02/04/2014 Newsnight

Farrage on points, quit a lot of them too seems to be the verdict on

the UKIP debate. It was more personal and bitter. By staying in

the European Union we are not going to be couped up on a Native

Americans are vase, what will you say next you are Crazy Horse or

Sitting Bull, you have to have a level-headed debate about this. We

are in Afghanistan, where the country is about to Doose choose a

new President. With this kind of rally it is emphasised having guns

is no longer enough. This country becomes one of the bigger, wealthy

international nations meeting the target for giving international aid.

Why should British tax-payers be obliged to give money to the less

fortunate and does it even do much good. The man who conceived the Gaya

theory of the world, talks about our prospects. Other species have died

out, why should we be given special tenure. Two grown men spending hours

trying to come up with pithy putdowns for the other. Did Nick

Clegg and Nigel Farage wonder at any point what a very odd trade they are

in. The judgment of others came earlier this evening when the two

men shrugged it out, hardly making eye contact much of the time. And

with trade-offs of accusations that neither was telling the truth. Emily

Maitlis won the lottery for front seat for the thriller.

Anyone in search of high-minded debate. Not so much the wolf of Wall

Street, but the dunce from Downing Street. Not from the two Muppets who

advised the last Chancellor. They would have done well to avoid PMQs

today. But by this evening it got better, Nigel Farage and Nick Clegg

arrived at the BBC for round two of the Europe debate. We were promised

more emotion from Nick Clegg. Is it going to get personal? I hope not,

the issues are very important. More hard figures from Nigel Farage,

Clegg's world of the evening was? Dangerous con. Repeated throughout

the hour. Farrage's response was? Career politicians, it is the career

political class. He's keen to distance UKIP from the idea that any

of them are politicians. Monitoring public opinion, or should we say the

hallowed and unrealistic bubble that is the Twittersphere. Demos tracked

who appeared to be winning and losing. It seems people are both

using Twitter to pour derision and talk about the individuals and

personalities involved rather than the politics. Things opened with a

question from Hannah, who asked each man what principles guided their

policies? If you do what Nigel Farage recommends and you isolate

Britain, a sort of "Billy no mates Britain", it would be worse it would

be "Billy no jobs Britain". I'm not a career politician, I was years in

by-election I got involved in this with the treaty we signed up to we

were giving away our birth rate. On to Ukraine, a week after Nigel

Farage defended the actions of one Mr Putin? I didn't say I admired

him, I said he outmanoeuvred you all on the Ukraine. I'm not going for

that. Nigel Farage is the leader of Putin. It all got a bit surreal, a

leaflet Mr Farrage said he had never seen. It is a picture of an unhappy

Native American, it says "he used to ignore immigration now he lives on a

reservation", the suggestion is the British people will be couped up on

a reservation. Nigel Farage, by staying in the European Union we are

not going to be couped up on a Native American reservation what are

you going to say next that you are Crazy Horse or Sitting Bull. I don't

recognise the leaflet and wouldn't endorse the sentiment. The sparks

started to fly when they started talking about European control of

British law, each using figures the other believed bogus. I was

astonished last week in the first of the debates when Nick Clegg claimed

that only 7% of our laws are made in Brussels. He said it was there in

the House of Commons library note and therefore was unequiff could. I

have got the -- unequiff could. I have got the note with me, and the

British Government estimates around 50% of UK legislation comes from

Brussels. The fact of the reality is that 7% of our primary law derives

from the European Union. I'm sorry, I said yes to the debates, I thought

you would make the pro-EU case, by saying 7% of the laws are made in

Brussels, you are willfully lying to the British public about the extent

we have given away control of our country and democracy. I'm shocked

and surprised you would try to do that. Let's see the audience

reaction here? The last question sounded simple. What will the EU be

like in ten years? It was here arguably that Nick Clegg mid-his

worst mistake. I suspect it will be similar to what it is now. Tomorrow

morning that might seem like something of an own goal. Nigel

Farage meanwhile went all C her, Guvara. I would urge people come and

join the people's army and topple the establishment who led us to this

mess. Two polls issued towards the end declared Farrage the clear

winner on 69 and 68%, a clear ten points better than this week. And

then the worm started to fade away as Twitter, viewers, a saner world

in general, went in search of another European clash, Chelsea

versus PSG on the other side. Here now to pick their winner and loser

are the political strategist John McTernan and Conservative peer, Lord

Finkelstein. Do you share the received wisdom that Farrage won? We

are talking here about a Liberal Democrat versus UKIP debate about

the European Union. I don't suppose that many people were paying a huge

A attention to it. We were. But the political world wasn't. I think

Nigel Farage is very convincing at this sort of debate. And Nick

Clegg's problem is he has not adjusted to the public's perception

of him. It is just after the tuition fees and after their period in

Government, he cannot make Anne peel which he tried do in this debate

repeat lead on the basis of sincerity. Not making a judgment

about whether I thought he was right or wrong on the points. It is not an

appeal he can make and succeed on. There is dedevolution among

political parties when they get unpopular, if they find one of their

policies is more popular than them, they find if they embrace it vocally

and publicly they might match the popularity of the policy. That is

the Clegg point. They are only 11%, but a third or half of the country

like the European Union as much as them. It is insane. What the Deputy

Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom did

was go and fight with man who doesn't have a single MP in the

House of Commons. It made man who has belittled himself already and

made all the mistakes that Danny set out, it made him look smaller than

he is and his party is. That is really bad. It was worth a try, the

Liberal Democrats have been at 10% since almost the win -- beginning of

the Government, they are still at 10%, nothing appears to work, the

differenciation strategy doesn't seem to work and I don't think it

will, he may have may as well try this, the strategy of trying to get

more of the pro-European votes and stand up for the things he thought

of. The problem he has is he cannot base that appeal upon he's more

sincere than Nigel Farage. That was never going to work. Nigel Farage

has the advantage he as an outsired, he talks a sort of -- outsider. He

talks a bluff common sense as far as people see it. For Nick Clegg to

think he's going to pierce that by saying you are a liar and I'm not. I

didn't think it would work and it didn't. The only cut through that

Nick Clegg has had in the two debates was the moment he stood and

listed the crimes people had committed, fled to the continent and

brought back by the European arrest warrant. That was the only bit that

cut through. Last week wasn't it? Last week, it was the only the time

he made a real case for Europe with real people and issues. He

completely misunderstood the lessons this week last week. He dug a deeper

hole this week. You can't win a debate from that position, leaving

aside the sincerity question. You can't win a European debate when you

are not prepared to guarantee a referendum. Even Nigel Farage

illustrates how difficult David Cameron will find. That when he

comes back with nobody epulis believes anything you say that is

very effective for people. It did illustrate a problem the

Conservatives will have making that argument. At the same time Nick

Clegg basically tried to win from a purist European position, I don't

think you can win it from that. Do you think Cameron and Miliband were

wise not to get involved? Totally you leave the two dwarves fighting

with each other. Classically this was two bald fighting over a comb.

There was little to when from Clegg's side and Farrage's side,

he's merely confirming with the public why they like or don't like

him. Gets more exposure, you don't want to I mean, you don't want to,

if you are David Cameron or Ed Miliband, to elevate Nigel Farage

any more than he is driven by the fact there is a European election

and the fact he is articulating a situation that has a constituency.

That was obviously the right thing not to appear in the debates. I

think Nigel Farage will have gained something from it, we should all not

overestimate how much attention people were paying to this. This is

not the leadership debate or the general election. People when they

are asked about it are not making the same kind of judgment. But it

gets mire tension than it deserves because it is fill ago vacuum. One

of the things -- filling a vacuum. One of the things is parliament has

run its course, we have had our four years, we are ready for jacks,

except we are locked into a five-year parliament. Whose fault is

that? The coalition. I think the non-European aspects of this debate,

few people regard Europe as the top item of the political agenda. When

you watch Nigel Farage talking about immigration and dealing with the

political classes. It is fascinating he folded big business into the

political classes. He's aiming at the Labour vote there talking about

a particular class, that is where UKIP has the base vote. It was

pretty interesting and effect YICHLT I think the other parties won't have

participated, but they will have watched and noted that is an

effective appeal. It is a limited appeal there are some people willing

to vote that in a general election, when it won't win any seats and you

are choosing a Prime Minister it is limited. Before that we have the

European elections. What affect will it have there? The battle for votes

and seats is between UKIP and the Labour Party. What that means is

that the result will be difficult for David Cameron. There is nothing

after the election, the European elections that doesn't cause him

pain. He has a backbench that are restive already, and ill

disciplined, and they use this issue, not the only issue they are

concerned about. I predict a summer of fighting inside the Tory Party

and the Labour Party you know there is four weeks in a row have now gone

and nobody has raised, in PMQs, Labour's position on Europe. David

Cameron doesn't want backbenchers to raise the issue of Europe in the

House of Commons E wants Europe done and -- he wants Europe done and

dusted as soon as possible. It will be a continuing sore for the

stories. They want to play the expectation games, UKIP have played

expectations on coming first. Certainly people are expecting a

meltdown of the Conservative Party. There is an element of control David

Cameron can exercise in that, can he show the Conservative Party to be

more disciplined after that result than people expect. So you know you

can do some things to offset it. But of course the reason why UKIP will

get much more in a European election than a general election is because

people vote differently because they don't think it really matters that

much. I remember the Greens surging in the 80s. A quick yes or no to

this, do you think Nigel Farage should be allowed to take part in

the leaders' debates before the general election, each of you? No. I

think the leaders' debate should be structured so as to give an

appearance on one but not with Miliband or Cameron, but allowed in

one. Man dressed in military uniform walk

today the Interior Ministry in Kabul, flicked a switch, and blew

himself to pieces and murdered six police officers. The attack was

almost certainly the work of the Taliban, whose violence has

intensified ahead of an election when Afghans get to choose a new

President. Hamid Karzai, the man who has led Afghanistan since the fall

of the Taliban in 2001 is stepping down. His successor will be one of

nine hopefuls, ranging from western-educated economists to

notorious warlords. Bid end of the year all foreign -- by the end of

the year, all foreign combat troops will have left. Afghanistan's most

important election is approaching, Afghans know that. For a decade or

more this country h marched to the tune of Hamid Karzai and a huge

contingent of foreign troops. That predictable beat is about to end.

Presidential hopefuls range from old fighters to a former Finance

Minister, to win they have to win here in conservative Kandahar. This

man draw as big crowd, despite tight security in the birth place of theal

bap. He has been a key man and a world economist. Here it is his

tribal credentials that matters. In this heartland of Pashtun tribes. He

says they are all with him, descendants of the ancient Pashtun

kings. He grips the hand of Hamid Karzai's cousin. Kandahar is the

Hamid Karzai an ancestoral home. They are divided in this election.

He says he can bring peace to this area that has seen some of the worst

fight. But the Taliban are carrying out suicide bombings almost every

day now. Why would they talk to him if he wins. The context is

different, the international forces are not here. In the kind of numbers

that make them doubtful that they will ever leave. We have succeeded

at the military transition, we have brought about a massive

participation of the public in this election. Look, NOSHTHS south, east,

west, they are massively participating in the election.

Democratic processes are gaining ground and working. The mandate you

will have is very different. There is no doubt Afghanistan is

moving forward, although slowly. Afghans take huge pride in that.

These police stand guard in rush hour, to salute official vehicles as

they go by. But whatever sits in those cars next, should look beyond

the salute to the shadow, where one of the biggest challenges for the

next President lies. The jobless, these are the day labourers who

stand waiting for cars to stop and offering them work. There is less

work now, less aid and foreign investment as foreign troops pull

out. There This man had aments there is no work. Where is the Government?

They are only thinking about the elections, they don't know the

nation is jobless. Afghans don't want to lose what they have gained,

and women have the most to loose. "Rise, risers women, hold your head

up buy, break the chains of oppression" Afghan women are still

held back by tradition and they worry about Taliban threats. But

there are some success stories. This woman has been a minister of women's

fares, the only female governor in Afghan history. Now she's running

for Vice President. Do you believe in equality she asks? Yes they roar.

Do they want prosperity? There is a lot to fight for. If you come to

power, what for you would be the first priority if you want to move

women forward and keep the gains? The law, because if we didn't have

the progress in the constitution I was not standing as a Vice President

for some of the candidates. This is our constitution that gave me a

chance to stand as a Vice President for one of the tickets. That is why

law and constitution is much more important than the other things.

Drive anywhere in Afghanistan and there are the reminders of the

progress. Including girls going to school. Today we're driving north of

Kabul, to a rally for a candidate who believes the best people to run

Afghanistan are the men w fought its wars. This man is Islamist scholar,

one of the most notorious warlords, but in the past decade he has been

useful to the west. In this election he's even talking about women's

rights. How is the campaign going? I will meet you. He only moves with

his private army. He fought against the Taliban in this area, and he

still is at the top of their hitlist. Look Look at the people and

look at the guns, this is man of a lot of importance, and a lot of

enemies. Just look at the crowds that have gathered here to his

rally. This is a man who symbolises the bloodiest periods of Afghan

history, but the number of guns you hold still matters in Afghanistan w

this kind of rally also emphasising that having guns is no longer

enough. His rally brings out the men they

call mujahideen, they fought against Soviet troops in the 1990s. This

isn't gathering of voters, they devotees. The mujahideen are not

playing a big enough role in the Government he saying, it is not

enough to be just in the army and police. He says men like him are

misunderstood. We are not all men wearing Taliban with beards, they

are thinking that they don't know anything. We guided our nation, and

the very bad situation in the days of the war. When they were able to

divide the nation in that situation then to guide it in the smooth

situation it is 10,000 time easier than it was. In Kabul Afghans often

head to this manage any of sent shrine to offer prayers for their

wish, their worries. It is busy these days. But in a few days they

will put their faith in ballot box again. Hoping a new leader will

emerge, who can help give them a safer and better life.

He has been called one of the world's top public intellectual, he

invented the Gaia idea, the theory that the world is a self-regulating

organism, and now at the end test age of 94 he's being celebrated in

the Science Museum in London, as one of the Titans of post-war science, a

man working outside the mainstream scientific institution, came up with

some of the most original ideas of our time. His latest book is a rough

guide to the future, which deals with the small matter of whether

mankind has a future? I went to talk to him. There is a tendency to think

that we are the end of the road, the final product of evolution, the most

important animal that has ever evolved. We're not I don't think.

We're just a step in a long progression. So the human race could

die out? Oh yes, other species have died out, why are we given special

tenure. Mainly because we are cleverer than the other ones? We

think we are. Are we not? Why not? Think we are so proud of ourselves

that we don't realise how ignorant we really are. What do you mean?

Well, I mean take this climate matter that everybody is thinking

about. They all talk, they pass law, they do things, as if they knew what

was happening. I don't think anyone of them really know what is

happening, they just guess at it. And a whole group of people meet

together and encourage each other's guesses. That latest report from the

international Panel on Climate Change did suggest there was

something inevitable about climate change. That it had already begun

and we had to adjust to it. All those things are true are they not,

as far as we know? That is true, that report, the last one, is very

similar to the statements that I made in the book about eight years

ago called The Revenge of GAIA. It is almost as if they are copied.

Sure, but you then after publishing these apocalyptic prediction, is,

you retracted them? That is my right, I'm an independent scientist,

I'm not funded by a commercial body or anything like. That if I make a

mistake I can go public on it. You have to, it is only by making

mistakes you can move ahead. It follows from that, that this Panel

on Climate Change, which harks as you point out -- has, as you point

out, vested interests and is more likely to make a mistake? That would

be a lot of hubris on my part to say that. But it is possible. Now, you

are evidently concerned about the effect of carbon upon the world, and

yet you part company with many environmentalists on the question of

nuclear power. Do you think, what's gone wrong with the perception of

nuclear power. I he wish I knew. I can offer a suggestion, nuclear

energy is a normal natural thing for the universe. Our not using it is

quite mad. The only reason we don't use it is that we felt quite guilty

about using that gift of nuclear energy for war time. Rather than

using it as a safe, clean and nearly perfect source of energy. It is

safer even than windmills. You can be killed by the blade of a windmill

if it spins off and hits your house or chops your head off. As far as

the other great bete noire of environmentalists go, fracking,

where are you on that? It is an awful word, you have to realise it

is just the kind of word to stir up a lot of fuss. Leaving that aside,

I'm fairly neutral about fracking. I think we in Britain may be falsely

use it, because -- maybe falsely use it because we don't have any easily

available sources of electricity, other than burning methane. You

don't worry about the potential collateral consequences said to flow

from fracking, water course pollution and the rest of it? I do,

I don't all together like it. But we may have no option but to just

fracking as our source. Because nothing I can imagine is much worse

environmentally than a sudden cessation of electricity supplies.

Just imagine London without any? As a society he would small apart -- we

would fall apart in a short amount of time. How much pressure was put

on the Co-Op bank to take over 632 branches of Lloyds Bank. Preparing

for the deals we have heard cost hundreds of million, made no

commercial sense and ultimately crippled the bank. Was there

political pressure on the regulator, the then Financial Services

Authority. Tonight we have found out that the Treasury and the regulator

clashed over a crucial problem that would have scuppered the deal a year

before it went bad and collapsed. The regulator didn't exactly win the

fight. What is this all about? Essentially it is all about who or

what killed the Co-Op Bank, the view has grown that this was down to an

independent drug-taking Methodist minister and inept directors who

really didn't know what they were doing banking-wise. But there is

another side of the story, a side I have been hearing from former

directors that know about banking and were within the Co-Op Bank, they

said it was two years of stretching to buy the Lloyd's branches that

sealed the Co-Op's fate. Mr Flowers was talked to the regulator about t

his point of contact was Andrew Bailey, in charge of advising banks

then, and still in charge of it as the deputy go Governor of the Bank

of England. They announced their intention to bid, and the directors

from the Co-Op were leaving the company and going to the regulator

saying they didn't think it made commercial sense and asking Andrew

Bailey why didn't he block it. In March 2012 the Government came up

with a roadblock to the deal? What was that? They told the Treasury and

Co-Op group that it was swallowing so many banks that it was more like

a bank with a supermarketed bolted on and it to be regulated, it had to

be on the line for any losses the bank had and it would have to clear

out the boards. Executives instead of being democratically elected in

the Co-Op way were instead approved by the regulator. By the Co-Op that

was a deal breaker, they were public about that, saying this would be a

deal breaker for them and they weren't sure they could do the deal.

The Treasury said they didn't like what the regulator was recommending?

That's right, the Treasury disagreed, I found out they were

completely opposed in their views, the Treasury on the one hand saying

they could get around the rule and it didn't have to be that the Co-Op

was regulated like a bank. And the Financial Services Authority

disagreeing that. The events that played out showed the disagreement,

it wasn't the SFA that won. Andrew bail year, the regulator -- Bailey,

the regulate to approved in 2012 a wavier that allowed the Co-Op off

the rules. Suddenly the whole business of being regulated by a

bank was no longer a problem and the deal was back on. This is a

complicated tale what are the Treasury and regulator saying now?

They have both maintained that there was no improper influence. I have

also learned that Mark Hobon was discussing this, with Andrew Bailey,

the regulator, he was also discussing it with Co-Op directors,

but both the Treasury and the FSA say there was no undue political

influence. But we know now that the regulator was aware that insiders

the Co-Op thought the deal didn't make sense and on the other hand the

Government really wanted it. Some on the Treasury Select Committee agreed

that the fact that the regulator seemed to have lost the argument

demonstrates it was not a decision left down to them. It is the

Treasury and Treasury ministers and George Osborne who pressured the FSA

as the regulator to clear the way in the same way they did with the

European Union to clear the way to allow the Co-Op to bid for these

branches. That's why the court went ahead and that is why the FSA

cleared the way for them. The other Treasury ministers will have a

chance to dig deeper because the Chancellor is answering questions

among other things about this to the Select Committee.

?11. 4 billion, all of it taken from the people in this country by force

of law, and all given to people and organisations in Government

somewhere else. The British Government is actually rather proud

of that total, for it makes this one the first of the bigger, richer

nations to meet the UN's target of 0. 07% of national income on

development aid T represents the honouring of a commitment years ago.

Most of it went to Africa. This might be the future of money. It is

called. Mepahasa, it is an electronic money service, that

allows Kenyans to wire money immediately to people only using

mobile phones. For the east African country it has been

transformational. Today more than two-thirds of adult Kenyans are

using it. What foresaw that? The British Government. Britain put

?900,000 to get the scheme off the ground. Most people think of aid

being food coming off the backs of lorries and planes, in truth very

little aid is humanitarian relief, most is investment and things like

education and health and stuff like this. Today Britain hit a target. It

has met its aspiration to spend 0. 7% of national target on aid. That

is how much they would spend on the developing countries. How are

neighbours doing? Looking back to 2012, the last year for which we

have final number, can you see we were somewhere between Scandinavia

and other rich countries on the proportion of our income that we

spent on aid. Since our economy is so much bigger than the Nordic

nations, that makes us an Aid superpower. In 2013 our to theal

rose to ??11. 4 billion. Only the US spends more than Britain on

traditional development aid. Given the sums involved there is a lot of

scepticism about aid spending, afterall sucks is very rare much --

success is very rare. It is whether it is working well in the private

sector. I spent 20 years as an emerging money manager, the

Government lent ?1 brill I don't know to overseas countries, and it

dwarfed the predicted figure. When you looked a successful countries

like the North Korea who had GDP capital per head is now one of the

richest women in the world. Through investment and trade and not through

Government hand-outs. Furthermore aid leads to awkward decision, it is

really not clear who should get it. Take India, Britain's biggest

recipient in 2012. It got 292 million. That is understandable an

estimated 300 million people live in poverty in the country. But it does

have riches of its own, and its Government has chosen to spend money

on space programme and nuclear arms. That is why the UK last decided to

taper off its support. Take Rwanda, the war-scarred site of a genocide.

It used to be a big recipient of British aid too. But the current

secretary, Justine Greening has cancelled it for the Government.

Saying the Government could be supporting rebels in the

neighbouring Congo. These things are difficult because they really

matter. That is because aid can help. Look back over the next ten

years, we have seen three million fewer child deaths, and out of

school numbers fall. Gains over death by hospital diseases. This is

all where the taxpayer has contributed and Britain has forged

what counts as a leadership position in the international community, that

is something to be proud of. It cost as lot t causes controversy there

are also problems with the money going where it should do. British

voters are sceptical about aid too. Is it worth it? That's a value

judgment. When it works it buys a lot. Here now is the Conservative MP

Peter Bone and Bellini Mara, an expert on international relations.

Are you pleased about the target being met? Yes, I think it is stay

to celebrate. And it will be by many, not only in this country but

overseas T has taken 40 years to reach this point. But Britain has

joined the ranks of the Nordic countries who have already met the

targets. What do you think? I don't know another department where you

decide what is needed to be spent and then decide on it. It should be

based on need not a mythical target. Why 20. 7, why not 0. 8 or three or

two. You have to go back to history and ask people why they presented

that target. The fact of the matter is it is currently a very important

aspect of Britain's soft power projection in the world, against us,

influence, it is not just the right thing to do but it also gains us

respect and friends in the world. The important point is the world has

changed. We have understand such as India, Brazil and China which used

to be recipients but now donors themselves. The world has changed in

that we have more poor people living in middle income places than 20

years ago. It is timely to have a debate about how much, more whom and

for what? That is absolutely timely to have that debate, let's keep the

bigger picture in mind. We started saying this is tax-payers' money,

??11. 5 billion, it is not, we are borrowing it, it is our children's

money we are giving away. It has gone up 30% in this year. Tell me

any Government department that has an increase, most had to cut. We

became into power with the coalition Government, ?7 billion was spend on

overseas aid, that was enough. We have put back on some of the

countries, some of the waste, Justine greening is doing well on

it. We are paying ?5 billion. The extra ?4 billion could be a billion

on tax cut, reducing spending and the deficit by ?2 billion. That

might help the long-term economic plan a little better than giving

money to dictators and spending money on how people fart in

Columbia. What a waste of money. That is trivialising where a budget

goes. You are not saying it doesn't go there. I'm not defending, I don't

have a need to have a the lodge calm defence of the 0 -- theological

defence of the 0. 7% target. I would like to say this debate about which

countries should be the recipients of aid, there is a live one. You

have the OECD assistance. There are 140 countries recipients of aid, and

there is a right discussion about whether the countries to which they

are going right now is the one that is will benefit. Stop having the

sticky plaster of aid and open up the European markets. If you let

India trade more freely with the European, that is the solution,

trade not aid. Aid just puts off a problem and gives it next year. If

you stopped the European super power stopping countries trading that

would be a better discussion. I think the thing to remember is this

is an issue about Britain's role in the world. I think this was about

the first point you made was about British soft power. In what sense

are British interests advanced by doubling aid to a country like

Nigeria whose policy on gay rights, for example, is utterly

indefenceable to the Princes of the country. How does that advocate soft

power? That is the kind of debate we should be HACHLTH how much, for

which countries to do what. No, no, we are not giving them to countries,

you well know that more of the aid is given to organisations like

euro-aid. He We haven't doubled the amount of money we give to Nigeria

but increased to ubeganed dark both discriminate against gay people

which we think is something intolerable. I was working and

saying all the money coming in is going on the black market. You could

get British aid products sold in the market. They are not going to people

with a purpose. When you have a 0. 7% target the department is spend,

spend, spend because you have to reach the target. Not looking at as

you argue whether it is necessary to spend the money. The issue of

accountability with high is important, and this country ranks

highly in indicators. We have the issue of aid effectiveness, which

looks closely into the effectiveness of aid investment. I think most

people tend to look at this as an investment, an investment in

political stability around the world. Whether it should be

ring-fenced or not should be up for discussion. This is a false choice

between aid and trade. How can that possibly be of any benefit at all. I

think if this argument is some how about colonial soft power, that is a

terrible reason to give overseas aid. The reason to give it is to

help countries grovel. Grow. If you can't get them in you are wasting

your aid money. This country is the most generous in the world, when

outside they say that Britain has joined the ranks of the G5,

countries that have reached the zero % target. I don't think people will

be saying yipee for cuts in their constituency and then aid being

given. It is about values and the image that Britain wants to probing

post ject. In -- protect. Comic Relief was good at raising money.

You heard Jacob in the beginning how countries are transformed by private

aid and trade. That is how you solve the problem, not the sticky plaster

of towel doling money out. It is like earlier in the wees about ODI,

we do see that aid works if the right accountability mechanisms are

in place. We need to make sure it is not direct today corrupt countries.

I argued and said to the International Development Minister I

said there is a problem with sume trafficking in central Europe, let's

put some of the overseas aid money into poorer countries in central

Europe to stop girls being traffiked here for sexuality exploitation. We

don't do it because it was not recognised as part of ODA. That is

the problem, it is a tick-box exercise and not looking at the real

issues. I'm going to have to interrupt you, sadly we have run out

of time. The front pages now. That's all for tonight, Kirsty is

here tomorrow, until then good nationwide.

For Thursday, not an awful lot of change on the weather front,

effectively, the further west and north you live the more likely you

are