:00:37. > :00:42.With one month to go until the EU referendum, immigration is,
:00:43. > :00:44.alongside the economy, one of the key issues likely
:00:45. > :00:53.It's a subject that's got one Labour MP into trouble after she was caught
:00:54. > :00:56.on microphone branding a voter as a "horrible racist" for calling
:00:57. > :01:02.We'll be talking about that and the numbers behind
:01:03. > :01:04.the immigration debate, and asking what if anything either
:01:05. > :01:09.side of this referendum debate thinks should be done.
:01:10. > :01:12.Protestors against the US-EU trade deal have a new ally,
:01:13. > :01:15.as Conservative rebels join with Labour to force the government
:01:16. > :01:24.And plans for Britain's first sub-orbital spaceport have grabbed
:01:25. > :01:31.a lot of attention this week but is space tourism really
:01:32. > :01:41.And with us for the whole of the programme today two
:01:42. > :01:43.journalists who have just this moment docked at our sub-orbital
:01:44. > :01:52.You could call them a pair of space cadets.
:01:53. > :01:55.It's Harry Cole from the Sun and Zoe Williams from the Guardian.
:01:56. > :02:01.First today, being caught by the microphones making
:02:02. > :02:03.an unguarded comment is an occupational hazard
:02:04. > :02:04.for the modern politician, particularly during
:02:05. > :02:09.Labour's shadow Europe Minister Pat Glass is the latest
:02:10. > :02:15.She's on several front pages this morning after she branded a voter
:02:16. > :02:17.in Derbyshire a "horrible racist" for criticising a local Polish
:02:18. > :02:30.She had to apologise for the remarks at the end of a BBC radio interview
:02:31. > :02:34.in which she declared she was "never coming back to wherever this is".
:02:35. > :02:38.Not every region in the UK gains out of the European Union,
:02:39. > :02:43.It gets more money out than it puts in and I think that money well spent
:02:44. > :02:50.The very first person I come to is a horrible racist.
:02:51. > :02:55.I'm never coming back to wherever this is.
:02:56. > :03:03.That was the shadow Europe Minister Pat Glass.
:03:04. > :03:09.Last time I looked, she still is the shadow Europe minister.
:03:10. > :03:11.She said afterwards that her comments had been inappropriate
:03:12. > :03:15.She apologised for any offence caused and said concerns about
:03:16. > :03:23.Who thought it? This suggests that Labour shadow ministers are not just
:03:24. > :03:28.out of touch, with traditional Labour voters, they held them in
:03:29. > :03:32.contempt. No, there's useful journalism to be done here if
:03:33. > :03:35.anybody wanted to do it. Go to the Polish family and ask them if they
:03:36. > :03:39.had ever met the guy who called them scroungers because if he doesn't
:03:40. > :03:43.know what their financial situation is, he doesn't know that they are
:03:44. > :03:48.scroungers and he is racist. Why does it make him racist? Because if
:03:49. > :03:58.you assume some of claiming benefits because their Polish. That is what
:03:59. > :04:07.racism is. No, it's not. The Polish are not a race. It is xenophobia. It
:04:08. > :04:13.splitting hairs. No, it's not at all. You say it's a bigoted comment,
:04:14. > :04:20.unfounded. It may be xenophobic. But I cannot see how it can be racist.
:04:21. > :04:23.Frankly, the Labour Minister Pat Glass should've had some backbone
:04:24. > :04:28.and said, I didn't mean racist, I meant xenophobic and bigoted. We
:04:29. > :04:35.don't know what the guy said because he won't go on the record. He said
:04:36. > :04:41.they were scroungers. Apparently. I think the most damning thing Pat
:04:42. > :04:46.Glass said was I'm never coming back to this place. This was a Labour
:04:47. > :04:50.seat in 2010, the sort of marginal Labour have to be winning if they
:04:51. > :04:54.are ever to hold office again and for the shadow Europe minister to
:04:55. > :05:00.call it, saying I never coming here again is disgusting. The mask slips.
:05:01. > :05:04.Labour haven't issue with immigration. People don't think they
:05:05. > :05:12.are treating the issue seriously. Give me a second. When you have an
:05:13. > :05:17.unguarded comment like this, meant to be a private comment, it confirms
:05:18. > :05:21.People's worst fears the party on taking it seriously. I think the
:05:22. > :05:26.most damning thing she said was wherever I am, I'm not coming back
:05:27. > :05:31.here. Whatever area it is. You ought to know where you are. You would
:05:32. > :05:38.take more care if it's your area. Maybe if you were in Chipping
:05:39. > :05:42.Salisbury. Morningside. Islington, Guardian and, wherever it is. I
:05:43. > :05:49.don't disagree you should know where you are. And you shouldn't hold an
:05:50. > :05:54.entire area like this. You shouldn't sneer at it like that. I wish
:05:55. > :05:58.ministers would have some courage of their convictions. If you think
:05:59. > :06:02.someone is xenophobic, bigoted, just say so, stop being so pathetic. It
:06:03. > :06:09.might be that the man who made the remarks and the Labour politician,
:06:10. > :06:14.neither of know the truth. About the Polish family. Exactly, no one knows
:06:15. > :06:16.the truth but when you extrapolate someone's financial affairs from
:06:17. > :06:20.their nationality, you don't know if it's your business. We don't know
:06:21. > :06:30.that. OK, let's imagine nothing happened. It's good for Pat Glass
:06:31. > :06:33.did not have this on film. You wouldn't have pictures of a
:06:34. > :06:39.sneering. She realised how toxic figure was and shut it down in an
:06:40. > :06:44.hour. That's the disaster of it, it's constant, "I'm so sorry" and I
:06:45. > :06:50.don't think she should have apologised. She should've said he
:06:51. > :06:57.was xenophobic. Emma Thornbury was different. Do you think Gordon Brown
:06:58. > :07:00.should apologise? Some are making a decent complaint public services in
:07:01. > :07:05.their area was under pressure. That was fine but make an apology because
:07:06. > :07:11.you are genuinely sorry. Not because it got a gotcha moment. People who
:07:12. > :07:16.say these things, whether they are generally informed or not, I'm not
:07:17. > :07:20.complaining about the race or even the foreign nationality of the
:07:21. > :07:25.people, it's usually the numbers. They are worried about the numbers.
:07:26. > :07:33.Because they get a lot of nonsense ramps down their throat. When where
:07:34. > :07:39.you last in that place. That is sneering in itself. Why? They had
:07:40. > :07:46.that rammed down their face, A waiting times. Let her finish. Thank
:07:47. > :07:50.you. The guy said there was a particular problem with a particular
:07:51. > :07:54.family. To say his real problem is the numbers, you are extrapolating
:07:55. > :07:59.something else. No, I said people like him, there main problem is the
:08:00. > :08:06.numbers. When will you last in an area like that?
:08:07. > :08:07.numbers. When will you last in an and down the country all the time.
:08:08. > :08:16.If you speak to people, and down the country all the time.
:08:17. > :08:18.numbers. I do. I do lots and lots of box pops. It's not the colourful
:08:19. > :08:22.than in the early days of box pops. It's not the colourful
:08:23. > :08:26.immigration in this country, there was clear racist antagonism, they
:08:27. > :08:29.didn't like black people, Afro-Caribbean, they didn't like the
:08:30. > :08:34.fact that they were Asian. This is a different nature. It may still be
:08:35. > :08:37.wrong but it's different. There were loads of concerns which are fine but
:08:38. > :08:44.to say that family are scroungers when you don't know whether they are
:08:45. > :08:49.or not, is bigoted. Now, if he had said this is putting pressure on
:08:50. > :08:52.public services, putting pressure on wages, I can't get a house, then
:08:53. > :09:01.that would have been a completely different position. If all that was
:09:02. > :09:06.true. OK. We have got off to a lively start. We thank Pat Glass.
:09:07. > :09:07.Normally we discuss something a lot more boring.
:09:08. > :09:11.The question for today is about shadow Home Secretary Andy Burnham,
:09:12. > :09:14.who yesterday announced he is running to be Mayor
:09:15. > :09:18.But what did he say people take the mickey out of him for?
:09:19. > :09:23.B) Losing the labour leadership contest?
:09:24. > :09:29.C) Because he said his favourite biscuit was beer, chips and gravy?
:09:30. > :09:40.At the end of the show Harry and Zoe will give us the correct answer.
:09:41. > :09:47.And you are allowed to collude. I bulleted forgotten it. So have I.
:09:48. > :09:50.So we've talked about one politician getting into trouble over
:09:51. > :09:52.immigration but let's talk now about the real substance
:09:53. > :09:54.of what the polls say is, alongside the economy,
:09:55. > :09:57.one of the biggest issues for voters trying to make their mind up ahead
:09:58. > :09:59.of the EU referendum in a month's time.
:10:00. > :10:02.And it's a debate which is defined by some big numbers.
:10:03. > :10:07.The number of people migrating to the UK has been greater
:10:08. > :10:14.than the number emigrating since 1994.
:10:15. > :10:16.At the beginning of the 2000s EU net migration was below 10,000,
:10:17. > :10:19.a small fraction of the overall annual net migration
:10:20. > :10:26.After the accession of 10 countries to the EU,
:10:27. > :10:32.including the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland in 2004, this
:10:33. > :10:37.figure increased dramatically, rising to 87,000 in 2004.
:10:38. > :10:39.The upward trend has continued ever since,
:10:40. > :10:41.with EU net migration reaching 172,000 in the year
:10:42. > :10:50.That's more than half of overall net migration, which was 323,000
:10:51. > :11:03.That's net migration, but the total number of EU nationals
:11:04. > :11:08.coming into the UK only - so not accounting for those
:11:09. > :11:12.who returned to the continent - was 257,000 in the year
:11:13. > :11:20.Those are the official statistics, but others have proposed alternative
:11:21. > :11:24.methods for calculating the number of EU nationals coming to Britain.
:11:25. > :11:28.In the same period, for example, 655,000 applied
:11:29. > :11:33.And separate figures on the UK workforce published earlier this
:11:34. > :11:37.week show number of non-UK nationals from the EU working here in the past
:11:38. > :11:50.year has risen by 224,000 to reached a record 2.15 million.
:11:51. > :11:54.And I'm joined now by the Labour MP and Leave campaigner Frank Field.
:11:55. > :12:00.And the deputy director of Britain Stronger In Europe, Lucy Thomas.
:12:01. > :12:07.Welcome to both of you. Lucy Thomas, let me come to you first. Almost 2.2
:12:08. > :12:13.million non-EU UK nationals working in Britain and the speed at which
:12:14. > :12:17.it's going up every year, is this a problem for your side of the
:12:18. > :12:21.argument? I think the fact they are here and working in contributing
:12:22. > :12:27.into the system and the fact that they paid over ?20 billion in taxes,
:12:28. > :12:31.since coming here, I think that is a huge benefit to our economy,
:12:32. > :12:35.actually, and I think being in the EU with access to the single market,
:12:36. > :12:40.the world's largest, half of our exports go there, having that free
:12:41. > :12:44.movement of people which comes alongside that, is a huge benefit.
:12:45. > :12:50.Overall, the free movement of people and almost 2.2 million EU nationals
:12:51. > :12:56.working here is not a problem, a plus. It's an absolute plus and it
:12:57. > :13:01.also means British people can work and travel and study and retire
:13:02. > :13:04.across the rest of the EU, as well and there are roughly similar
:13:05. > :13:08.numbers of British National is in the rest of the EU as there are EU
:13:09. > :13:12.migrants. I'm not sure that's true because that was based... Just
:13:13. > :13:18.checking the figures now. MOBILE PHONE RINGS
:13:19. > :13:28.Phone it turned out that figure is not accurate. OK, they are broadly
:13:29. > :13:31.in line. No, they're not, actually. That's the latest research I've
:13:32. > :13:37.seen. BBC relative check on this is good. Frank, it's not a problem,
:13:38. > :13:41.it's an asset getting these people, highly motivated, many of them
:13:42. > :13:45.skilled. The don't have to pay for their education in a lot of cases.
:13:46. > :13:49.The Spanish and the Italians are paid immediately benefit. Develop
:13:50. > :13:54.them for two reasons. Despite the fun you had early on, one emerged.
:13:55. > :14:00.All three of you thought the numbers were a problem. I think they are a
:14:01. > :14:05.problem for two reasons. One is that we've never decided in this country
:14:06. > :14:10.what we, as locals, should actually sign up to as citizens. We have had
:14:11. > :14:14.no idea to ask newcomers what we expect of them, so huge numbers of
:14:15. > :14:20.people have come and, instead of strengthening our culture, in some
:14:21. > :14:24.key instances, have actually divided it and that's bad for a nation.
:14:25. > :14:33.People coming from the EU? Where has that happened? Yes, you have a whole
:14:34. > :14:38.range of religious, different histories, and... A lot of the
:14:39. > :14:43.Polish Catholics. We are used to that in this country. Most of this
:14:44. > :14:46.country aren't. The point I'm trying to make is there something about
:14:47. > :14:52.common history and common memories which are important. Didn't we fight
:14:53. > :14:57.the Second World War together? Polish pilots were a key factor in
:14:58. > :15:00.winning the Battle of Britain. As well as the cricket test, we need
:15:01. > :15:04.the Battle of Britain test when making these decisions. The second
:15:05. > :15:12.issue is, the sheer weight of numbers which maybe I was wrong. You
:15:13. > :15:18.all agreed on it. I didn't. I just ask the question. If you are like
:15:19. > :15:21.the person in this imaginary country where the Labour spokesman didn't
:15:22. > :15:30.know where she was, clearly there is real problems about competition for
:15:31. > :15:32.jobs, housing, schools, health. It is that factor which actually has to
:15:33. > :15:42.register. Let me go back to you, does it not
:15:43. > :15:47.matter that there is any cap on the numbers? It is generally accepted
:15:48. > :15:51.that the changes the Prime Minister made on in-work benefits would be
:15:52. > :15:56.marginal to the pull factor. If that. But the huge rise, by British
:15:57. > :16:01.standards, in the new national minimum wage will be a major pull
:16:02. > :16:03.factor, and so more could come from Europe. Does that matter in your
:16:04. > :16:07.mind, or is it Europe. Does that matter in your
:16:08. > :16:08.continue to welcome? Well, I think we have got to look at what the
:16:09. > :16:12.referendum we have got to look at what the
:16:13. > :16:13.options are of leaving and remaining, and the fact that
:16:14. > :16:19.leaving, all remaining, and the fact that
:16:20. > :16:24.England, the Treasury, if you do what Frank's campaign wants us to
:16:25. > :16:25.do, leave the single market, that leads to recession, they agree with
:16:26. > :16:35.that. leads to recession, they agree with
:16:36. > :16:40.ask you a simple question, which is, given the pull factors, and if the
:16:41. > :16:43.eurozone continues to stagnate, the push factors, because a lot of the
:16:44. > :16:48.new ones coming now are coming not from the Eastern European countries,
:16:49. > :16:51.they are coming from Spain, Italy, France, Portugal, does that matter
:16:52. > :16:56.that it could rise and that there is France, Portugal, does that matter
:16:57. > :17:00.no cap on that? Well, limiting free movement means limiting your access
:17:01. > :17:04.to the single market, so the two are intrinsically linked. That is your
:17:05. > :17:08.choice. It is the price of being in the club. Eddies its billion pounds
:17:09. > :17:14.a year our public finances the club. Eddies its billion pounds
:17:15. > :17:22.hit. -- 30 ?6 billion. You don't believe that, do you? Tell me an
:17:23. > :17:24.expert on their side of the argument!
:17:25. > :17:26.expert on their side of the because there is no set of facts,
:17:27. > :17:29.when we turn up because there is no set of facts,
:17:30. > :17:33.we will make a decision from our guts about what we think is right
:17:34. > :17:38.we will make a decision from our for Britain. The one thing we have
:17:39. > :17:42.to be honest about is the outcome in, the real danger is what does it
:17:43. > :17:48.figure in the rest of Europe? It is in our interests that we so approach
:17:49. > :17:52.the renegotiations in a way that nobody feels that the whole place is
:17:53. > :17:57.going to be turned over. We want successful negotiations, we want the
:17:58. > :18:01.EU to be successful. Rather than say we are coming out, this is the
:18:02. > :18:07.timetable, all of it. That is the danger on our side. Sticking with
:18:08. > :18:15.immigration, if you came out, which I guess would give Britain control
:18:16. > :18:18.over who would be coming from the EU or not - at the moment we
:18:19. > :18:21.over who would be coming from the EU is one of the basic rules of
:18:22. > :18:26.membership of the club - how strict would we be? I think we would
:18:27. > :18:31.limited to the skills which we require. Otherwise they could not
:18:32. > :18:36.come to work? Absolutely. That means limiting access to the single market
:18:37. > :18:41.might your exports, your free trade, hitting jobs and prices. Because
:18:42. > :18:44.everyone who has access, whether aren't they are members, has to have
:18:45. > :18:50.pretty much free movement. Norway, Switzerland. Are you happy to access
:18:51. > :18:57.that? I do not accept it. That is the rules of the club. Let him and
:18:58. > :19:03.is a macro. The key fact is that nobody of our size as actually
:19:04. > :19:07.thought about renegotiating. It will be a totally different dynamic. Why?
:19:08. > :19:12.What is the incentive for those remaining countries to give us a
:19:13. > :19:17.better deal? Can I just clarify... It is very difficult to have an
:19:18. > :19:22.interview! I will ask you a question, you will be able to answer
:19:23. > :19:26.it. Would it matter to you if the price of controlling the numbers who
:19:27. > :19:32.can come from the EU was that we did not have our current access to the
:19:33. > :19:39.single market? It would, but because they have a balance with us, we
:19:40. > :19:43.trade less, there is a self interest aspect which would change the
:19:44. > :19:47.dynamism. I'm not pretending it is going to be simple, I'm not saying
:19:48. > :19:51.that any team we send out will be successful, we would want to send
:19:52. > :19:54.the best team out to do the renegotiations. But we are not like
:19:55. > :19:58.Switzerland, we are not like Norway, we are a different league. You know,
:19:59. > :20:04.I just want to make this point again, Andrew, these are important
:20:05. > :20:07.but secondary issues. When we negotiate, we have got to make sure
:20:08. > :20:13.that the European Union does not actually unravel as a result of
:20:14. > :20:18.this. Do you fear that it might? Wouldn't that be a reason for not
:20:19. > :20:22.leaving? It could be, and that is why the negotiations are so
:20:23. > :20:26.important, that what they want to arrange is up to them. As you know,
:20:27. > :20:31.the Prime Minister only conceded a vote to us to keep his party
:20:32. > :20:35.together. Many other countries, both as there would like a vote like we
:20:36. > :20:43.have got. You think it could trigger it? I do, we need to be careful on
:20:44. > :20:47.that. Let me bring back Lucy Tomlinson, many economists would
:20:48. > :20:51.agree with you that the EU influx is overall good for the economy, it has
:20:52. > :20:57.brought skills, people have done jobs that British people are not
:20:58. > :21:01.prepared to do and so on. But it has undoubtedly put extra pressure on
:21:02. > :21:05.housing, on schools, on hospitals, on social security, and the
:21:06. > :21:08.politicians who have walked the walk on opening the doors have not talked
:21:09. > :21:13.the talk when it has come to increasing public spending on this.
:21:14. > :21:17.Isn't that a fair criticism? We can have all these people coming in, it
:21:18. > :21:22.may be good for us, but we still struggle to build 120,000 houses a
:21:23. > :21:27.year, we have been cutting education budgets, the NHS is now in a massive
:21:28. > :21:31.budget deficit. We have not spent the money to accommodate the extra
:21:32. > :21:37.people. Is that fair? I don't think it is, and what is the key point
:21:38. > :21:41.about having strong public services, whether schools and hospitals that
:21:42. > :21:46.you talk about, you need a strong economy. A ?36 billion hole in the
:21:47. > :21:51.public finances will mean weaker hospitals, weaker schools, we get
:21:52. > :21:57.public services as a whole. People already regard them as we go. They
:21:58. > :22:02.would be worse outside. So let me get this right, you do not criticise
:22:03. > :22:06.politicians for opening the door to these people, the number has gone up
:22:07. > :22:10.by 1 million from the EU since 2010, but you do not criticise the
:22:11. > :22:13.politicians for opening that door but not then spending the money to
:22:14. > :22:18.increase public services to appreciate extra people? That is a
:22:19. > :22:22.decision for governments to decide how they spend money, I am talking
:22:23. > :22:25.about the benefits of being in versus the very big risks to the
:22:26. > :22:30.economy of leaving. The fact that public services are stronger in,
:22:31. > :22:35.whether it is the 100,000 EU migrants working in the NHS, across
:22:36. > :22:39.health and social services, and that extra tax receipts from EU migrants,
:22:40. > :22:45.?20 billion. It is up to the Government House disband that, but
:22:46. > :22:49.the idea that a ?36 billion hole in your government is going to... Where
:22:50. > :22:57.is this whole coming from? The Treasury report. The one that told
:22:58. > :23:01.us what the economy would be like in 2030, although last November it
:23:02. > :23:05.could not tell us about this year. Let's see who has backed up this
:23:06. > :23:10.analysis, the IMF, the Bank of England... That is not true, the
:23:11. > :23:15.Bank of England only did short-term forecasts, because that is the
:23:16. > :23:20.monetary remit of the bank on this. If we were prepared to spend more
:23:21. > :23:24.money on public services, given that there seems to be a general view
:23:25. > :23:28.that people are a benefit coming to this country, wouldn't that be job
:23:29. > :23:34.done? There is a dispute on the size of the benefit, because quite
:23:35. > :23:38.properly people draw out. They are net contributors. Lucy, I did not
:23:39. > :23:43.ignore you when you were ranting on. It wasn't a rant, it was an
:23:44. > :23:47.interruption, but please continue. The House of Lords has made the most
:23:48. > :23:52.serious study of this, they think it is a net gain but in pennies. People
:23:53. > :23:56.come here and draw services. The key issue we were talking about, Andrew,
:23:57. > :24:01.almost in the last session, was that if you don't have control of the
:24:02. > :24:05.borders, you have got a government which has got a deficit, as Lucy
:24:06. > :24:09.says, but we do not know whether it is going to be 3 million more people
:24:10. > :24:12.we are budgeting for, or should be budgeting for, for housing,
:24:13. > :24:17.education and health. I do not think you can run a country like this on
:24:18. > :24:21.that basis. You and I have lived through a time when this economy,
:24:22. > :24:26.this country was so on its knees that people were rushing for the
:24:27. > :24:31.door, and people just wanted to leave and get out. Is it not much
:24:32. > :24:35.better to be an economy where people are queueing up to camp in?! Even
:24:36. > :24:41.better if you are queueing up to come in and you are choosing who
:24:42. > :24:44.comes in. Quick response from you? I think this is radically unrealistic,
:24:45. > :24:48.the truth is they are net contributors. I do not believe in
:24:49. > :24:51.weighing people by how much they bring in take-out, it is not the way
:24:52. > :24:55.to talk about people, whatever country they are a citizen of, but
:24:56. > :25:00.if we are going to talk like that, they are net contributors. It will
:25:01. > :25:03.not leave a big hole in the finances, it will plunge us into
:25:04. > :25:07.recession, the pound will go through the fall, interest rates will soar,
:25:08. > :25:12.a recession in no time. That is true. Under no study could you say
:25:13. > :25:16.that Britain has control over immigration, and that is due to EU
:25:17. > :25:24.membership. The elephant in the room is the control on other countries
:25:25. > :25:27.around the world because of EU membership. This is not going to be
:25:28. > :25:30.settled in six months' time, the referendum will not make these
:25:31. > :25:34.problems go away. Even if we stay in, they are going to get worse. The
:25:35. > :25:39.referendum is not the sticking plaster we think it is. Before we
:25:40. > :25:44.move on, Frank, what is your reaction to Pat Glass's comments? If
:25:45. > :25:49.I was mean minded, I would say brilliant, it will help the no vote.
:25:50. > :25:53.The awful fact, though, is that this is not a crisis, a big question of
:25:54. > :25:58.destiny for the country involving the future of the Labour Party, and
:25:59. > :26:03.at the last election, because almost 1 million Labour voters felt that we
:26:04. > :26:09.no longer talk on their behalf, went and devoted Ukip. My worry is that
:26:10. > :26:12.this sort of campaign that is being run will mean another 1 million will
:26:13. > :26:19.think, I am no longer a Labour voter, and I want people to go as
:26:20. > :26:23.Labour voters, heads high into the ballot box, vote for Britain, bowled
:26:24. > :26:28.for coming out, and not feel they are being disloyal. -- vote for
:26:29. > :26:30.coming out. Now to the High Court where judges
:26:31. > :26:33.have been hearing the latest stage in the legal battle for ex-pat
:26:34. > :26:36.British citizens to have the right Around 800,000 expats
:26:37. > :26:40.who are thought to live in Europe have not been granted the right
:26:41. > :26:43.to vote on June 23rd because they've We can speak to to our correspondent
:26:44. > :26:47.Sophie Long. She's outside the Royal Courts
:26:48. > :27:00.of Justice in London. Sophie tell us, what is the judgment
:27:01. > :27:07.we are waiting on today? It has already happened, Andrew, this case
:27:08. > :27:13.was brought by two people who have lived outside the UK for more than
:27:14. > :27:16.15 years. Now, one is now 95, he has been living in Italy since he
:27:17. > :27:20.retired in the 1980s, the other lives in Belgium, a lawyer who has
:27:21. > :27:24.lived there since 1987. They said they should have the right to vote
:27:25. > :27:27.in the referendum because it directly impacts upon their lives,
:27:28. > :27:31.and so last month they went to the High Court and applied for a
:27:32. > :27:34.judicial review. That was rejected by judges at the High Court, they
:27:35. > :27:39.appealed, and today their appeal against that was dismissed. Lord
:27:40. > :27:40.appealed, and today their appeal Dyson, sitting in
:27:41. > :27:45.appealed, and today their appeal Royal Courts of Justice here, said
:27:46. > :27:49.the EU referendum act of 2015 does sit within EU law
:27:50. > :27:51.the EU referendum act of 2015 does could not be seen as a restriction
:27:52. > :27:54.on their rights to freedom of movement, which is what they argued.
:27:55. > :27:59.Bielsa said that the 15 year rule was seen by judges as legitimate and
:28:00. > :28:04.proportionate way of testing as it is an's strength of links to the UK.
:28:05. > :28:08.-- he also said. Their application for a judicial review bailed, they
:28:09. > :28:12.appealed, and now that has been dismissed. Will they have time to
:28:13. > :28:19.take it further, to the Supreme Court in time for June 23? Yes, that
:28:20. > :28:23.is exactly what they are going to do, neither were in court today, but
:28:24. > :28:27.I spoke to their lawyer immediately afterwards, he said the fight is not
:28:28. > :28:31.over, time is of the essence, of course, as you point out, the
:28:32. > :28:34.referendum is on the 23rd of June, but he said they have secured a
:28:35. > :28:38.hearing at the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, on
:28:39. > :28:42.Tuesday of next week, where the lord justices will be asked to consider
:28:43. > :28:47.whether, under the EU referendum act of 2015, up to two million people
:28:48. > :28:53.are being unlawfully denied the right to vote on continued
:28:54. > :28:57.membership of the EU. He says they will be asked to consider whether
:28:58. > :29:00.the 15 year rule act as a penalty against British citizens for having
:29:01. > :29:05.exercised their rights of freedom of movement. So I am also told that
:29:06. > :29:08.Harry Schindler has been in personal contact with the Prime Minister, he
:29:09. > :29:12.said today in a statement that he's still waiting for the Government to
:29:13. > :29:15.tell us why British citizens in Europe cannot vote in the
:29:16. > :29:19.referendum, that the Government had agreed to scrap the rule before the
:29:20. > :29:24.Referendum Bill was passed, agreeing it was arbitrary and under Macrider.
:29:25. > :29:25.So the appeal today was dismissed, but their continues. --
:29:26. > :29:35.undemocratic. Let's hope we're all active at the
:29:36. > :29:40.age of 95. Now let's talk about
:29:41. > :29:42.the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership,
:29:43. > :29:44.or TTIP as it's known. It's the big trade deal that's meant
:29:45. > :29:48.to cut trade barriers between the EU and the United States in industries
:29:49. > :29:51.including cars, energy, It's long been unpopular on parts
:29:52. > :29:57.of the left here and around the EU, but yesterday 25 Tory Eurosceptics
:29:58. > :30:02.joined forces with Labour and the SNP and threatened to force
:30:03. > :30:05.a symbolic government defeat over They said the trade deal could lead
:30:06. > :30:12.to parts of the NHS being broken up and privatised by American firms
:30:13. > :30:16.in the courts. Here's the Tory backbencher
:30:17. > :30:18.William Wragg outlining his concerns The Transatlantic Trade
:30:19. > :30:25.and Investment Partnership, or TTIP, which the EU is determined to pass,
:30:26. > :30:28.may potentially put the UK government and the NHS facing
:30:29. > :30:31.a legal challenge from foreign corporations if we refuse to put
:30:32. > :30:35.some of our public services, including the NHS, out
:30:36. > :30:39.to tender for privatisation. TTIP could, in effect,
:30:40. > :30:42.force a partial privatisation of the NHS and there could be
:30:43. > :30:50.nothing for the UK government or, worse, the British people to do
:30:51. > :30:53.about it if we were to stay a member We on these benches must not be
:30:54. > :30:58.blind to this issue and leave it Well, perhaps in a sign of how keen
:30:59. > :31:03.the Government is to avoid trouble in the run-up to the referendum,
:31:04. > :31:06.Number 10 was quick to respond yesterday by saying they would
:31:07. > :31:09.accept the amendment and in doing so avoid the first defeat
:31:10. > :31:11.on a Queen's Speech vote Well, Frank Field is
:31:12. > :31:16.still with us and he's And we're joined by Conservative MP
:31:17. > :31:31.Robert Jenrick, who is chair Welcome to you. Frank, it's a
:31:32. > :31:35.strange world when Peter Lilley the Tory MP is lauded into today's
:31:36. > :31:39.morning Star editorial. He is the last cabinet member who's had to do
:31:40. > :31:44.a trade deal so he may know a bit about it for that. This is when
:31:45. > :31:50.Britain did its own trade deals. Yes, but the importance of it is, to
:31:51. > :31:53.fold, really, we should welcome the Prime Minister's retreat because
:31:54. > :31:57.this is the new politics. He can't get things to the House of Commons
:31:58. > :32:04.as in the old days when there was safe majorities. It is easier when
:32:05. > :32:08.the Lib Dems were onside, wasn't it? A lot easier. We know what happened
:32:09. > :32:12.to them. What it will mean come at the end of the parliament, we won't
:32:13. > :32:16.be able to say, you gave me this programme to implement but also gave
:32:17. > :32:19.me the powers to stop implementing it so there are swings and
:32:20. > :32:24.roundabouts but for democracy is good. It raises big question is not
:32:25. > :32:27.just for the NHS but industry as a whole is what America wants to
:32:28. > :32:31.construct in this dealer and I think it's somewhat sinister. What the
:32:32. > :32:37.government right to back down on this? It's worth re-emphasising what
:32:38. > :32:42.this deal means to the UK. There are 63% of imports and exports are done
:32:43. > :32:45.either to the EU or the USA. The opportunity here if we could get
:32:46. > :32:50.this deal over the line in the years to come is immense. For consumers,
:32:51. > :32:59.British businesses, creating jobs. The official forecast is it would
:33:00. > :33:05.add a 0.5% to the EU's GDP. That's a statistical error. The history of
:33:06. > :33:08.bilateral treaties is a very good one. They've enabled us to do
:33:09. > :33:13.business all over the world and it's important to say here the UK has
:33:14. > :33:17.over 90 treaty is not dissimilar to those with other countries. I didn't
:33:18. > :33:25.ask for a lecture on free trade but was the government right to back
:33:26. > :33:27.down? It was a mistake to accept what is essentially scaremongering
:33:28. > :33:32.and paranoia by a small group on the left and some conservative
:33:33. > :33:38.colleagues. Is the NHS under no threat in your view as this trade
:33:39. > :33:42.deal is currently construed? Insofar as we can tell since most of it is
:33:43. > :33:48.taking place behind closed doors and was only thanks to a Greenpeace leak
:33:49. > :33:51.of 245 pages, we began to get a flavour of what was involved. If
:33:52. > :33:59.your position the NHS is under no threat at all? That's the methods
:34:00. > :34:03.we've had so far. From? The cross-party group has looked into
:34:04. > :34:08.this and concluded there is no threat to the NHS. They wrote to the
:34:09. > :34:15.Commissioners and got a clear response back. The key point is the
:34:16. > :34:19.UK has 97 similar treaties with countries all over the world, many,
:34:20. > :34:23.if not most of them, have the same provisions as this one and we've
:34:24. > :34:26.never had a problem. The UK Government has only been challenged
:34:27. > :34:34.twice on this issue. It would involve, this one, a number of
:34:35. > :34:40.things becoming justifiable. Meeting behind closed doors. That is not
:34:41. > :34:44.correct. The EU commission has been very clear, they've written to both
:34:45. > :34:47.Parliament through the health select committee and the government, to say
:34:48. > :34:55.state funded health care services are excluded. I wasn't talking about
:34:56. > :34:58.that. I was saying in general, where there will be, if this TTIP goes
:34:59. > :35:03.through, and we there will be, if this TTIP goes
:35:04. > :35:07.reasons why it probably won't, if it was, any trade disputes, the
:35:08. > :35:14.resolution mechanism involves specially set up courts which will
:35:15. > :35:19.meet essentially privately. That's correct but this is nothing new.
:35:20. > :35:26.International arbitration has existed for 40 years. This will be
:35:27. > :35:29.one of the larger courts. We had a similar deal with other developed
:35:30. > :35:37.countries around the world, Hong Kong, Singapore, Israel, in the
:35:38. > :35:40.health care world, very successful. The Israeli pharmaceutical industry
:35:41. > :35:44.is one of the most successful in the world and we have never been
:35:45. > :35:46.is one of the most successful in the successfully challenged. That is the
:35:47. > :35:50.public health system. It's an industry. The public
:35:51. > :35:56.public health system. It's an is excluded. The EU commission said
:35:57. > :36:01.that. Let me put that to Frank. Celia Armstrong, the EU commissioner
:36:02. > :36:04.that. Let me put that to Frank. looking into this, she has said the
:36:05. > :36:07.effect of EU's approach to public health services will make no
:36:08. > :36:11.difference whether a member state has already allowed some services to
:36:12. > :36:15.be private providers or they can bring them back
:36:16. > :36:21.be private providers or they can difference. Do you not accept that?
:36:22. > :36:26.No. One issue is the business about there will be a tribunal system and
:36:27. > :36:38.free trade is marvellous if you are the top dog.
:36:39. > :36:43.free trade is marvellous if you are which you describe, which will be in
:36:44. > :36:46.secret, binding, from which there will be no appeals, will determine
:36:47. > :36:50.the outcome. The second issue is, clearly the NHS is in real problems,
:36:51. > :36:56.it needs money, and a commitment of the electorate to fund that, but it
:36:57. > :37:01.also needs reform. That reform programme shouldn't actually come as
:37:02. > :37:07.a result of an arbitrary trade deal, but be something
:37:08. > :37:12.a result of an arbitrary trade deal, NHS. Shouldn't we be a bit sceptical
:37:13. > :37:15.here on these Tories who are now the big critics of TTIP? The traditional
:37:16. > :37:24.criticism has come from the Green party, from the left, as well. And
:37:25. > :37:31.from some others in Europe. But not from the Tories. This is playing a
:37:32. > :37:38.Eurosceptic card, isn't it? It may well be that it is welcomed. If you
:37:39. > :37:41.think the move is wrong, do you think other politicians should put
:37:42. > :37:46.their sticky fingers into people's souls and say I think your motives
:37:47. > :37:52.are not as pure as mine? The Prime Minister is on the run. I would
:37:53. > :37:57.suggest it's almost entirely irrelevant, the TTIP deal will not
:37:58. > :38:02.be done in time for the presidential election or the inauguration of the
:38:03. > :38:05.new president. Donald Trump has already come out against it and
:38:06. > :38:10.Hillary Clinton is against it because she had to see off Bernie
:38:11. > :38:15.Sanders and in France, Germany, and Holland there is a massive head of
:38:16. > :38:19.steam against it, so it's a kind of almost irrelevant argument. In the
:38:20. > :38:24.coming months and years, this might be done and it's been going on for
:38:25. > :38:28.years. The free-trade agreements the EU provides us with, is one of the
:38:29. > :38:32.key reasons we have to say. We don't even have a trade deal. Barack Obama
:38:33. > :38:38.says you have to go back to the queue. We don't have a trade deal
:38:39. > :38:43.now is that point is silly. This shows how weak the Prime Minister
:38:44. > :38:49.is. That he had to give in. Three weeks ago I was speaking to MP, a
:38:50. > :38:54.moderate Eurosceptic, saying he was urging colleagues not to disrupt the
:38:55. > :38:57.Queen's Speech because at the end of the day they got to put the party
:38:58. > :39:01.back together after the referendum. He was on the list so that shows the
:39:02. > :39:05.level of anger the Prime Minister has conducted himself in the last
:39:06. > :39:08.three weeks. The reason a lot of governments are doing this is
:39:09. > :39:11.because it's gone through, the trade agreement which comes through Canada
:39:12. > :39:18.and that has many of the same provisions, namely covert courts
:39:19. > :39:24.where courts can sue government in a way none of us will ever know
:39:25. > :39:27.anything about. 80% of American companies have Canadian wings that
:39:28. > :39:34.can do their trade through that anyway. The reason the Americans are
:39:35. > :39:37.insisting on this is that they don't accept, they are worried about the
:39:38. > :39:42.impartiality of a number of European court systems. They wouldn't have
:39:43. > :39:49.that concern if this was purely an Anglo American trade deal. I don't
:39:50. > :39:53.know. When you get any situation in which there is corporate
:39:54. > :39:56.confidentiality on one side and public facing information on the
:39:57. > :40:02.other... The Americans would allow the English common law to be in
:40:03. > :40:07.these cases in a way they don't trust the course of... I would be
:40:08. > :40:12.amazed about is true. Be amazed. It is true. Are you worried now the
:40:13. > :40:23.error free trade which has dominated the global economy as an aim since
:40:24. > :40:28.1944, around them, is now in retreat and it's partly in retreat, even on
:40:29. > :40:34.the conservative wing of politics because there is quite a clear
:40:35. > :40:42.correlation between the rise of globalisation and the blue-collar
:40:43. > :40:44.classes? It's certainly a cause of concern to conservatives to see a
:40:45. > :40:47.growing number of colleagues being willing to put them into an
:40:48. > :40:53.amendment like the one we're going to happen next in Parliament. So you
:40:54. > :40:56.are worried? These are people who are usually pro-free trade, if we
:40:57. > :41:00.vote to leave the EU, would like is to go out into the world as a global
:41:01. > :41:07.trading nation to find deals. Isn't it because the losers of free trade
:41:08. > :41:11.are now having their say? There's also a lot of misinformation and
:41:12. > :41:15.that is why it's important for politicians to communicate the
:41:16. > :41:19.benefits and drawbacks of doing this. It is surprising that, in
:41:20. > :41:23.Parliament, very few people seem to appreciate that exactly the
:41:24. > :41:25.provisions we been talking about today have existed in 90 plus
:41:26. > :41:33.investment treaties for almost 40 years. All right, you've made that
:41:34. > :41:34.point. We have got a lot to cover today. We need to move on but I
:41:35. > :41:36.thank you both. Now it's time for the
:41:37. > :41:38.latest in our both. I know Zoe and Harry will
:41:39. > :41:43.be taking notes in case they one day reach
:41:44. > :41:45.high office. Today it's one of the newest big
:41:46. > :41:48.jobs in government - Could you make sure that the lights
:41:49. > :42:06.stay on, that we all stay warm, and at the same time
:42:07. > :42:10.cut carbon emissions? So, you want to be Secretary of
:42:11. > :42:16.State for Energy and Climate Change. It's the department that
:42:17. > :42:18.I particularly wanted to go to and the department that
:42:19. > :42:21.I stayed in, even when, after David Laws' resignation
:42:22. > :42:23.from the Treasury, I was offered the Chief Secretary job and a place
:42:24. > :42:26.in the quad inevitably, and I said no to that,
:42:27. > :42:31.I wanted to stay with Decc. There was a discussion
:42:32. > :42:33.about carbon reporting, and I did point out to somebody that
:42:34. > :42:38.James Murdoch had a more aggressive regulatory position on this issue
:42:39. > :42:41.than the Government did. I said, "Look, come on,
:42:42. > :42:43.James Murdoch is hardly I had a lot of arguments with
:42:44. > :42:48.the Tories, particularly on my area. In many ways, it was the area
:42:49. > :42:52.where we saw the most clashes. Jill Rutter is a former senior
:42:53. > :42:54.civil servant and now She says the department is important
:42:55. > :43:01.but it's the baby of Whitehall. Decc is the newest
:43:02. > :43:03.government department - it was created to resolve a debate
:43:04. > :43:06.that used to go on between So if you're going to be
:43:07. > :43:10.a successful Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change,
:43:11. > :43:14.you need to be able to maintain credibility with the Treasury,
:43:15. > :43:16.who are very interested in energy policies, it's so key
:43:17. > :43:20.to economic performance. You need to be able to deal with big
:43:21. > :43:23.business, because we rely on the private sector to provide
:43:24. > :43:25.all that energy infrastructure. That the same time, you need to keep
:43:26. > :43:29.on board a bunch of very vociferous green stakeholders who are
:43:30. > :43:34.determined to keep the Government to the climate change commitments
:43:35. > :43:37.that were set out in Of course, in the early '80s
:43:38. > :43:41.there was no Decc, and for both Environment Secretaries
:43:42. > :43:42.and Energy Secretaries, Climate change, in my days
:43:43. > :43:50.as the Secretary of State for the Environment,
:43:51. > :43:55.was never the acute issue today, demanding huge subsidies of one
:43:56. > :43:58.sort or another. Nobody ever mentioned climate
:43:59. > :44:03.change, it wasn't an issue, and it has now moved from not
:44:04. > :44:07.being an issue at all to becoming a mania, so that the climate change
:44:08. > :44:14.tail is wagging the energy dog. But Chris Huhne, a coalition
:44:15. > :44:16.Liberal Democrat Secretary of State, If I was to say there was one
:44:17. > :44:24.enormous threat to humanity, not just do this country,
:44:25. > :44:27.it is the fact that we are undergoing a period
:44:28. > :44:31.of enormous climate change, and that is going to have tremendous
:44:32. > :44:34.consequences for future generations unless we get a grip
:44:35. > :44:37.on it very quickly. It fell to Ed Miliband as the first
:44:38. > :44:41.Secretary of State for Decc to wed these competing ideas together
:44:42. > :44:45.in a single department, and he knew the scale
:44:46. > :44:48.of the challenge. I did slightly feel
:44:49. > :44:51.that the people who worked in Energy felt that the people who were
:44:52. > :44:53.from the Environment Department were a bunch of muesli-eating
:44:54. > :44:58.sandal-wearers, and the people who'd come from the Environment part
:44:59. > :45:01.of the forest thought the Energy people were a bunch of
:45:02. > :45:03.petrol-headed sort of technocrats. And so there was definitely
:45:04. > :45:06.a challenge of integration It's not that people
:45:07. > :45:11.weren't committed, but they had their own fiefdoms,
:45:12. > :45:14.they had their own way of doing things,
:45:15. > :45:16.and there was a sort of sense... a sense of mutual suspicion
:45:17. > :45:24.in a way. I was clashing with Eric Pickles,
:45:25. > :45:27.I was clashing with Owen Paterson, I was clashing with
:45:28. > :45:37.George Osborne, of course. because he did actually
:45:38. > :45:40.believe in a lot of green stuff. My problem was he didn't stand up
:45:41. > :45:42.to the Chancellor enough. For Ed Miliband, the problem
:45:43. > :45:45.wasn't so much Chancellor of the time, Alistair Darling,
:45:46. > :45:47.as the Treasury itself. The Treasury likes
:45:48. > :45:51.to control things. You know, that is their
:45:52. > :45:56.institutional role in Whitehall. And so at an institutional level,
:45:57. > :45:58.there was a sense that, hang on a minute,
:45:59. > :46:01.there's this new kid on the block, the department, they seem
:46:02. > :46:07.to have a lot of control over some And it was
:46:08. > :46:13.the cross-Whitehall battles that I used
:46:14. > :46:15.to find most frustrating. But by the time Chris Huhne
:46:16. > :46:20.arrived three years later, the department had begun
:46:21. > :46:22.to find its feet. The curious thing about
:46:23. > :46:26.the Department of Energy and Climate Change is that
:46:27. > :46:28.it is very much rather like the Department
:46:29. > :46:32.for International Development. It has a very, very clear remit,
:46:33. > :46:35.a very clear aim, and a lot of the people who go and work for it
:46:36. > :46:39.at civil service level, and one would hope also political level,
:46:40. > :46:42.do so precisely because they do share those aims and they really
:46:43. > :46:46.want to make them happen. if you have the support
:46:47. > :46:50.of key people. I think the current Prime Minister,
:46:51. > :46:52.actually, as Leader of the Opposition,
:46:53. > :46:55.did help change the debate, The fact that he took a lead
:46:56. > :46:59.on the climate change and green issues definitely
:47:00. > :47:03.held us more to account. But I'm afraid the opposite is true,
:47:04. > :47:07.which is the scepticism of George Osborne, the apparent
:47:08. > :47:12.scepticism of George Osborne about this issue, him saying
:47:13. > :47:15.we should not be a leader, "Why should we be
:47:16. > :47:17.ahead of the pack?" You might say, as a Labour
:47:18. > :47:21.politician, Ed Miliband would say that, but George Osborne's
:47:22. > :47:23.coalition partners Cameron won't get rid of Decc,
:47:24. > :47:31.because he still likes to think he is a green person, famed
:47:32. > :47:35.for being the first Tory leader I think Decc will go overnight,
:47:36. > :47:45.if I'm honest with you. So it would seem that the long view
:47:46. > :47:48.of being Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change
:47:49. > :47:52.is not that clear. Either it will become
:47:53. > :47:59.THE department of government, or it's possible that in the future
:48:00. > :48:05.there won't even be one. Now, when it comes to
:48:06. > :48:10.the referendum on EU membership, are you for Remain or for Leave?
:48:11. > :48:13.Or are you perhaps still undecided? Well, according to the polls,
:48:14. > :48:16.many of you aren't sure. But, more surprisingly, that's also
:48:17. > :48:21.a view reflected among some MPs, who haven't yet come
:48:22. > :48:25.out one way or another. As a public service,
:48:26. > :48:28.we here at the Daily Politics have come up
:48:29. > :48:29.with the very latest list of how many MPs are still
:48:30. > :48:32.thinking about it. The Conservative Party is,
:48:33. > :48:34.as you'll have worked out by now, having the biggest struggle
:48:35. > :48:37.with this decision. And that's reflected
:48:38. > :48:40.in the fact that there are still 26 undecided MPs, that's
:48:41. > :48:43.8% of the parliamentary party. We've tried to get in touch
:48:44. > :48:47.with them all, and ten have told us they will declare before the vote,
:48:48. > :48:51.often saying they're waiting until they've finished holding
:48:52. > :48:55.debates in their constituencies. The rest, 16 of them,
:48:56. > :48:58.either said they won't be declaring their intention at all,
:48:59. > :49:01.or they didn't return our calls. You know where we are
:49:02. > :49:08.if you'd like to ring in. where the overwhelming majority
:49:09. > :49:12.of MPs are for remain, there are just eight MPs
:49:13. > :49:15.still to tell us how they'll vote. Of those, two have told us they'll
:49:16. > :49:18.declare before the referendum, aren't playing their cards
:49:19. > :49:29.close to their chest. The SNP, the Lib Dems, Plaid
:49:30. > :49:31.and the other smaller parties have all declared
:49:32. > :49:33.one way or another. Well, to discuss this,
:49:34. > :49:35.we're joined by one Conservative MP He's James Heappey,
:49:36. > :49:48.and he joins us from Bristol. Welcome to the programme. Now, I
:49:49. > :49:55.understand you've made up your mind by Joe not going to tell us. I made
:49:56. > :49:57.my mind of a couple of weeks ago. I was genuinely undecided, but the
:49:58. > :50:00.great literary of being in Parliament as I get to walk through
:50:01. > :50:04.the voting lobbies most evening with the entire cabinet, and the leading
:50:05. > :50:08.campaigners on both sides of the debate, and it meant I was able to
:50:09. > :50:12.answer some of the questions I had and come to my own conclusion. But
:50:13. > :50:16.the reality is that, for my constituents, they don't have that
:50:17. > :50:20.sort of access to those people, so I set myself to deliver the best
:50:21. > :50:24.quality debate that I can within my constituency, and once those are
:50:25. > :50:32.done, I will come clean on what I'm thinking. So you will tell us,
:50:33. > :50:36.because the world is waiting for this, before the vote? Absolutely. I
:50:37. > :50:41.think that people have a right to know how their MPs go to vote, it is
:50:42. > :50:46.a referendum, my vote is no Leave with no more than any constituent,
:50:47. > :50:51.but they may want to know how I will vote. -- my vote is worth no more.
:50:52. > :50:55.Nobody likes the person who claims to have been supporting Leicester
:50:56. > :51:01.City all season, so it is important to get my mark out before the vote.
:51:02. > :51:07.Are you telling us that you support Leicester City in Bristol?! No, no,
:51:08. > :51:11.nobody likes the supporters who say they have been supporting them all
:51:12. > :51:15.along after they have won. Maybe people think you are suspicious,
:51:16. > :51:21.waiting to see which way the wind blows. I am pretty clear on that, I
:51:22. > :51:24.think my constituency and the south-west is a region is probably
:51:25. > :51:29.leaning out, and one of the things that bothers me about the referendum
:51:30. > :51:32.is that it is likely that there will be regions of the country that vote
:51:33. > :51:35.one way when the country as a whole votes be another. It is likely there
:51:36. > :51:40.will be a younger generation that bodes one way, and older that bodes
:51:41. > :51:45.the other, and that creates a challenge, bringing everyone back
:51:46. > :51:50.together afterwards. -- votes. How I vote is immaterial, this is about my
:51:51. > :51:56.constituents. If I were to put ?1 a new voting to come out, I would
:51:57. > :52:02.probably get it back, right? I'm not sure... It is a nice try! Have you
:52:03. > :52:09.got a date when you will make your declaration? I can hardly wait(!) My
:52:10. > :52:14.mum is very excited as well. She has been on the phone to me trying to
:52:15. > :52:20.find out! The last of the debate I am doing is on the 16th of June, and
:52:21. > :52:24.I intend to make it known locally, to the local papers at that point. I
:52:25. > :52:29.am not sure that I will be having you and the BBC on my doorstep,
:52:30. > :52:33.because as much as you flatter me, I am not sure it matters that much do
:52:34. > :52:37.you! We were not going to spend as much to go to your doorstep, but if
:52:38. > :52:42.you were passing the studio, we would have had you on. Don't go
:52:43. > :52:46.away, that we find out what our guests think, is he doing the right
:52:47. > :52:51.thing? It is absolutely bizarre, almost Reformation view of the lobby
:52:52. > :52:53.that you get access to these amazing arguments by walking through
:52:54. > :53:00.Westminster, where normal people could not possibly find out or read
:53:01. > :53:04.internet! If it is used as a way of generating interest in the
:53:05. > :53:10.constituency by engaging people in this way, we are all waiting to see
:53:11. > :53:13.how the vote goes. The important thing is that the Prime Minister had
:53:14. > :53:20.a number, he wanted to make sure that hard his party at least would
:53:21. > :53:23.come out and stay in with him. I think he would have been baffled,
:53:24. > :53:27.but the party is genuinely split, but he has got to the number now,
:53:28. > :53:32.where are the party, more than half the party is with him. You think he
:53:33. > :53:37.has halved the Parliamentary party now? I think he has, I do not know
:53:38. > :53:43.what the bishop publicly declared number is. Only just, I think. James
:53:44. > :53:49.who have been listening, regardless of what you want to happen, how do
:53:50. > :53:54.you think the referendum is going to go on the 23rd? I suspect the
:53:55. > :53:56.country will vote to remain. We will wait to hear from you, thank you for
:53:57. > :54:00.joining us from Bristol. Now, one of the most
:54:01. > :54:02.eye-catching announcements in Wednesday's Queen's Speech
:54:03. > :54:04.was the news that the UK could get its first spaceport,
:54:05. > :54:08.apparently as soon as 2018. That is a lot sooner than a third
:54:09. > :54:12.runway! There are six sites
:54:13. > :54:13.battling to get selected, with Newquay in Cornwall
:54:14. > :54:16.said to be the frontrunner. Prestwick in Scotland is also in the
:54:17. > :54:19.running. Well, as ever, the Daily Politics
:54:20. > :54:22.is ahead of the curve on these things, and we covered the news
:54:23. > :54:24.on Monday's programme. Let's have a listen
:54:25. > :54:26.to Dr Robert Massey he didn't sound too impressed
:54:27. > :54:29.by the idea. Is there a solid business case
:54:30. > :54:31.for it? I think that's an open question,
:54:32. > :54:34.actually. I mean, we put evidence
:54:35. > :54:36.into the select committee's space and satellites policy
:54:37. > :54:38.a couple of months ago, and we were a bit ambivalent
:54:39. > :54:41.about going to operate on a solely
:54:42. > :54:44.commercial basis, If you need, for example,
:54:45. > :54:48.a booming space tourism industry to deliver that,
:54:49. > :54:50.there isn't actually much of a space tourism industry
:54:51. > :54:52.at all at the moment, except wealthy Americans
:54:53. > :54:53.paying the Russians So that was the view
:54:54. > :54:57.of the Royal Astronomical Society. we were contacted by
:54:58. > :55:05.the Royal Aeronautical Society, that's the Royal
:55:06. > :55:07.Aeronautical Society, who said the Royal
:55:08. > :55:13.Astronmical Society had no idea what they were talking about,
:55:14. > :55:26.and were "regrettably misleading" Well, to find out more about
:55:27. > :55:33.this clash of the space experts, we're joined by Dr Malcolm Macdonald
:55:34. > :55:47.from the Royal Aeronautical Society, So
:55:48. > :55:52.Astronomical Society said? Well, I don't want to get into any sort of
:55:53. > :55:56.slanging match... Too late for that! I think it is worth pointing out
:55:57. > :55:58.there were a few technical errors, they said that being close to the
:55:59. > :56:02.equator they said that being close to the
:56:03. > :56:06.is not the case. They'll also said that there isn't a business case, or
:56:07. > :56:12.the business case was not clear. There have been studies done to look
:56:13. > :56:20.at the business case for a UK spaceport,, and it suggests 400
:56:21. > :56:23.would be a settled number, ?45 million per year for that spaceport.
:56:24. > :56:27.It is not that there is a business case, not that it is not known,
:56:28. > :56:34.studies have been done, numbers are available. At our society we have
:56:35. > :56:37.been running a conference in February where we examined the
:56:38. > :56:42.issues, we brought together regulators and legislators, we
:56:43. > :56:46.looked that differ in size from across the UK, we brought together
:56:47. > :56:50.spaceport operators from the USA, and a vehicle operators as well, to
:56:51. > :56:53.explore the technologies, the legislative issues, and ultimately
:56:54. > :56:58.the business case to see how we can learn from worldwide experience to
:56:59. > :57:02.make the UK spaceport as good as it can possibly be. If it is to work in
:57:03. > :57:05.this country, will it need government money? I don't think we
:57:06. > :57:09.should expect any government money. I think you would expect the
:57:10. > :57:12.Government to be doing more of a licensing approach, and indeed that
:57:13. > :57:18.is what has been reported in the press, moving away from that to a
:57:19. > :57:23.licensing process. I understand there were about eight possible
:57:24. > :57:28.sites in the UK for this, is Newquay now the front runner, was Prestwick
:57:29. > :57:32.in with a shout? There were eight sites, down selected to six. Of
:57:33. > :57:36.those, perhaps four are the more serious. From that, it is really
:57:37. > :57:39.difficult to make any comment. The conference we ran in February, it
:57:40. > :57:43.was clear that some of the sites have an advantage over others, but
:57:44. > :57:48.all of them have downsides and positives. Ultimately, if we are
:57:49. > :57:52.moving towards licensing, we will probably see more than one in the
:57:53. > :57:57.UK. There are ten within the USA. Would you like to send a fraternal
:57:58. > :58:03.message to the Royal Ascot uncle society? No, I mean, I would
:58:04. > :58:07.encourage all of the societies and professional bodies, everybody to
:58:08. > :58:12.share the expertise that they have, but to make sure that it is backed
:58:13. > :58:16.based. We will leave at there, thank you very much. That huge crane
:58:17. > :58:22.behind you was the spaceport of its day, that used to load 30,000 cars a
:58:23. > :58:29.year, sorry, steam engines. Before we go, the quiz, what was the
:58:30. > :58:33.answer? And you're a member? What do people take the Micky Adams Andy
:58:34. > :58:39.Burnham for? I think a lot of reasons, not least as eyelashes! And
:58:40. > :58:45.his ability to stick to anything he says! But I think it was about being
:58:46. > :58:49.from the North. All right, I have no idea what the answer is! That was
:58:50. > :58:52.the right one! I will be back with the Sunday Politics on Sunday
:58:53. > :58:57.morning, to join me then, please! Bye-bye.