, there were promises it
:08:59. > :09:02.would mean jobs and operations in Sweden that we don't think were
:09:03. > :09:07.honoured, it makes us feel great concern for jobs and resources for
:09:08. > :09:14.research. Does that bother you? Let me... No, answer my question is not
:09:15. > :09:19.your question. Does that bother you was my question? I am worried the
:09:20. > :09:28.facts are incorrect. That the Prime Minister is wrong? This is about
:09:29. > :09:37.limiting your tax to give to any government in the business model of
:09:38. > :09:40.your company. 80,000 people. It has produced innumerable numbers of
:09:41. > :09:48.great projects. Our purpose is to bring life changing products... Let
:09:49. > :09:51.me finish. Two patients. The way we will do that is by putting together
:09:52. > :09:58.the pipelines and scientists, being more efficient and gaining tax
:09:59. > :10:08.advantages. What are the drawbacks? Exactly what I was getting at. The
:10:09. > :10:12.disruption. What will we tell the person whose father died from lung
:10:13. > :10:19.cancer, because one of our medicines was delayed because, in the
:10:20. > :10:29.meantime, our two companies were involved in selling costs? Would
:10:30. > :10:40.your attitude change if there was a longer time frame?
:10:41. > :10:45.We have a 20, 30, 50 year commitment to this country.
:10:46. > :10:48.With us now is former Chancellor and now Conservative peer Nigel Lawson.
:10:49. > :10:50.And Labour's Shadow Minister For Industry, Iain Wright.
:10:51. > :11:00.I am pleased to say Digby Jones has made it.
:11:01. > :11:05.Were you reassured by what you heard? No, I wasn't, there was an
:11:06. > :11:11.admission that research and government spending could go down.
:11:12. > :11:14.What is the central element regarding British industrial
:11:15. > :11:18.competitiveness? We are very strong in science and research and we have
:11:19. > :11:23.to maintain that as a means of paying our way in the world. We
:11:24. > :11:27.didn't get those reassurances. Pfizer said its commitment to
:11:28. > :11:36.preserve UK site jobs are legally binding. They said that and promised
:11:37. > :11:40.to complete an AstraZeneca research Centre in Cambridge, and place 20%
:11:41. > :11:46.of research staff in the UK. Do you not believe them?
:11:47. > :11:53.Subject to circumstances, was the phrase used, the get out of jail
:11:54. > :11:59.card. That is not defined. They have previous on this. They have a
:12:00. > :12:02.business model that often produces acquisitions and has cost cutting at
:12:03. > :12:11.the expense of research and treatment. Digby Jones, it is their
:12:12. > :12:14.history of being asset strippers which has made people nervous at a
:12:15. > :12:19.time when Britain is very proud of its research and advancement.
:12:20. > :12:25.I can see why people are nervous. AstraZeneca, a lot of their research
:12:26. > :12:30.and investment is in Bangalore, and in the States. It is the product of
:12:31. > :12:37.a transnational merger acquisition. ICI bought a Swedish company. It is
:12:38. > :12:40.easy to polarise this. We should elevate the debate into saying the
:12:41. > :12:40.best way to keep research and develop
:12:41. > :12:44.elevate the debate into saying the best way to keep research and meant
:12:45. > :12:48.and highly skilled jobs is an education system that works, and
:12:49. > :12:51.produce people for business. A transport system which gives us a
:12:52. > :12:57.runway at Heathrow. A competitive tax regime. Then there wouldn't be
:12:58. > :13:01.any argument about legal obligations. It would be so good
:13:02. > :13:07.here they would not want to leave. What we should be doing as
:13:08. > :13:11.politicians, you should be saying to the American government, not Pfizer,
:13:12. > :13:16.could AstraZeneca do this in America? The answer is, no, they are
:13:17. > :13:29.a protectionist country. You should be saying, they are very welcome.
:13:30. > :13:34.It seems, Nigel Lawson, the whole of British science is against this
:13:35. > :13:42.takeover, despite the investment it would bring, according to Pfizer.
:13:43. > :13:50.The award against this takeover as it currently stands.
:13:51. > :13:55.Look, in my experience, they are almost invariably wrong. Whether
:13:56. > :14:00.they are or not, I don't know. I am completely neutral. I am concerned
:14:01. > :14:06.whether the British government should block this. I don't think it
:14:07. > :14:09.is in our interest that they do. I think it is in our fundamental
:14:10. > :14:17.interest we are an open country, open for business, welcoming inward
:14:18. > :14:22.investment. Pfizer are a perfectly respectable company, not crooks. I
:14:23. > :14:28.welcome the fact that assurances are sought. But at the end of the day,
:14:29. > :14:30.it is not in our interest the government should step in and block
:14:31. > :14:35.this bid. With Labour block this if they were
:14:36. > :14:42.in a position to do so? Can I respond by saying I agree with
:14:43. > :14:45.having an open economy. In my own region, Nissan has been a massive
:14:46. > :14:53.success. What the Shadow Business Secretary has done is said, why
:14:54. > :14:58.don't we extend as is legal and reasonable the enterprise act to
:14:59. > :15:02.ensure we have an additional category beyond media plurality to
:15:03. > :15:07.ensure the maintenance of the science and development base. That
:15:08. > :15:22.will help us pay our way in the future.
:15:23. > :15:28.want to get cast iron assurances. , you would say no at the moment, but
:15:29. > :15:36.if you had the so-called cast iron agreements, you would go ahead. At
:15:37. > :15:44.the moment I am worried this would not be in our interest. When the
:15:45. > :15:51.enterprise act was in an enterprise Bill, in the CBI we campaigned
:15:52. > :15:55.hugely to say to Gordon Brown and Patricia Hewitt, please let the
:15:56. > :16:02.maintenance of our RND science bases be one of the tests. I would have
:16:03. > :16:08.that as one of the tests, but that does not mean I have got the bid.
:16:09. > :16:12.Even if Pfizer failed a strengthened public interest test, could the
:16:13. > :16:19.Government blocked this? If the shareholders said it was a good
:16:20. > :16:26.deal? In legal terms, they could, it is in the statute. But that is not
:16:27. > :16:32.the point. But with respect to you, some are in agreement. That is
:16:33. > :16:38.posturing. No, it is not. In a global economy you cannot say,
:16:39. > :16:44.AstraZeneca do it in Britain because they do it everywhere. Both of them
:16:45. > :16:47.joined together are doing more in India than they are doing in America
:16:48. > :16:53.or Britain. You cannot distil it down to yes or no. You have to say
:16:54. > :16:59.where does this work to create wealth and be attractive for other
:17:00. > :17:03.investors. ? You do not want a storm on television about why we suddenly
:17:04. > :17:10.do not like inward investment. You do not want that. What reassurances
:17:11. > :17:13.would you want? I would go to Congress in Washington and say,
:17:14. > :17:19.would you let this happen in America. They will say no. Then we
:17:20. > :17:24.should say why should an American company do it anywhere else in the
:17:25. > :17:28.world? What about the issue of the taxpayer. It would reduce the amount
:17:29. > :17:37.they would have to pay in tax. That is seen as a cynical reason for the
:17:38. > :17:42.takeover. It was designed deliberately by the present
:17:43. > :17:47.Government to be friendly to business and to encourage enterprise
:17:48. > :17:52.and that includes companies from other countries which have a higher
:17:53. > :17:59.tax rate tend to come here. Although that is a consideration, there is no
:18:00. > :18:09.way Pfizer would want to take over AstraZeneca just for the tax. Why do
:18:10. > :18:15.you disagree? It is going down from 38% to 21%. It is a big drop. The
:18:16. > :18:20.shift in Pfizer's argument seems to have changed. It was about
:18:21. > :18:25.repatriation of tax to the US. This was a tax deal rather than becoming
:18:26. > :18:32.a science powerhouse. It seems to be because of tax reasons. When the
:18:33. > :18:38.board at Pfizer was sitting there deciding, do we go for this? The
:18:39. > :18:42.finance director would have said, there is a nice tax regime and
:18:43. > :18:48.Britain is attractive. But you do not at that level make decisions
:18:49. > :18:55.like this just for tax. It helps gild the decision. You are stepping
:18:56. > :18:59.up the card against the company on the basis of tax and whether it will
:19:00. > :19:05.be committed to keeping Britain as a research and development Centre and
:19:06. > :19:10.jobs, but do you see it looks as if there is a block to this bid coming
:19:11. > :19:13.in? The wriggle room has circumstances changing and the
:19:14. > :19:17.wording of the letter is too vague. The commitment of five years, given
:19:18. > :19:27.the life sciences sector, is too short. We are thinking about the
:19:28. > :19:31.next 15 or 20 years. AstraZeneca, unlike Glaxo Smith Kline which is
:19:32. > :19:37.bigger and British, and Pfizer at the top, where you are onto
:19:38. > :19:42.something is AstraZeneca's pipe line of patented discovery, which is not
:19:43. > :19:49.going to go generic to anybody, that pipeline is very small. You need to
:19:50. > :19:52.have ten or 15 years out and it is diminishing by the day. To have a
:19:53. > :19:59.longer term commitment to research and development needs more time. Do
:20:00. > :20:05.you think it will go ahead? There is a general expectation that Pfizer
:20:06. > :20:10.are going to make a bid, which technically they have not yet done.
:20:11. > :20:17.That bid will be something higher than the price they indicated
:20:18. > :20:30.originally. Then each company will be making its own pitch. And of
:20:31. > :20:35.course there is the scrutiny, which is quite right, I am in favour of
:20:36. > :20:42.that and the Government will get undertakings. But let me add one
:20:43. > :20:47.thing, I am neutral, but I do not believe it is in our interests to
:20:48. > :20:50.block this bid. As far as Pfizer is concerned they know it is not in
:20:51. > :20:57.their long-term interest to alienate the British Government. Will they
:20:58. > :21:07.really care about that in the future? Why is it not in their
:21:08. > :21:11.interest? Because it is in our interests to make it clear that we
:21:12. > :21:19.are an open economy and we welcome inward investment. That looked at
:21:20. > :21:24.Kraft's takeover of Cadbury. There are always arguments on both sides,
:21:25. > :21:33.but overwhelmingly we are benefiting from inward investment. Kraft's
:21:34. > :21:38.takeover of Cadbury went down badly. It went down badly and basically
:21:39. > :21:46.they were never going to do what they said. That is not the point.
:21:47. > :21:50.Kraft's and Cadbury make a commodity. AstraZeneca and Pfizer
:21:51. > :21:53.need a very strong university-based to help with research and
:21:54. > :21:58.development and the second strongest university based in the world is in
:21:59. > :22:02.this country. If you put a sign up saying, we don't like other
:22:03. > :22:09.countries coming in, look at Jaguar Land Rover, Indian money, the
:22:10. > :22:17.biggest market China. Welcome to globalisation. Nissan, welcome to
:22:18. > :22:20.globalisation. Very briefly, you are reported as saying you would like
:22:21. > :22:27.the top rate of tax to come down to 40p. Would you like that in the
:22:28. > :22:28.manifesto? They do not need it in their manifesto, they will do it
:22:29. > :22:31.when the time is right. He's been the head of the CBI. He's
:22:32. > :22:35.been a government minister. He's in the House of Lords. And now it looks
:22:36. > :22:40.like Digby Jones is after my job as a top broadcaster! He's just
:22:41. > :22:43.finished a series of programmes for BBC2 where he visits businesses
:22:44. > :22:46.and solves their problems. But does the Digby dust really rub off?
:22:47. > :23:03.Adam's been to a firm that starred Tonight, Digby Jones tries to help
:23:04. > :23:10.one company take a radical change in direction. They made dehumidifiers
:23:11. > :23:13.in County Durham and spent ?1 million by a chest freezer firm in
:23:14. > :23:14.Scotland and were moving it down south,
:23:15. > :23:18.million by a chest freezer firm in Scotland and were moving it down but
:23:19. > :23:21.it did not end well. They planned to be making freezers by Christmas, but
:23:22. > :23:30.they missed that deadline and the next, much to his disappointment.
:23:31. > :23:32.You promised me. The boss was the one on the receiving end. I went to
:23:33. > :23:39.meet her this week. one on the receiving end. I went
:23:40. > :23:44.What is it do you like about him coming in? Most of it happened in
:23:45. > :23:50.such a world you do not know what is going on at the time. We always used
:23:51. > :23:55.to have a debrief at the end of the filming. The place looks pretty
:23:56. > :24:04.shipshape, full of gadgets and robots, but... They are not doing
:24:05. > :24:08.anything. No, we are about a few weeks away from being able to hit
:24:09. > :24:16.the button and this process being able to join up and work. What would
:24:17. > :24:21.he say if he was here today? He knows where we are on the dates and
:24:22. > :24:24.the one thing he really did admire is we took the decision to make the
:24:25. > :24:34.right decision for the business and not to get into the documentary.
:24:35. > :24:38.Digby taught her the importance of marketing and leadership, but you
:24:39. > :24:44.read that moment was a visit to the Nissan plant in Sunderland. It was a
:24:45. > :24:49.light bulb moment for me where they are making half a million cars and
:24:50. > :24:54.you think it looks amazing. But in a few years time we could be making
:24:55. > :24:59.half a million appliances across these factories, so we have to plan
:25:00. > :25:03.for the future and the big scale. But there is one thing in particular
:25:04. > :25:10.that made it all worth it. The response we had from the British
:25:11. > :25:13.public that really want to see you succeed and value manufacturing
:25:14. > :25:19.jobs. Maybe that is an older generation, they remember when we
:25:20. > :25:23.used to make things. But even the youth of today, we get students on
:25:24. > :25:29.placement and they thought places like this did not exist any more.
:25:30. > :25:33.And his lordship is not the only one who has been helping out. They have
:25:34. > :25:37.received cash from the regional growth fund which they are using to
:25:38. > :25:43.develop the only made in Britain washing machines.
:25:44. > :25:51.Digby Jones is still here as is Iain Wright. How long do you spend
:25:52. > :25:55.generally with a company? For an hour's programme you do ten days.
:25:56. > :26:04.That is the filming. Behind that is the research, the chatting and all
:26:05. > :26:09.of that all to distil down. What my vision was, and the BBC approached
:26:10. > :26:14.me, I had said we have a generation of kids coming out of school who
:26:15. > :26:19.think business is about a rich man getting out of a Rose Royce. It is
:26:20. > :26:25.about somebody selling in a kitchen with a trainee cook and screaming
:26:26. > :26:28.the F word. The average businesswoman and businessman in
:26:29. > :26:34.this country do not identify with that at all. I said if you want me,
:26:35. > :26:39.you are not going to get reality television. She said she was not
:26:40. > :26:47.going to switch the on button to give a happy ending. She said, I am
:26:48. > :26:52.not going to produce a freezer for you because it is the end of the
:26:53. > :26:58.series. Yes, we missed our date and these are the reasons and we do
:26:59. > :27:03.something about it. Are you confident about that business? Of
:27:04. > :27:10.the three, I think the middle one will always exist, it is a question
:27:11. > :27:14.of whether it will fulfil its potential. This one are so utterly
:27:15. > :27:24.part of their community in the North East, I think they will succeed. I
:27:25. > :27:30.was privileged. I was so lucky to work with this great organisation
:27:31. > :27:35.called the Beeb and at the same time working with wealth creation and job
:27:36. > :27:39.creation in the country. I have a more confident generally? If you
:27:40. > :27:43.look at the current economic indicators, Labour look at it
:27:44. > :27:48.differently, but do you think the businesses you talk to are feeling
:27:49. > :27:53.more optimistic than they were? I hate to say to an opposition, it
:27:54. > :28:00.doesn't matter which side it is, it is very difficult to start picking
:28:01. > :28:05.holes in a sustainable recovery. I dare holes in this recovery? Loo-mac
:28:06. > :28:09.I am not going to criticise backing British business and this is
:28:10. > :28:15.fantastic and for too long there has been petty party politics. But my
:28:16. > :28:20.constituents and others around the country do not feel the effects of
:28:21. > :28:25.recovery. I do not feel it in my wage packet. I feel like I am
:28:26. > :28:31.struggling week in, week out. We have to make sure we have a real,
:28:32. > :28:33.sustainable recovery and that means emphasising the importance of
:28:34. > :28:39.manufacturing and real wealth creation that is not at the very top
:28:40. > :28:45.but has to go all the way through. Do you accept that? I do not think
:28:46. > :28:49.there is a disconnect between the wealth creation and its
:28:50. > :28:56.constituents, I think it is between the metropolitan elite of South East
:28:57. > :28:59.England and they constituents. Which it is becoming. It is like an
:29:00. > :29:07.Italian citystate of the 14th century. That has a property bubble
:29:08. > :29:12.aspect to it. But your constituents and the guys I advised around the
:29:13. > :29:15.Midlands believe me do not see a house price bubble in this. They
:29:16. > :29:21.need to feel their jobs are safe and they are better off because of this
:29:22. > :29:27.constant increase in the wealth creating, tax paying side of the
:29:28. > :29:30.economy. You used to work for a Labour Prime Minister. Do you think
:29:31. > :29:33.this current Labour leadership and Iain Wright are business friendly
:29:34. > :29:41.with the policies they are putting out? You included the Labour
:29:42. > :29:46.leadership and Iain Wright. Iain Wright has a different dimension in
:29:47. > :29:51.many ways and he will be loyal. If you are a North East MP you look at
:29:52. > :29:55.life a little differently to the Labour leadership. I think the
:29:56. > :30:01.Labour leadership is one of the least business friendly I have seen.
:30:02. > :30:06.Why do you think Labour is business friendly when the policies you have
:30:07. > :30:10.made quite a lot of political weather on has been the proposed
:30:11. > :30:23.intervention in the energy market, rents and trying to catch them and
:30:24. > :30:33.railways, why are business friendly? Markets need to function efficiently
:30:34. > :30:35.and some segments do not. I have been at an event with
:30:36. > :30:44.manufacturers, energy producers, who has said in terms of cutting
:30:45. > :30:47.business rates, that is what we need for manufacturing to thrive. A good
:30:48. > :30:57.example of what a Labour business policy is. That longer term view,
:30:58. > :31:01.that is best for wealth creation. The last people who should plan
:31:02. > :31:06.anything for business is a politician of any party at any time.
:31:07. > :31:13.Has this government rebalanced the economy? It promised to have a
:31:14. > :31:20.long-term industrial strategy. To move away from a housing bubble. You
:31:21. > :31:26.have to understand, you need an environment to create wealth. The
:31:27. > :31:29.Labour government before 2010 invested in apprenticeships. This
:31:30. > :31:37.government has carried it on. That is excellent for manufacturing and
:31:38. > :31:41.business. You need a competitive tax regime, runways, railways. And if it
:31:42. > :31:48.depends tax rate would not be. If you go to that lady up in Newton
:31:49. > :31:54.Aycliffe, is small businesswoman today shall we pick in Exeter, they
:31:55. > :32:01.will say the same thing. They can't get enough skilled people. If you
:32:02. > :32:04.have an education system, both parties for 30 years have produced
:32:05. > :32:09.kids who can't read or write. Which businesses are backing Labour? We
:32:10. > :32:14.are making sure our business policies are pro-business. Big
:32:15. > :32:24.business hasn't come out for Labour yet. That must be worrying for Ed
:32:25. > :32:29.Miliband if you cannot cite big business there for Labour. Let me
:32:30. > :32:35.help him. You have a Business Secretary, his opponents, Vince
:32:36. > :32:40.Cable, he bought his trains from dust and off, his cars from Tokyo.
:32:41. > :32:48.This is not about labour, but about politicians as a whole. Everyone
:32:49. > :32:51.tried the lies of it. I agree that is one policy that is good for
:32:52. > :32:55.business, but there are loads that aren't.
:32:56. > :33:01.I don't think politicians should plan, but having a vision and making
:33:02. > :33:04.sure industry can lead where it needs to. The automotive industry
:33:05. > :33:10.has been rejuvenated through long-term policies. Would you be a
:33:11. > :33:22.trade and industry blister under a Labour government? You would, with
:33:23. > :33:26.their policies? I would serve my country. I wouldn't serve a
:33:27. > :33:35.political party. If Ed Miliband did ask Digby Jones? With no tribal
:33:36. > :33:40.political party strings attached. Including not taking the whip. And
:33:41. > :33:44.David Cameron? I really do treat them all the same. Business will
:33:45. > :33:47.work with any democratically elected government. You have to get away
:33:48. > :33:52.from party politics. Now to the long-running saga
:33:53. > :33:54.of airport expansion. Detailed proposals
:33:55. > :33:56.to increase capacity in the south east of England have
:33:57. > :33:58.been delivered today to the body set up
:33:59. > :34:01.to select the best location. So, what's happening with
:34:02. > :34:03.the incredible expanding airport? Captain Howard Davies was charged
:34:04. > :34:05.with deciding which of Britain's major airports
:34:06. > :34:09.should be allowed to grow. The captain has landed the two
:34:10. > :34:12.leading contenders, both of whom
:34:13. > :34:16.have revealed their plans today. Big old Heathrow
:34:17. > :34:18.wants to make room for over 200,000
:34:19. > :34:22.extra flights every year. The captain has been studying
:34:23. > :34:27.plans to add a third runway. Some would prefer Heathrow
:34:28. > :34:31.to extend an existing one. Meanwhile, plucky Gatwick hopes
:34:32. > :34:34.its second runway will be granted Last year, Captain Howard's Airport
:34:35. > :34:38.Commission threw out plans by other airports, including
:34:39. > :34:44.Birmingham and Stansted, to expand. And said, for the moment, he would
:34:45. > :34:47.not consider as suggested by a certain
:34:48. > :34:54.blond-haired wing commander. The Government has asked
:34:55. > :34:57.Captain Howard to make a final recommendation
:34:58. > :35:00.after next year's general election. Ministers will then decide
:35:01. > :35:04.which scheme to back. Well, we're joined now by
:35:05. > :35:07.the big hitters from both airports. The chief executive of Gatwick,
:35:08. > :35:10.Stewart Wingate. And the newly-appointed chief exec
:35:11. > :35:25.of Heathrow, John Holland-Kaye. Why would a Gatwick second runway be
:35:26. > :35:29.better than expansion at Heathrow? There are two reasons why Gatwick
:35:30. > :35:35.would be better. The first is the case for Gatwick is very strong. The
:35:36. > :35:38.second runway would get more connections to more destinations
:35:39. > :35:42.worldwide. It would open five years faster than a new runway at
:35:43. > :35:46.Heathrow. It would seem more passengers utilise the runway
:35:47. > :35:51.because being south of the city we could use the full capability of the
:35:52. > :35:55.runway. Gatwick is an opportunity to have a runway finally delivered. I
:35:56. > :36:02.have been talking to different businesses, some in the north-east.
:36:03. > :36:08.What I hear is we need this to be delivered. Heathrow is politically
:36:09. > :36:13.toxic. Your turn, why would an expanded Heathrow be better?
:36:14. > :36:19.Heathrow and Gatwick are different. Gatwick is a very good at what the
:36:20. > :36:23.serving low-cost markets and long haul leisure destinations. Heathrow
:36:24. > :36:29.Connect businesses with the world. We serve network areas pulling
:36:30. > :36:36.together the demand for remote markets and growth markets in Asia,
:36:37. > :36:41.China, the Americas. If we want to deliver the ?100 billion of economic
:36:42. > :36:45.growth, only Heathrow can get us to those local markets. Who would you
:36:46. > :36:50.go for? I would go for both. Because you
:36:51. > :36:55.both have done it really well. You best highlighted why you are both
:36:56. > :37:00.good. You can both serve the country in a different way. We have to stop
:37:01. > :37:07.internal flights going to Scotland and getting the railway up there. We
:37:08. > :37:11.need to get to Brazil, China, India. An awful lot of traffic
:37:12. > :37:17.doesn't generate and originate in London. You need to have a hub to
:37:18. > :37:24.justify the cost. You need Gatwick because you can't have it, to make
:37:25. > :37:28.sure the government can cope for the next 50 years in the south-east of
:37:29. > :37:36.England. The problem is for Gatwick is this
:37:37. > :37:40.hub issue. The strongest argument it seems for Heathrow, that people
:37:41. > :37:46.coming into London will want to use Heathrow as it is the most connected
:37:47. > :37:52.airport. This is a choice between the competitive airports market, and
:37:53. > :37:56.going back to a monopoly situation. Gatwick was sold by Heathrow
:37:57. > :38:00.following the forced break-up of the monopoly, to create competition. In
:38:01. > :38:09.four years we have already connected to 50% of high-growth markets
:38:10. > :38:12.globally with a European network. If we are going to have a market, let
:38:13. > :38:21.it be a competitive market with affordable fares, and connectivity
:38:22. > :38:24.worldwide. It is politically toxic, expanding
:38:25. > :38:31.Heathrow, which is why a decision has been made on airport expansion.
:38:32. > :38:37.It will be extremely difficult to get past the politicians. I don't
:38:38. > :38:44.agree. The politicians recognise the economic value that Britain needs to
:38:45. > :38:50.connect to the world, to get to the growing markets in Asia and the
:38:51. > :38:54.Americas. They can only do that through a hub airport. We have
:38:55. > :39:01.listened to our local communities and business. We have changed our
:39:02. > :39:08.plans. Tell us about that, is it, in terms of compensation, the issues of
:39:09. > :39:13.noise and pollution are of concern. We have moved the location of the
:39:14. > :39:18.runway and changed its alignment so it has less impact on noise. Reduced
:39:19. > :39:22.the impact on the number of houses affected. Increasing the level of
:39:23. > :39:27.compensation to people who lose their homes. A well thought through
:39:28. > :39:31.town which reflects the feedback from local communities. And giving
:39:32. > :39:38.respite to all people affected by Heathrow. Do we need it? Let us say
:39:39. > :39:49.that Howard Davies recommends a second runway at Gatwick. Could we
:39:50. > :39:53.survive? You have had Lib Dem politicians saying, don't want
:39:54. > :39:58.anything. Tory, let us kick it in the long grass because it is toxic.
:39:59. > :40:01.And labour saying, I am going to stop building this third runway
:40:02. > :40:08.because it is not popular. A complete lack of leadership in this
:40:09. > :40:12.issue for 20 years. Businesses are screaming for them to make a
:40:13. > :40:21.decision and make it happen. On that basis, that is why I say both. If
:40:22. > :40:25.you want to let Paris, Frankfurt, Amsterdam, take the hub traffic, the
:40:26. > :40:33.best thing is not to expand Heathrow. If you leave Heathrow on
:40:34. > :40:36.its own, you really will choke it incredibly quickly because Gatwick
:40:37. > :40:42.is an enormous asset for the nation serving a different market. We need
:40:43. > :40:51.both. The most important thing is we deliver additional capacity.
:40:52. > :40:55.Heathrow has failed. That is why we have improved our plan, listened to
:40:56. > :41:01.business and local communities. More people in west London support the
:41:02. > :41:06.expansion than oppose it. We heard about Heathrow planning to build
:41:07. > :41:13.over the M25. The disruption costs are captivated at ?1 billion. Those
:41:14. > :41:19.watching this in Essex or the West Midlands will be saying, what about
:41:20. > :41:24.Stansted and Birmingham? This is not a South East exclusive argument. You
:41:25. > :41:32.agree with that. What about campaigning together? Can you not
:41:33. > :41:38.see eye to eye on this? We support expansion at Heathrow and Gatwick.
:41:39. > :41:43.We want as much runway capacity for the UK we can. We are in a global
:41:44. > :41:46.condition against the French and Germans. What we do need is
:41:47. > :41:55.expansion at Heathrow well because we need something different. We are
:41:56. > :42:01.at capacity. We need to unlock that. Would you support both of you
:42:02. > :42:05.campaigning together? Sir Howard Davies has essentially said he will
:42:06. > :42:08.come up with a recommendation for where the next runway goes. The
:42:09. > :42:14.condition is between ourselves and Heathrow. Would you have competition
:42:15. > :42:21.between the two of you if you had a choice? Would you choose only one
:42:22. > :42:24.between the two of you if you had a runway? Or both? There needs to be
:42:25. > :42:30.capacity at both airports in the fullness of time. That is a yes,
:42:31. > :42:36.then. The demand must go to a runway where it can be delivered. Gatwick
:42:37. > :42:41.is on the table for the first time in decades because we are in
:42:42. > :42:47.separate ownership. We can connect to 60% of the demand in the European
:42:48. > :42:52.market. And the emerging economies. You can have a strong Heathrow and a
:42:53. > :42:57.strong Gatwick serving London, the London to compete with other cities
:42:58. > :43:04.in Europe. What about the alternative of extending an existing
:43:05. > :43:09.runway at Heathrow? We have looked at it. What put us off that idea is
:43:10. > :43:12.it would mean there would be arrivals and departures on the
:43:13. > :43:56.runways continually and those living in the flight
:43:57. > :44:02.capacity to collect -- connect Britain and to the world. To boost
:44:03. > :44:07.the British economy. Not rely on the Dutch, French or Germans.
:44:08. > :44:13.What if politicians say they won't make a decision? Let us say they
:44:14. > :44:20.don't do anything. Which is what they could do. By the way, I read an
:44:21. > :44:25.article about this. The article was headed, no is an answer. Because the
:44:26. > :44:29.nation, especially the airlines and business, will know where they
:44:30. > :44:34.stand. The political class, because they want popularity, will have
:44:35. > :44:41.basically said, OK, let's be a second rate nation, over to you,
:44:42. > :44:44.Germany. Great to have you both on together, do come back again.
:44:45. > :44:47.Our guest of the day Lord Digby Jones has been
:44:48. > :44:49.a long-standing critic of the European Union.
:44:50. > :44:52.He once said the EU creates a "staggeringly large pile
:44:53. > :44:54.of regulation in virtually every part of our lives".
:44:55. > :44:58.So you can see why UKIP might be trying to recruit him.
:44:59. > :45:01.In a moment, we'll discuss the pros and cons of being in the EU
:45:02. > :45:49.But, first, here's a flavour of their election campaign video.
:45:50. > :45:59.And joining me now is leader of the four Freedoms Party, Dirk Hazell,
:46:00. > :46:03.the UK version of the European people's party. Welcome to the
:46:04. > :46:11.programme. When you go to the doorsteps, have people heard of you?
:46:12. > :46:17.Honestly? Our party is not on the tip of everybody's tongue, but the
:46:18. > :46:22.voters at the back of their minds no Mr Cameron left the big party for a
:46:23. > :46:27.funny, small one. People know that and there is recognition for that
:46:28. > :46:33.and when you start to discuss it, they know the Tories chose to take
:46:34. > :46:42.the people out of the leading party with the Chancellor Angela Merkel.
:46:43. > :46:47.Do they care? We had a 92% increase at the end of the meeting of people
:46:48. > :46:51.who believed we could stake in Europe. The British people are the
:46:52. > :46:54.most sophisticated electorate in the world and they know when they are
:46:55. > :46:59.being sold out and they know by and large politicians are not telling
:47:00. > :47:07.them the truth. I agree with what you say about training and
:47:08. > :47:11.education. If people have an idea that David Cameron took to the
:47:12. > :47:15.Conservative party out of this big, centre-right grouping to join a
:47:16. > :47:21.group of mismatched other parties, some of whom have been making less
:47:22. > :47:29.than desirable comets, was that a mistake? Yes. Why UKIP will have
:47:30. > :47:33.disappointing news today is the chance of rejoining them are nil
:47:34. > :47:38.because I believe the future of the nation is in Europe. But what I
:47:39. > :47:43.believe passionately, and where I am is where most of the nation and
:47:44. > :47:48.Europe is, is that I think there is a golden chance between Germany
:47:49. > :47:52.within the Eurozone and Britain outside the euro zone, two big
:47:53. > :47:59.economies, at a time when Italy and France have got the challenges, they
:48:00. > :48:03.have got a golden opportunity to reform Europe into a point where it
:48:04. > :48:09.delivers for the businesses and the people of our country. Cameron is
:48:10. > :48:14.going to have a more difficult job doing that reform job when he has
:48:15. > :48:19.left the grouping that Angela Merkel was in. That has hampered his
:48:20. > :48:28.position? That does not mean we need to reform Europe. You said it made
:48:29. > :48:33.his position more difficult. If he is not able to repatriate some of
:48:34. > :48:38.those powers, will you be campaigning to stay in or pull out?
:48:39. > :48:44.If we have the Europe of the day with no reform, I think our chances
:48:45. > :48:49.are better off out than in. What are the responses on the doorstep? Are
:48:50. > :49:00.people saying they have not seen a major change and so we should pull
:49:01. > :49:04.out? We are going to get reform. The reason we are going to get reform is
:49:05. > :49:09.because the European people's party is going to win this election and we
:49:10. > :49:13.are committed to reform. Our presidential candidate could not
:49:14. > :49:19.have made it clearer. The priority is to create massive new jobs for
:49:20. > :49:25.talented youth in the digital economy, in London in that sector,
:49:26. > :49:28.and we are going to get it. The Governments have got to work
:49:29. > :49:31.together and also within the European Parliament we have to have
:49:32. > :49:41.a British and a London voice inside. Can I ask you a question
:49:42. > :49:45.about the core of reform? The taxes of the people spend more money on
:49:46. > :49:50.subsidising a commodity called agriculture than they do on growing
:49:51. > :49:56.and developing the education base of the European union. If you are one
:49:57. > :50:00.of the 50% under 25s in Spain, you have more chance of getting a job if
:50:01. > :50:06.you are skills that if you do not and we carry on spending more money
:50:07. > :50:14.of my and your taxes on subsidising Spanish agriculture than we do on
:50:15. > :50:24.Spanish education. Can they really change? I mean fundamental reform.
:50:25. > :50:29.The European people's party is really serious. If we had in this
:50:30. > :50:34.country full reports of what Angela Merkel said and other European
:50:35. > :50:39.leaders said, you would see how serious our natural allies are. The
:50:40. > :50:43.leader of Ireland, Sweden, Poland, Germany, all these people are
:50:44. > :50:51.natural allies and who has our Prime Minister gone in with? Can they
:50:52. > :50:56.deliver reform? The money that subsidises agriculture and
:50:57. > :51:04.education, and even if every penny of it went to sort out unemployment
:51:05. > :51:08.in Greece... This country has paid quite a high price for not being an
:51:09. > :51:15.entry country into the European union and the Conservatives have
:51:16. > :51:20.made decisions with serious consequences. The poll tax in
:51:21. > :51:25.Scotland, a strategic long-term error. Leaving the European
:51:26. > :51:30.people's party at precisely the time where there is the leadership in
:51:31. > :51:36.Europe that can deliver this change. Yes, there should be more spent on
:51:37. > :51:41.training. The European people's party has increased the training
:51:42. > :51:46.budget 40%, but it is mostly member states' responsibility. I am a
:51:47. > :51:50.school governor and the whole of our meetings are spent on rules and
:51:51. > :51:55.regulations and not the pupils. These are problems made in Britain,
:51:56. > :51:58.but not in Brussels. We have to leave it there.
:51:59. > :52:00.Now, are politicians too scared to go to the opera?
:52:01. > :52:03.Well, the Musical Director at the Royal Opera House,
:52:04. > :52:05.Sir Antonio Pappano, thinks MPs are too frightened to
:52:06. > :52:09.show their faces at the opera in case they're seen as too elitist.
:52:10. > :52:12.In a moment we'll be discussing that, but first lets see what MPs
:52:13. > :53:22.I am a slightly witless prints. Slightly in fortunate there. I am
:53:23. > :53:34.joined by the Sun newspaper on Sunday political editor, and are you
:53:35. > :53:38.an opera buff? Yes, I am. The Sun newspaper laid on tickets for the
:53:39. > :53:45.Royal Opera and it was a sell-out. It is not elitist at all. But it is
:53:46. > :53:50.normally very expensive. Blame politicians for that because they
:53:51. > :53:58.should subsidise it more. Do you like opera? No, I like ballet, and I
:53:59. > :54:07.go to ballet a lot. I like a June. At least I am honest. There is a
:54:08. > :54:12.difference. Elitism is for a guy who buys a lottery ticket in Manchester
:54:13. > :54:20.today to buy a very wealthy person to go to the opera in Covent Garden,
:54:21. > :54:23.that is elitist. To take opera into schools, to take its ability and is
:54:24. > :54:29.a participant of quality into schools all over Britain that cannot
:54:30. > :54:35.be elitist. I do not think Opera is elitist. I think the Royal Opera
:54:36. > :54:42.house might be. Our MPs embarrassed to be seen at the Opera? Yes, they
:54:43. > :54:47.want to appeared to be cool. David Cameron says he likes the Smiths,
:54:48. > :54:57.David Blair liked the Arctic monkeys. Nobody sees through that.
:54:58. > :55:02.Anything a politician touches is not cool. They may as well go to the
:55:03. > :55:07.opera. It is all about politics, with backstabbing, sex, and it is
:55:08. > :55:14.all there. All the great figures end in tragedy. Why can't politicians be
:55:15. > :55:19.genuine wine? People would respect them more. Do you think there are
:55:20. > :56:41.people in politics who like it JENSON BUTTON: Yes,
:56:42. > :56:51.Marvellous, well done. All the best Spanish music written
:56:52. > :57:30.by French men! Right, any guesses? You were shaking
:57:31. > :57:54.your head. I have no idea. Dom Pasquale.
:57:55. > :58:07.Is it Mozart? Don Giovanni. Marvellous. Something nonparty
:58:08. > :58:10.political. There's just time
:58:11. > :58:12.before we go to find out The question was who are these MPs
:58:13. > :58:18.and who are they pretending to be? And they are pretending to be from
:58:19. > :58:49.the Eurovision Song Contest.