:00:46. > :00:49.Daily Politics. Bad news for Boris Johnson, as his dream of a fantasy
:00:50. > :00:53.Island airport for London is finally killed off. He says the decision is
:00:54. > :00:58.short-sighted, so where does it leave the UK's airports?
:00:59. > :01:01.The Prime Minister says Britain might join American air strikes in
:01:02. > :01:05.Iraq and Syria, and he might do it without asking for Parliament's
:01:06. > :01:09.approval first. We will speak to an MP who wants him to act.
:01:10. > :01:13.They came to office promising to be the greenest government ever must
:01:14. > :01:19.how are they doing? We will speak to the Energy Secretary.
:01:20. > :01:23.New EU rules meant to stop the sales of powerful vacuum cleaners have led
:01:24. > :01:26.to a spike in sales. Is it a sensible way to cut our use of
:01:27. > :01:37.electricity, or idea that just sucks?
:01:38. > :01:41.All that in the next hour. With us for the whole of the programme today
:01:42. > :01:46.is the writer and environmentalist, George Monbiot. He describes himself
:01:47. > :01:50.as a rational troublemaker. You have been warned. He has written about
:01:51. > :01:53.his travels in dangerous parts of the world and today, he has made the
:01:54. > :01:59.hazardous journey to our temporary home at the BBC's new Broadcasting
:02:00. > :02:03.House. First today, the Labour Party has
:02:04. > :02:12.suspended four members this morning in the wake of the report into the
:02:13. > :02:20.Rotherham child abuse scandal. The four all held senior positions of
:02:21. > :02:26.responsibility in Rotherham in the 16 year period during which children
:02:27. > :02:30.are reported to have been abused by predominantly Asian men. This comes
:02:31. > :02:34.in the wake of a report last night that a researcher who raised the
:02:35. > :02:39.alarm over the abuse of teenage girls in rather more than a decade
:02:40. > :02:41.ago was sent on an ethnicity and diversity course by child protection
:02:42. > :02:46.officials who refused to act on her evidence. We are joined now from
:02:47. > :02:52.Westminster by Labour's shadow home affairs minister, Diana Johnson.
:02:53. > :02:58.What did Labour politicians no about what was going on in Rotherham? From
:02:59. > :03:01.the report that came out last week, there were clearly councillors in
:03:02. > :03:06.positions of authority who did not act when they should have. It is
:03:07. > :03:11.right that today, those councillors have been suspended. The government
:03:12. > :03:14.now need to take a leadership position. Labour is doing that by
:03:15. > :03:19.taking this action against Labour Party councillors, but I think
:03:20. > :03:25.Theresa May today needs to set out what the government is going to do.
:03:26. > :03:28.Two months ago, she announced the overarching enquiry into child
:03:29. > :03:31.protection, but we still don't have a chair for that or terms of
:03:32. > :03:36.reference, two years after Labour were saying we needed to have that
:03:37. > :03:39.national overarching enquiry. But the abuse was carried out over 16
:03:40. > :03:46.years. Labour were in power for most of that period. Why didn't senior
:03:47. > :03:49.politicians at Westminster no? There was a series of home secretaries
:03:50. > :03:53.under the Labour governments of those years. They were in power
:03:54. > :03:57.throughout this period, when most of these girls were being horribly
:03:58. > :04:01.abused by men, mostly of Pakistani heritage. Those are very good
:04:02. > :04:06.questions, the kind of questions we want to see addressed in this
:04:07. > :04:13.overarching child protection enquiry. But if Labour does not know
:04:14. > :04:19.what was going on, questions have two be asked about competence. Of
:04:20. > :04:24.course they do. When allegations were put to the police, they did not
:04:25. > :04:28.do anything about it. They said a 14-year-old girl who was having sex
:04:29. > :04:33.with a much older man, that was consensual, when it is clearly a
:04:34. > :04:36.crime. So for me, I want the Home Secretary to look at what the police
:04:37. > :04:40.should be doing in South Yorkshire in terms of bringing those
:04:41. > :04:46.perpetrators to prosecution where possible. She also should address
:04:47. > :04:50.the needs of the victims. We are talking about 1400 victims here and
:04:51. > :04:54.the support services are still not in place for them. Everyone would
:04:55. > :04:58.agree with that. What will worry people is why this did not come to
:04:59. > :05:05.the surface. The Home Office research we have talked about, the
:05:06. > :05:09.researcher was told she must never refer to the fact that the abusers
:05:10. > :05:12.were predominantly Asian men. Do you accept that there was a culture
:05:13. > :05:17.within parts of the lead party where political correct bus had gone mad?
:05:18. > :05:24.There is no excuse for not dealing with criminal events, irrespective
:05:25. > :05:27.of who did it. Was that a culture in the Labour Party? That is why this
:05:28. > :05:32.enquiry into child detection links in with what happened with Jimmy
:05:33. > :05:37.Savile in the BBC and the NHS. We need to look at what was going on
:05:38. > :05:43.culturally around these issues. But why did Labour miss it? You had a
:05:44. > :05:46.rotten borough. You have suspended four councillors and the leader has
:05:47. > :05:52.resigned. The police and crime commission is still there, suspended
:05:53. > :05:57.from the party. He was kicked out of the Labour Party. We made it clear
:05:58. > :06:04.that he should stand down. If you hold a position of authority as a
:06:05. > :06:07.counsellor, you are under obligation to ask difficult questions and
:06:08. > :06:10.scrutinise what officials are telling you, and that was not
:06:11. > :06:14.happening in Rotherham. I was the chair of social services in Tower
:06:15. > :06:17.Hamlets in the 90s and I remember having to ask difficult questions.
:06:18. > :06:22.As an obligation on all local authority councillors to do that are
:06:23. > :06:28.particularly the group who have been suspended today. Do you think
:06:29. > :06:32.politicians at senior government level at that time have no
:06:33. > :06:36.responsibility? Well, I don't know what they were all were not told. We
:06:37. > :06:41.know the police did not act and the councillors did not talk about this
:06:42. > :06:46.openly. They had a few meetings, but they did not have a public
:06:47. > :06:50.discussion or treat it as a priority. So I don't know what then
:06:51. > :06:55.went up to national government. But this clearly needs to be looked at
:06:56. > :07:02.and we need to find out who knew what at what point. That is why this
:07:03. > :07:07.enquiry is important. Former Labour MP Denis MacShane, who represented
:07:08. > :07:11.Rotherham, confessed that as a Guardian reader and liberal left
:07:12. > :07:15.the, he backed off from confronting the Muslim community over what was
:07:16. > :07:19.going on. Is that the truth of what happened here? People turned a blind
:07:20. > :07:24.eye because it was too difficult politically to look at this one
:07:25. > :07:28.community, because it would have perhaps cost them votes and seats?
:07:29. > :07:34.It is part of the truth. No one emerges well from this. It is
:07:35. > :07:38.disgraceful and unjustifiable if people were not investigated as a
:07:39. > :07:43.result of their ethnicity. But that is only part of the truth. Whether
:07:44. > :07:47.police were concerned, their attitude towards Jimmy Savile's
:07:48. > :07:51.victims was almost the same as their attitude towards the victims in
:07:52. > :07:56.Rotherham. They were treated with disrespect and not as if they were
:07:57. > :08:00.full citizens with equal rights. And there is no suggestion that Jimmy
:08:01. > :08:05.Savile is of act as Danny heritage and no suggestion that he was
:08:06. > :08:09.exempted from proper investigation because of his ethnicity. But do you
:08:10. > :08:14.accept that in this case, that was a barrier over a 16 year period, and
:08:15. > :08:19.do you not feel the Labour Party has to take sponsor billeting right up
:08:20. > :08:23.to the top about what happened on its own doorstep -- responsibility?
:08:24. > :08:30.Yes, there were evident failures of Labour councillors and officials all
:08:31. > :08:35.the way through. Even so, it is a bit rough to put it on current
:08:36. > :08:39.Labour politicians, some of whom were in short trousers at the time.
:08:40. > :08:43.But referring to those at the time, some of them are still MPs, but
:08:44. > :08:47.let's leave it there. Bad news for Boris Johnson this
:08:48. > :08:51.morning. His ambitious plan to build a new hub airport in London's Thames
:08:52. > :08:55.Estoril has been permanently grounded. The airports commission
:08:56. > :08:59.set up by the government to decide where to expand UK airport capacity
:09:00. > :09:04.said his puzzle, nicknamed Boris Island, was a nonstarter.
:09:05. > :09:08.Whether to expand the UK's airports and if so, where to do it is one of
:09:09. > :09:12.the trickiest issues facing the government. To deal with it,
:09:13. > :09:15.ministers that up an independent commission under Sir Howard Davies.
:09:16. > :09:21.It said the country needs one new runway by 2030. This morning, he
:09:22. > :09:25.ruled out the most ambitious option, a new hub airport on the Isle of
:09:26. > :09:30.grain in north Kent, proposed by Boris Johnson. Howard Davies said
:09:31. > :09:34.the plans could cost as much as ?90 billion, while there are doubts
:09:35. > :09:38.about its delivery and operation. That leaves three options still on
:09:39. > :09:44.the table for expansion in London - adding a third runway at Heathrow,
:09:45. > :09:48.lengthening and existing Heathrow runway and a new runway at Gatwick.
:09:49. > :09:50.The Davies commission will not decide until next summer after the
:09:51. > :09:57.election, but Boris Johnson is not happy. Now you have got to hear from
:09:58. > :10:02.others about their plans. We need some of the same clarity and
:10:03. > :10:07.boldness we have seen from the estuary airport solution. In the
:10:08. > :10:11.long term, people look at the reality of what is involved with a
:10:12. > :10:16.third runway and almost inevitably, a fourth runway at Heathrow. They
:10:17. > :10:20.will shy away from that. And people will say, what is the logical
:10:21. > :10:28.replacement? And they will look again at the estuary site. This is
:10:29. > :10:32.all looking more competitive for the London mayor, since he announced he
:10:33. > :10:36.is hoping to be selected as candidate in the Uxbridge seat where
:10:37. > :10:40.many of the people whom work at Heathrow live. We are doing now by
:10:41. > :10:45.the Mayor 's aviation adviser, and George Monbiot is still here.
:10:46. > :10:49.Daniel, were you surprised that it has been killed off by Howard
:10:50. > :10:54.Davies? Not entirely, because the whole process has been set up in
:10:55. > :10:58.such a way that it is difficult for a new airport idea to get any
:10:59. > :11:03.traction. Davies has been clear that he wants to look to 2030 rather than
:11:04. > :11:09.take a long-term view. He is only looking at one runway. None of that
:11:10. > :11:13.is in his remit from the government. That is what he has decided to do
:11:14. > :11:21.himself. He has also made it easier for private sector business people
:11:22. > :11:30.to put plans forward. But that is a reality, money is a critical issue.
:11:31. > :11:33.The Mayor's scheme was talking 70 to ?90 billion, a vast amount of money.
:11:34. > :11:42.And we have had controversy over HS2. People want a solution now.
:11:43. > :11:46.They need certainty, which is why they are focusing on other options.
:11:47. > :11:50.Well, I am not sure they are. If you look at Chambers of commerce up and
:11:51. > :11:55.down the country, they have been calling on Howard Davies not to take
:11:56. > :12:00.this option off the table. In terms of the cost, part of that is for the
:12:01. > :12:02.cost of the airport itself, which is not very different from the cost of
:12:03. > :12:07.building a new runway at Heathrow. The rest of it is road and rail
:12:08. > :12:11.access, it would have benefits for the estuary. Another part of
:12:12. > :12:21.intellectual dishonesty in the Davies process is that they loaded
:12:22. > :12:25.the whole cost of road and rail expansion to the cost of the
:12:26. > :12:33.project. I think the whole process is coming apart. It seems the
:12:34. > :12:39.argument has been made that you had your say, but you and Boris Johnson
:12:40. > :12:42.sound as though you are going to continue. Is there any point in
:12:43. > :12:46.pursuing a plant that has no chance of becoming a reality? But the
:12:47. > :12:53.airports commission is only a small part of the decision-making process
:12:54. > :13:01.to resolve this issue. No political party has agreed on it. Its primary
:13:02. > :13:08.purpose was to kick the whole thing beyond the general election. Howard
:13:09. > :13:11.is doing that successfully. But this will be a decision for the
:13:12. > :13:15.government after the election and politically, and expansion of
:13:16. > :13:21.Heathrow to three or four runways in the west of London is politically
:13:22. > :13:28.undeliverable, while a that Gatwick solution means saying goodbye to
:13:29. > :13:33.having an airport hub in London. There is a reason people keep coming
:13:34. > :13:37.back to the estuary idea. The other options don't work. Should that
:13:38. > :13:42.estuary option still be on the table? Piriz Boris Johnson, who
:13:43. > :13:46.supports all the government cuts, and yet when it comes to his pet
:13:47. > :13:54.project, he is prepared to spend ?70 billion. To me, that is indicative
:13:55. > :13:58.of what interests the Coalition Government and the Mayor, which is
:13:59. > :14:01.that they are happy to impose the most rigorous austerity upon the
:14:02. > :14:04.poor, make cuts to essential public services, but when it comes to their
:14:05. > :14:11.pet projects, they behave like gamblers in a Russian novel,
:14:12. > :14:14.engaging in Bullingdon debauchery as they rip through the Treasury, grab
:14:15. > :14:19.as many public assets as they can and stuff them into their cronies'
:14:20. > :14:24.pockets. It is an amazing case of double standards. I don't think
:14:25. > :14:28.George supports the estuary option, but it is a vanity project. He did
:14:29. > :14:34.not get around to saying it was a vanity project. He was flinging to
:14:35. > :14:38.many other insults around. The fact is that in this country, the
:14:39. > :14:47.government provides road and rail services. The edge bought itself,
:14:48. > :14:50.Inc -- the airport is about 25 billion, which would be paid for by
:14:51. > :14:55.the private sector, as it would at Heathrow. The roads and rail
:14:56. > :15:01.provided would give connectivity and economic growth to the history,
:15:02. > :15:03.which is an area which suffers from depression and has largely been
:15:04. > :15:08.ignored. It is legitimate to say that that is what politics is about.
:15:09. > :15:11.I do want to spend money on that, I would rather spend it on something
:15:12. > :15:20.else. That is what politics is about. It is not a vanity project. I
:15:21. > :15:23.did not say that. If it is of the table, one could argue there is no
:15:24. > :15:34.point in pursuing it. How much has City Hall spent on this? The mayor
:15:35. > :15:39.has spent ?4.25 million so far on this. He will not continue spending
:15:40. > :15:45.money now, will he? I think he will. It is all right for Howard
:15:46. > :15:50.Davies to say I am just going to focus on where you put the tarmac.
:15:51. > :15:58.What the mayor focuses on is that you have a city which, by 2030, when
:15:59. > :16:03.this wretched runway is built, will be 10 million. You have people
:16:04. > :16:09.crying out for homes already. You need to do something spatially to
:16:10. > :16:14.shape the city. Daniel has a point, doesn't he? Because when you were
:16:15. > :16:18.castigating this vanity project, the alternative is that you don't
:16:19. > :16:22.support either. There will be another runway at Gatwick or
:16:23. > :16:28.Heathrow or an extended runway. I don't believe any of them should
:16:29. > :16:34.happen. We have so many exciting means of communicating, and the idea
:16:35. > :16:39.that in the 21st-century, in order to talk to someone else you still
:16:40. > :16:44.need to get somebody up to 30,000 feet and fly them 4000 miles, this
:16:45. > :16:49.is an antiquated way of doing things. We are already seeing a
:16:50. > :16:53.major drop-off in demand from business and private passengers. We
:16:54. > :17:01.are not going to see the expansion of demand that the Government
:17:02. > :17:05.projects and it is crazy... That demand clearly is there. We should
:17:06. > :17:10.be talking about reducing capacity, and we can do that now that we have
:17:11. > :17:16.better technologies. It is not only the amount of damage it does to
:17:17. > :17:26.local people's lives, we are talking about the climate and the idea of
:17:27. > :17:30.expanding the airways is madness. Would you talk about that more now
:17:31. > :17:39.that you have lost the argument in London? India and China populations
:17:40. > :17:44.are reaching the level of income that they will want to fly. As an
:17:45. > :17:51.island we should nonetheless cut ourselves off from the principal
:17:52. > :17:58.means of access. As long as everyone understands exactly what George is
:17:59. > :18:06.saying, it will mean that you will be getting over to Paris and
:18:07. > :18:11.Amsterdam by whatever means you can do it, but there are very few ways
:18:12. > :18:18.of leaving an island except by vote or by air.
:18:19. > :18:21.Thank you. It was a big day in Parliament yesterday as MPs returned
:18:22. > :18:25.and David Cameron gave a statement on what turned out to be a summer of
:18:26. > :18:29.instability around the world. He spoke about the situation in Ukraine
:18:30. > :18:36.and how to deal with the terrorist threat at home but it was his
:18:37. > :18:41.suggestion that the UK could join US air strikes in Syria that has made
:18:42. > :18:45.waves. His responses to previous questions implied that he is open to
:18:46. > :18:49.the idea of direct military participation in the current air
:18:50. > :18:56.strikes to protect the Kurds. If that is the case, can he say so
:18:57. > :18:59.clearly now? If there was a direct threat to British national
:19:00. > :19:03.interests, or in the case of Libya when we had to react rapidly to
:19:04. > :19:09.prevent a catastrophe, we reserve the right to act immediately and
:19:10. > :19:13.inform the House of Commons afterwards. You have seen what the
:19:14. > :19:16.British government has done to date and I am listening carefully to the
:19:17. > :19:23.views of honourable members in this debate. The MP you saw was John
:19:24. > :19:29.Woodcock and he joins me now from outside Parliament. You heard David
:19:30. > :19:34.Cameron say yesterday that he is not ruling anything out when it comes to
:19:35. > :19:40.air strikes, do you think he should go further and send British planes
:19:41. > :19:45.and bonds above Iraq? Let's consider what is happening here. You have a
:19:46. > :19:53.humanitarian crisis that has not gone away in Syria and Iraq, it is
:19:54. > :20:01.getting worse and the weather is set to change. The Prime Minister talks
:20:02. > :20:06.about acting if there is a direct threat to our interests. The rise of
:20:07. > :20:11.these extremists, the Islamic State, will threaten our interests.
:20:12. > :20:18.The idea that they will get a lasting foothold in the Middle East
:20:19. > :20:24.is a real threat to our own borders, the prospect of sending back
:20:25. > :20:29.terrorists who will be intent on hitting British civilians, it
:20:30. > :20:34.doesn't seem right... On the one hand you have the Foreign Secretary
:20:35. > :20:40.saying other nations need to step up, we cannot leave it to the
:20:41. > :20:45.Americans all alone, and yet that is our position at present. We are not
:20:46. > :20:48.part of the military action. We are involved in various other things
:20:49. > :20:55.like surveillance and humanitarian issues. By calling for intervention,
:20:56. > :21:03.you are not on the side of public opinion, as you know. It is very
:21:04. > :21:14.difficult and not really the right thing to conduct really difficult
:21:15. > :21:23.and drenched foreign policy on opinion polls. It is our
:21:24. > :21:27.responsibility to do the right thing to keep the nation secure and it is
:21:28. > :21:36.unquestionably the right thing to deal directly and fully with the
:21:37. > :21:40.threat that ISIS, Islamic State, whatever they are going to be
:21:41. > :21:44.called, these extremists who will do anything they can to threaten our
:21:45. > :21:50.way of life in Britain and other countries, it is in our clear
:21:51. > :21:55.interests to act against them. Or will it cause more unrest and be
:21:56. > :22:00.more of a recruiting sergeant? You only have to look at recent air
:22:01. > :22:06.strikes in Libya, that has hardly left peaceful democratic government
:22:07. > :22:10.there. Ed Miliband was right yesterday when he spoke about the
:22:11. > :22:15.need for a proper international coalition against what is
:22:16. > :22:23.happening, what Islamic State are doing in the region. It is the
:22:24. > :22:30.neighbours of Iraq who have the most to fear and the most to lose from
:22:31. > :22:32.the rise of these people. We should be doing more about getting
:22:33. > :22:40.international efforts together, but the idea that this action actually
:22:41. > :22:46.makes the problem worse, I'm afraid it is a fallacy. Once you start
:22:47. > :22:51.accepting that, you play into the hands of people who would like us to
:22:52. > :22:58.sit back, who would like our nation just to let whatever happens in Iraq
:22:59. > :23:02.and Syria happen, then deal with the serious consequences further down
:23:03. > :23:08.the track. George Monbiot, what do you say to that? We know the terror
:23:09. > :23:13.threat level has been increased, the Prime Minister announced that at the
:23:14. > :23:18.end of last week. Should we be proactive and join the Americans? It
:23:19. > :23:22.is serious but just a year ago David Cameron recalled parliament to
:23:23. > :23:28.weighed in on the other side of the dispute, to start attacking Syria
:23:29. > :23:33.which proposes Islamic State. It seems that just about every armed
:23:34. > :23:37.intervention we have ever made in the Middle East has stoked problems
:23:38. > :23:56.rather than preventing problems and has contributed to the rise of
:23:57. > :24:01.jihadism. When they see our support for Israel, all of that contributes
:24:02. > :24:09.to the idea that Britain is an enemy of what some people consider to be
:24:10. > :24:15.Islam. Wouldn't it have been a disaster if we had gone into Syria,
:24:16. > :24:20.bearing in mind what has evolved? It has been a disaster that we did not
:24:21. > :24:25.intervene to help the moderate opposition in Syria who still exist
:24:26. > :24:30.but they are under the cosh from both sides, from the Islamic
:24:31. > :24:37.extremists and the Syrian government. I'm afraid it is a
:24:38. > :24:42.counsel of despair to say nothing can be done and risks being
:24:43. > :24:48.accompanied misrepresentation of Islam, which is a peaceful
:24:49. > :24:57.religion, to say that these barbaric extremists represent that religion.
:24:58. > :25:02.We have to leave it there. While we were discussing that, it has been
:25:03. > :25:07.announced that George Osborne's Autumn Statement went -- will be on
:25:08. > :25:10.December the 3rd. David Cameron made himself something
:25:11. > :25:15.of a hostage to fortune when he pledged to lead the greenest
:25:16. > :25:21.government ever in 2010, and many environmental groups claim that
:25:22. > :25:29.green issues have been driven down the agenda at Westminster ever
:25:30. > :25:35.since. He hung out with huskies and vowed to lead the greenest
:25:36. > :25:40.government ever but maybe David Cameron should have listened to
:25:41. > :25:44.ecological experts Tony Bennett and Kermit the frog. It is not easy
:25:45. > :25:47.being green when many of your backbenchers think climate change is
:25:48. > :25:50.not real and your own Chancellor worries green policies could slow
:25:51. > :25:56.down growth. So how is the Government doing? Under EU law by
:25:57. > :26:01.2020, 15% of our energy consumption every year should come from
:26:02. > :26:08.renewable resources. Currently it is 5%. The amount of energy generated
:26:09. > :26:11.from wind turbines is increasing too and one Sunday this August record
:26:12. > :26:16.was broken, the most energy generated ever in a single hour
:26:17. > :26:22.although it was a particularly blustery day. Tory MPs lost a lot
:26:23. > :26:26.about wind farms saying they are expensive and unreliable. Eric
:26:27. > :26:34.Pickles now decides whether they go ahead. Since 2013 he has said yes to
:26:35. > :26:38.two out of 17 applications. This is the first new nuclear plants in a
:26:39. > :26:44.generation. EDF will build it after they were offered a guaranteed price
:26:45. > :26:51.for its electricity, a price many campaigners felt was too high. It
:26:52. > :26:56.seems the Treasury's favourite fuel is gas, fracking that is taken out
:26:57. > :27:00.of the ground with water at high pressure. For campaigners, the
:27:01. > :27:08.so-called dash for gas is a disaster, producing too much carbon
:27:09. > :27:19.and potentially pollution too. What about consumers? The flagship scheme
:27:20. > :27:25.that gave out vouchers for people to carry out energy improvements had to
:27:26. > :27:33.close down because people stampeded to take it up, but when people
:27:34. > :27:36.complained about the cost of their bills, the Government cut levies for
:27:37. > :27:43.environmental policies. Kermit is right, it is not easy being green. I
:27:44. > :27:49.am green, and I think it is what I want to be. We are joined now by the
:27:50. > :27:51.Lib Dem Energy Secretary, Ed Davey, and of course George Monbiot is
:27:52. > :27:54.still here. You have had this long running battle with the Chancellor
:27:55. > :27:58.about the scale of pace for targets for cutting emissions, which you
:27:59. > :28:00.have won. We have more than doubled the amount of our electricity from
:28:01. > :28:05.renewable sources, now 15% and rising fast. We have doubled the
:28:06. > :28:09.amount of investment for future renewable electricity at record
:28:10. > :28:14.levels, more than double in the last Parliament, and legislated for the
:28:15. > :28:19.world's first-ever low carbon electricity market so we are moving
:28:20. > :28:24.fast on renewable electricity. We will come onto the renewables and
:28:25. > :28:29.how great you have been, but as I say, you have won that particular
:28:30. > :28:33.argument, despite George Osborne saying it could harm business
:28:34. > :28:41.competitiveness. Why is he wrong? Climate change is a critical issue
:28:42. > :29:01.for Britain and the world. We have to play our role in it, and that
:29:02. > :29:14.means investing in renewables and low carbon technologies. It also
:29:15. > :29:21.means working with our partners because we cannot do it a go on --
:29:22. > :29:31.do it alone. Why should Britain be ahead of our European competitors? I
:29:32. > :29:39.remember George Osborne saying we would be paying the price for
:29:40. > :29:45.unilaterally beating European partners, why don't we go at the
:29:46. > :29:49.same pace? It is about taking them with us. It is about agreeing a
:29:50. > :29:54.European target and effectively we are getting the climate change act
:29:55. > :29:54.that we passed in the UK, getting that in Europe,
:29:55. > :29:58.remember George Osborne saying we would be paying which is a huge
:29:59. > :30:07.achievement. If we pull this off, it will be the biggest green measure by
:30:08. > :30:11.this Government by a long way. Are you going to put a medal on his
:30:12. > :30:14.lapel for being the most green minister ever? He has toed the line,
:30:15. > :30:17.I will give him that, but the contradictions are vast. One of his
:30:18. > :30:19.responsibilities, at the same time as minimising the amount of carbon
:30:20. > :30:22.dioxide we produce is to maximise the economic recovery of the UK's
:30:23. > :30:32.oil and gas, to get as much as possible out of the ground. The
:30:33. > :30:37.carbon impact of coal is huge. But that might help with the lights on
:30:38. > :30:47.while we wait for nuclear to come on board. We have other ways. When we
:30:48. > :30:53.publish our carbon plan, that plan shows us, using a lot of oil and gas
:30:54. > :30:57.between petrol and diesel, the question is, where is that oil and
:30:58. > :31:03.gas going to come from? It could come from the Middle East. Or it
:31:04. > :31:08.could come from our own resources. By locking us into gas, you look is
:31:09. > :31:15.in for the next 50 years into a high carbon economy. Not with carbon
:31:16. > :31:19.capture and storage. We are leading in Europe. We have the two only
:31:20. > :31:24.large-scale carbon capture storage plants in Europe. One is gas, and
:31:25. > :31:29.one is coal. And how far have they got? Further than anyone else. Will
:31:30. > :31:35.there be a guarantee that there will be no new gas plants without carbon
:31:36. > :31:38.capture and storage? Otherwise, your pledge is nonsense. We have said,
:31:39. > :31:39.with the pledge is nonsense. We have said,
:31:40. > :31:45.with emission performance standard, that no new coal plant can be built
:31:46. > :31:55.without... But the question was about gas. I have asked you a
:31:56. > :31:59.straightforward question. It is an improvement, but it looks as into
:32:00. > :32:03.another form of fossil fuel. Gas power stations are being built now
:32:04. > :32:08.and in the early part of the next decade. They will come off-line
:32:09. > :32:14.before 2050. So what you really want me to argue is about gas powered
:32:15. > :32:18.stations built after 2030. Although I am the Secretary of State now in
:32:19. > :32:24.2014, being able to predict 2030 is a big difficult. But isn't it a case
:32:25. > :32:29.of long-term commitment? Yes, and that is where the fourth carbon
:32:30. > :32:32.budget, which you are right that some parts of government were not
:32:33. > :32:37.keen for it to be kept at the current level, I fought hard to
:32:38. > :32:42.maintain it at that level and we won. That sets targets through the
:32:43. > :32:47.next decade, which is critical to make sure we meet our climate change
:32:48. > :32:52.commitments. Let's see how committed you are to renewable resources. We
:32:53. > :32:57.mentioned in the film a target to generate 15% of electricity from
:32:58. > :33:01.renewable resources by 2020. It is currently 5%. Are you confident that
:33:02. > :33:06.that can be achieved? We are on track to do that. You have different
:33:07. > :33:10.sources for electricity, heating and transport. With electricity, we are
:33:11. > :33:15.targeting 30% renewable electricity by 2020 and we are on target to beat
:33:16. > :33:20.that. So the fact that we have grown viewable electricity so fast and we
:33:21. > :33:24.have this pipeline gives me confidence that we will meet those
:33:25. > :33:30.targets. And what happens beyond 2020? You have resisted EU calls for
:33:31. > :33:36.a binding target. That sounds like you don't have both in the
:33:37. > :33:40.renewables market. Let me explain. Through building the world's first
:33:41. > :33:44.ever low carbon electricity market, if you can go low carbon through
:33:45. > :33:50.durables or through carbon capture and storage or through nuclear, let
:33:51. > :33:55.me pay tribute to George. He is one of the environmentalists who say
:33:56. > :34:00.nuclear has to be part of your low carbon strategy. Because we are now
:34:01. > :34:04.reducing a low carbon electricity market, after 2020 unit targets to
:34:05. > :34:11.make sure investment will go into all low carbon forms. If you pick
:34:12. > :34:16.out one, it means you reduce the amount overall. If you are really
:34:17. > :34:24.ambitious and climate change, you need a technology for all. You are
:34:25. > :34:27.talking about investment into all the carbon technology forms, but at
:34:28. > :34:31.the same time, you are talking about an investment in gas, which locks us
:34:32. > :34:41.in. And you failed to answer my question. And the answer is no. You
:34:42. > :34:46.are saying, it will not be quite as bad as coal, so that of chocolate
:34:47. > :34:51.fudge cake, we will all be eating in the pie, which is not quite as bad
:34:52. > :34:55.for you, but we are not getting onto the low carb diet which is what we
:34:56. > :35:02.need. We have made it live sometime that you need to see gas as a bridge
:35:03. > :35:13.fuel away from coal as we invest in renewables and nuclear. But we will
:35:14. > :35:18.have 40 years with gas plants. Over time, you will see our gas
:35:19. > :35:23.consumption come down. Why? Because we are investing so much in low
:35:24. > :35:28.carbon. You are delaying it by going for gas rather than going straight
:35:29. > :35:31.to the low carbon alternatives. You don't believe renewable resources
:35:32. > :35:37.are inexpensive and efficient? You are going for gas instead? That is
:35:38. > :35:42.exactly what is happening. Let me bring some sanity into this
:35:43. > :35:48.conversation. You a mixed approach. That is why we are doing renewables,
:35:49. > :35:54.nuclear and energy efficiency. And carbon capture and storage. In
:35:55. > :36:02.future, gas can be burnt with carbon capture and storage. We are the only
:36:03. > :36:12.country in Europe with a gas carbon capture project. You two... But the
:36:13. > :36:16.once you are currently building do not have carbon capture and
:36:17. > :36:20.storage! Ed Davey, thank you! Now, what has happened to the
:36:21. > :36:26.Conservative Party lately? You can hardly have failed to notice that
:36:27. > :36:29.they were hit hard by the defection of the MP Douglas Carswell to UKIP.
:36:30. > :36:34.This morning, it was announced that the ensuing by-election, which the
:36:35. > :36:39.pollsters expect the Tories to lose, will be on October the night, the
:36:40. > :36:42.Prime Minister's birthday, no less. And there are plenty more
:36:43. > :36:46.conservative backbenchers unhappy with David Cameron's leadership.
:36:47. > :36:49.Former MP Matthew Parris has suggested that those on the right
:36:50. > :36:52.actually want to wreck the Prime Minister's chances of winning the
:36:53. > :36:57.next election. In a moment, we will speak to Matthew. First, I am joined
:36:58. > :37:02.in Westminster by the pollster Katherine Peacock of ComRes. Let's
:37:03. > :37:06.look at some of the polling. We know those who are interested in politics
:37:07. > :37:09.do not like divided parties. They absolutely don't. They also don't
:37:10. > :37:16.like divided government. The public did not want a coalition. But
:37:17. > :37:20.throughout the course of this Parliament, the public have seen
:37:21. > :37:28.Conservatives as divided. It is not just Europe. There are things like a
:37:29. > :37:33.marriage. And the majority of the public think the Conservatives are
:37:34. > :37:40.more divided now than under John Major. What about the issues that do
:37:41. > :37:44.appeal to voters, like immigration? The issue of immigration is really
:37:45. > :37:53.important to people. But the problem is that Europe is bound up in
:37:54. > :37:56.immigration. While the public are talking about immigration,
:37:57. > :38:01.politicians are speaking about Europe, and the two are not the same
:38:02. > :38:07.thing. Well, Matthew Parris is here in the studio, the former
:38:08. > :38:09.Conservative and the. We are also joined by Mark Wallace of the
:38:10. > :38:14.website Conservative Home. Matthew, you say that a conservative schism
:38:15. > :38:20.is all but inevitable, but we have been here before. One only has to
:38:21. > :38:24.look at Maastricht and John Major. Yes, we came close to schism on
:38:25. > :38:32.Maastricht, and John Major just managed to pull that one off. The
:38:33. > :38:36.right in the party have not gone away. They have never forgiven the
:38:37. > :38:43.party for Maastricht, and they are back. And I think they are now so
:38:44. > :38:48.bitter, so angry and so zealous in their anti-European ideology that
:38:49. > :38:53.they are prepared to destroy the unity of the Conservative Party to
:38:54. > :38:55.get it. Do you agree that there are people in the Conservative Party who
:38:56. > :39:00.are prepared to see the Conservative Party split over this? Well, I
:39:01. > :39:03.believe we should leave the European Union. Hopefully, I will not display
:39:04. > :39:05.too much bitterness during the discussion.
:39:06. > :39:07.Union. Hopefully, I will not display too much bitterness You are too
:39:08. > :39:13.young! I think Douglas Carswell made the wrong decision to defect to UKIP
:39:14. > :39:20.. That threatens the possibility of re-election in 2015. But it is not
:39:21. > :39:24.simple enough, or rather, it is too simple to say that Eurosceptics are
:39:25. > :39:28.somehow anti-conservative. I fear that the wrong lessons could be
:39:29. > :39:32.learnt from this. When talking about Eurosceptics, we are talking about a
:39:33. > :39:35.lot of people within the Conservative Party and possibly the
:39:36. > :39:40.Labour Party, but you are saying there is a division between the
:39:41. > :39:45.Eurosceptics and the Europhobes. Yes, we are all Eurosceptics, but
:39:46. > :39:51.the Europhobes just want out. They want out now. They don't care what
:39:52. > :39:59.deal Europe dashed David Cameron gets, they want out. They fear that
:40:00. > :40:02.David Cameron might win a referendum on Europe, so they would rather see
:40:03. > :40:08.the party go down in flames than have that happen. And from those
:40:09. > :40:12.flames, they see a pure, more right-wing and unambiguously
:40:13. > :40:18.anti-European Conservative Party emerge. When Douglas Carswell
:40:19. > :40:24.announced his defection, Europe was not the only issue he mention. He
:40:25. > :40:31.was talking about direct democracy, recall of MPs, open primaries. So
:40:32. > :40:34.his vision is slightly broader than you have portrayed. He was
:40:35. > :40:37.scrabbling together as many reasons as he could for resigning, but I
:40:38. > :40:42.think he resigned for opportunistic reasons. That is a misreading of
:40:43. > :40:46.Douglas Carswell. There are certainly anti-EU MPs and there have
:40:47. > :40:50.been since the 90s, whose main motivation in life is to leave the
:40:51. > :40:56.EU. But Douglas Carswell is not one of them. His Euroscepticism comes
:40:57. > :41:00.from a broader iconoclasm. He really believes we should have direct
:41:01. > :41:04.democracy. He wants power of initiative for referenda. His
:41:05. > :41:08.opposition to the EU stems from that. I don't think UKIP is the
:41:09. > :41:13.right vehicle to deliver that, but his main motivation... He must be
:41:14. > :41:17.crazy if he thinks UKIP is the right vehicle to deliver that. But think
:41:18. > :41:21.of the wider iconoclasm. If you have an Essex Roundhead attitude to life,
:41:22. > :41:28.he really wants to shake Westminster until parts of it fall down. Do you
:41:29. > :41:32.think that is a noble cause? I think he is mistaken. I don't think
:41:33. > :41:37.letting Ed Miliband in will get us a referendum. But is it a noble cause?
:41:38. > :41:43.It is noble to want to change our politics, to say that parties
:41:44. > :41:47.elected on a lower and lower proportion of a lower and lower
:41:48. > :41:50.turnout, that is not a solution for the future. Its troubles me that
:41:51. > :41:54.Douglas Carswell does not feel he can find hope with the
:41:55. > :41:58.Conservatives. There are elements in Conservative Home being very careful
:41:59. > :42:02.not to attack Douglas Carswell. There is an enormous amount of
:42:03. > :42:10.sympathy for him there, not just in Conservative Home, but among the
:42:11. > :42:14.Tory right generally. Well, it would be a mistake... He has betrayed the
:42:15. > :42:19.Conservative Party, hasn't he? I think he has made a horrible error.
:42:20. > :42:25.So why not condemn him? The crucial thing is, do you want to respond to
:42:26. > :42:31.the criticism, Carswell by slinging mud and accusing him of treason, off
:42:32. > :42:33.with his head etc? No, we should be asking why people like Douglas
:42:34. > :42:36.Carswell, someone who was a politician for the future, not the
:42:37. > :42:42.past, why doesn't he feel comfortable in our party? Why is he
:42:43. > :42:47.not the future? Every age produces politicians with strong
:42:48. > :42:50.ideological, zealous attitudes, who are sure they are right. They never
:42:51. > :42:57.tend to prosper within any political party. He will not bother within the
:42:58. > :43:01.Conservatives or UKIP. But we need to think about the direction of the
:43:02. > :43:04.Conservative Party. Do you think the Conservative Party should move
:43:05. > :43:09.towards Douglas Carswell's position? Absolutely not. If the Conservative
:43:10. > :43:13.Party even talks about deals with UKIP, it will lose the centre ground
:43:14. > :43:18.and loses ability to appeal to those who are worried that the Tories are
:43:19. > :43:22.rather right-wing. His directly, it has been proven time and again,
:43:23. > :43:25.particularly when there were Conservative leaders who did move to
:43:26. > :43:30.the right on issues like the EU and immigration, this is a different
:43:31. > :43:34.time, but do you think they can win on that agenda? This is a much more
:43:35. > :43:41.subtle question that might not fit a debate very well. The simple fact is
:43:42. > :43:44.that Cameron's modernisation has unfortunately been surpassed by the
:43:45. > :43:50.modernisation of the financial populace, people for the use on the
:43:51. > :43:54.state have changed. Then why not advise people to look at UKIP? If
:43:55. > :43:57.you are so sympathetic to what Douglas Carswell has done and you
:43:58. > :44:02.want the Tory party to emulate some of their policies, why not advise
:44:03. > :44:05.people to look at UKIP? Because I don't think UKIP offers the answers
:44:06. > :44:09.to this. If you saw Douglas Carswell today in our interview with him on
:44:10. > :44:14.Conservative Home, he takes on a passing voter on immigration who
:44:15. > :44:20.says they are not a threat to the NHS. Mark is not advising people to
:44:21. > :44:25.support UKIP, but there is a lot of dog whistling coming from the right
:44:26. > :44:29.and from Conservative Home. I have no doubt that a lot of those people
:44:30. > :44:33.would like to see a deal between the Tories and UKIP, and I think that
:44:34. > :44:39.would be disastrous for my party. Let's leave it there.
:44:40. > :44:42.The latest poll ahead of the referendum on Scottish independence
:44:43. > :44:47.has caused a big stir today, putting Alex Salmond's campaign to leave the
:44:48. > :44:50.UK only three percentage points away from victory. It is unlikely to
:44:51. > :44:54.lower the temperature in what has been a passionate debate, as you
:44:55. > :44:58.would expect, that at times has spilled over into outright
:44:59. > :45:01.hostility. Labour MP Jim Murphy as this morning resumed his one-man
:45:02. > :45:07.tour of Scotland to promote the union. He suspended it * after what
:45:08. > :45:25.he said was coordinated abuse from yes voters.
:45:26. > :46:16.I will not be silenced! Jim Murphy almost losing his voice there.
:46:17. > :46:21.Joining me now is the man himself from the Better Together campaign.
:46:22. > :46:26.We got the idea of what was going on there, is that a fair reflection of
:46:27. > :46:32.the nature of the campaign? There have been 100 meetings I have been
:46:33. > :46:38.to, and I am travelling around the country with my makeshift stage. For
:46:39. > :46:49.the first 70 meetings it was great old-fashioned politics, really good
:46:50. > :46:53.passionate politics. Men just after Alex Salmond lost the first TV
:46:54. > :46:59.debate, things took a turn for the worse and there was an aggressive,
:47:00. > :47:04.angry mob on the street of yes voters. These things didn't happen
:47:05. > :47:16.spontaneously so we paused it and started to -- again today in
:47:17. > :47:21.Edinburgh. Whoever noisily turned on the top of that political aggression
:47:22. > :47:27.has quietly over the weekend turned it off again and that is good. Some
:47:28. > :47:31.might say that is the rough and tumble of politics. Hopefully you
:47:32. > :47:44.won't get any more eggs lobbed at you. I couldn't care less about
:47:45. > :47:48.eggs. The point is when you turn up to meetings and the yes campaign
:47:49. > :47:56.have occupied the space where you are going to have the meetings,
:47:57. > :47:59.where people are routinely called a traitor and much worse in a
:48:00. > :48:01.coordinated way, it is something much more
:48:02. > :48:04.coordinated way, it is something much sinister but I am glad that we
:48:05. > :48:10.paused for three days and now we can go onto the great democratic
:48:11. > :48:16.exercise which is the referendum. Which you are struggling with now,
:48:17. > :48:20.looking at the polls, because the no campaign is losing ground and Alex
:48:21. > :48:25.Salmond and the SNP are breathing down your neck as we speak. It was
:48:26. > :48:29.always going to be close and passionate. It is the biggest
:48:30. > :48:34.decision we are ever going to take. I worry about the fact that with a
:48:35. > :48:44.fortnight ago Scotland has no currency. Scotland doesn't know how
:48:45. > :48:46.interest rates would be run. But the second debate between Alistair
:48:47. > :48:49.Darling and Alex Salmond demonstrated that people have moved
:48:50. > :48:54.on from those issues, they wanted to know about issues like the NHS for
:48:55. > :48:59.example, how they might be affected with their pensions. They are right
:49:00. > :49:01.to be worried about those sorts of things, and with a fortnight ago we
:49:02. > :49:05.don't know what things, and with a fortnight ago we
:49:06. > :49:10.don't would happen to the pension system. We all pay into a system at
:49:11. > :49:17.the moment across the UK, and many pay into a private pension, and
:49:18. > :49:19.there is no sense what would happen if Scotland was independent.
:49:20. > :49:23.there is no sense what would happen if Scotland We cannot just say it
:49:24. > :49:30.will be all right on the night, Scotland deserves some answers.
:49:31. > :49:36.George Monbiot, do you have sympathy for Jim Murphy there? Do you think
:49:37. > :49:40.it has turned nasty? I defend his right to speak and it is great he is
:49:41. > :49:45.getting out there and speaking on the street but I think he is being a
:49:46. > :49:50.little bit precious about this. We are seeing a revival of fire and
:49:51. > :49:55.passion in politics and there has not been enough of that recently,
:49:56. > :50:03.with three parties who are almost indistinguishable. There is the
:50:04. > :50:07.possibility in Scotland of the yes vote, and there you see people
:50:08. > :50:12.really rediscovering what politics is all about, which is about letting
:50:13. > :50:24.your heartbeat and having some passion. When is the next one?
:50:25. > :50:33.Glasgow city centre, Edinburgh today and on Thursday in the nation's most
:50:34. > :50:39.important city, Glasgow. You should go! It is great that he is doing
:50:40. > :50:45.this, but I'm sure you don't expect... People in Glasgow will
:50:46. > :50:49.say, I yield to the honourable member. I am not worried about that,
:50:50. > :50:56.don't get me wrong. I knew what I was going to get. There are going to
:50:57. > :50:56.be hecklers, and that is fine, it is actually more
:50:57. > :51:02.be hecklers, and that is fine, it is actually enjoyable then, but there
:51:03. > :51:10.came a .3 days ago when it was no longer safe for the public. But it
:51:11. > :51:18.has moved on and I am really glad. Come and heckle me, George! We asked
:51:19. > :51:21.yes Scotland to appear but nobody was available.
:51:22. > :51:39.Sales of powerful vacuum cleaners have soared over the last few weeks
:51:40. > :51:44.as buyers have turned out. I'm told he never touches a vacuum cleaner at
:51:45. > :51:52.home but our reporter, Adam Fleming, is in the newsroom to give a
:51:53. > :51:57.demonstration. Do you know where the on button is? I have a bone to pick
:51:58. > :52:03.with you, you left the office total state. There are crisps, sugar, but
:52:04. > :52:09.luckily we have some vacuum cleaners here. This is one of the illegal
:52:10. > :52:20.ones because it uses more than 1600 watts, I am told sales for this went
:52:21. > :52:29.up by more than 380%. Let's get going. It is very quiet. Lovely,
:52:30. > :52:36.gliding across the carpet there. It has made very short work of the
:52:37. > :52:43.sugar. Will it manage the crisps? These are much harder. Look at that.
:52:44. > :52:49.The crisps are gone, amazing! So you cannot buy these any more, but you
:52:50. > :52:55.can buy these ones instead, which are about half the wattage, but have
:52:56. > :53:00.they got the same suction? Let's find out. Much less smooth on the
:53:01. > :53:13.carpet, and a bit quieter. The sugar has gone. Is it going to manage the
:53:14. > :53:21.crisps? There you go. They are gone. To my untrained eye the
:53:22. > :53:26.suction is exactly the same even though the wattage is different. We
:53:27. > :53:30.have heard from an expert today, the guy who runs the International
:53:31. > :53:40.Hoover Museum in Derbyshire and he says higher wattage is not
:53:41. > :53:44.necessarily of higher suckage back to you. I think you should do that
:53:45. > :54:06.more regularly in our offices! Listening to that is UKIP MEP Louise
:54:07. > :54:09.also. What was wrong with that? It is a flawed experiment because they
:54:10. > :54:14.are using new Hoovers and anybody who has once knows that over time
:54:15. > :54:21.suction disappears, it gets less and less. Suction is something to do
:54:22. > :54:27.with wattage according to James Dyson. He is an expert, one of our
:54:28. > :54:31.prime businessmen, so I am going to listen to him. He has launched
:54:32. > :54:36.already the judicial review because he is so worried about this because
:54:37. > :54:40.of that kind of test, a flawed experiment. Why should we be told
:54:41. > :54:45.what to do and which vacuum cleaner to buy? There is a payoff and it is
:54:46. > :54:48.between having a full and completely open choice as to what vacuum
:54:49. > :54:53.cleaner you want to buy and the damage you are doing to the global
:54:54. > :55:00.atmosphere. How much damage am I doing with my high wattage vacuum
:55:01. > :55:07.cleaner? It all contributes. It adds unnecessarily to the burden of
:55:08. > :55:13.greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Come on! Apparently this will save
:55:14. > :55:18.?8 per year, roughly, on an energy bill for the consumer but the length
:55:19. > :55:26.of time they will continue to Hoover for longer, that will negate that.
:55:27. > :55:34.If it is saving ?8 per year it doesn't negate it.
:55:35. > :55:42.You were saying in the Guardian and environmentalists should be based on
:55:43. > :55:46.science. Dyson would say that, because they are obviously trying to
:55:47. > :55:51.promote their high wattage appliances, but isn't it true that
:55:52. > :56:00.is what the EU is for? These are the organisations that will decide what
:56:01. > :56:06.it it -- what is better for us. Telling us how to live our lives
:56:07. > :56:16.once again. We have to look and think what is best for the consumer.
:56:17. > :56:20.Allergy UK have said allergy sufferers... It is a detriment to
:56:21. > :56:25.them because they will no longer be able to buy the vacuum cleaner they
:56:26. > :56:31.recommend. We have to put people first. It is a good point on
:56:32. > :56:36.allergies. Those dust mites now are far more widespread. We need those
:56:37. > :56:47.Hoovers. I have one myself, caused by house dust. It is not catching,
:56:48. > :56:56.is it? You are sitting far too close. Our vacuum cleaner, way below
:56:57. > :57:01.the threshold, does it adequately and you don't need these monstrous
:57:02. > :57:07.machines like military hardware in your house in order to do a good job
:57:08. > :57:11.of cleaning up. We don't need this constant profligate pointless use of
:57:12. > :57:16.unnecessary energy in order to power the economy. You said yourself,
:57:17. > :57:20.Louise, it is all about the consumer. As consumers they are also
:57:21. > :57:25.interested in Environ mental protection. Lots of consumers have
:57:26. > :57:30.changed their behaviour with recycling for example, and it hasn't
:57:31. > :57:38.been terrible, so why can't they do it over energy guzzling vacuum
:57:39. > :57:42.cleaners? I would say this is the thin end of the wedge. Vacuum
:57:43. > :57:51.cleaners will do nothing to hit the climate change targets. On their
:57:52. > :57:54.own! You have proved my point because I was going to say they have
:57:55. > :58:01.a list of other items they are going to do the same four, including
:58:02. > :58:09.hairdryers and kettles. You are against energy efficiency. My sister
:58:10. > :58:19.is a hairdresser, and this is going to affect her. She is the first
:58:20. > :58:25.one... Let George answered the question. If you have something that
:58:26. > :58:29.takes double the time, you are not saving energy. You have conceded
:58:30. > :58:34.that you save ?8 per year with the lower wattage vacuum cleaner, that
:58:35. > :58:40.means you are saving ?8 of energy, this is energy efficiency. You are
:58:41. > :58:48.going back on what you said at the beginning. But we have to vacuum for
:58:49. > :58:55.longer. Very quickly, will hairdryers and lawn mowers be next?
:58:56. > :59:00.They should be. We should be applying energy efficiency to all
:59:01. > :59:05.our products. That is all for today. Thank you to our guests,
:59:06. > :59:09.particularly to you, George, for being our guest of the day. Andrew
:59:10. > :59:28.is back from his holidays, finally, tomorrow. Goodbye.
:59:29. > :59:37.This year, the world's greatest half-marathon