:00:00. > :00:10.Sticking their noses in, the Business Secretary threatens to
:00:11. > :00:18.change the law so he could stop a megamerger. But why shouldn't
:00:19. > :00:21.American drug giant Pfizer gobble up AstraZeneca if that's what the
:00:22. > :00:26.market want. On the eve of the elections in South Africa, has the
:00:27. > :00:31.Pistorius trial shown there is one rule for white and one for black. If
:00:32. > :00:35.I shot my girlfriend I would be in jail right now, with all my money
:00:36. > :00:41.and everything I would still be in jail. First degree murder, only
:00:42. > :00:44.person I know who has got bail. The tape is broken and so the record
:00:45. > :00:50.athletes have been long dreaming about. It is six decades since Roger
:00:51. > :00:57.Bannister ran into the record books, he tells us how he did it. He
:00:58. > :01:14.arrived alone, no masseur, no coach, no manager, he's either nuts or he's
:01:15. > :01:18.good! Vince Cable delighted his party once by warning capitalism can
:01:19. > :01:23.kill, he meant kill off competition, where big businesses simply become
:01:24. > :01:28.too big and squeeze their rivals out of business. Today he suggested he
:01:29. > :01:32.might even change the law to use a so called public interest test,
:01:33. > :01:36.potentially to block American drug giant Pfizer from grabbing the
:01:37. > :01:39.British pharmaceutical girl, AstraZeneca. The Business Secretary
:01:40. > :01:44.claims the Government is neutral on the deal. And back room talks with
:01:45. > :01:52.the fills continue. How much should the Government really interfere with
:01:53. > :01:57.private sector deals. For a purely commercial matter, Pfizer's pursuit
:01:58. > :02:00.of AstraZeneca looks decidedly political. The Prime Minister,
:02:01. > :02:04.Chancellor and Business Secretary all discussed the takeover with the
:02:05. > :02:09.US predator, but not with its prey. To sweeten the pill, Pfizer said its
:02:10. > :02:13.headquarters would move to the UK, but critics say it is takeover
:02:14. > :02:21.driven not by scientific logic but tax. If we look back at what has
:02:22. > :02:26.happened to Warner Lambert, to Pharmacia and Wyatt Laboratories,
:02:27. > :02:30.early acquisitions made by Pfizer, we will see that research and
:02:31. > :02:35.development has been significantly reduced and over 50,000 jobs have
:02:36. > :02:43.been lost. Norths, Pfizer have been acting in my language like a preying
:02:44. > :02:47.mantis. They have been sucking the life blood out of those three units
:02:48. > :02:50.in order to sustain themselves. Today Vince Cable insisted he
:02:51. > :02:54.wouldn't let the UK be used as a tax haven. The Government has only
:02:55. > :02:58.limited powers to block takeovers on grounds of public interest, in
:02:59. > :03:01.media, banking and defence industries, but if binding
:03:02. > :03:06.assurances on research and jobs weren't given, he said, those powers
:03:07. > :03:09.could be expanded. We are very alive to the national interest
:03:10. > :03:13.considerations here. We see the future of the UK as a knowledge
:03:14. > :03:18.economy, not a tax haven. And our focus is on what is best for the UK,
:03:19. > :03:23.securing Great British science, research and manufacturing jobs and
:03:24. > :03:33.decision making in the life sciences sector. Pfizer's critics have
:03:34. > :03:37.pointed to swinging job cuts in Kent where Viagra was discovered. But
:03:38. > :03:41.they have closed down facilities, AstraZeneca, cutting hundreds of
:03:42. > :03:46.jobs. Does it make sense to talk of a national champion. If you look at
:03:47. > :03:50.it emotionally, yes, if you look at it scientifically, no, not really.
:03:51. > :03:54.Certainly if you want to look at it presidentically, not at all. If you
:03:55. > :03:59.are a patient what you want is good medicine, I'm not sure if you care
:04:00. > :04:07.if they come from Roche, GSK or Pfizer. The pharmaceutical industry
:04:08. > :04:11.is a high-takes game, one blockbuster, Viagra, can make up for
:04:12. > :04:16.billions not going anywhere, but only until the patent runs out. What
:04:17. > :04:19.counts for a drug company isn't so much saving tax or cost, it is
:04:20. > :04:24.having enough research capacity to find the next blockbuster. What led
:04:25. > :04:27.drug firms to prosper in the UK in the first place was not taxes or
:04:28. > :04:32.takeover restrictions, but the presence of one of the most
:04:33. > :04:36.important customers in the world, the NHS, what happens most to
:04:37. > :04:40.sciences isn't nationality, but the financial support they need to
:04:41. > :04:45.create drugs that win the big battle, not with an industrial preto
:04:46. > :04:48.but with disease. Here with us is the Shadow Business Secretary, thank
:04:49. > :04:53.you for coming in. On a point of principle, would it be better in
:04:54. > :04:56.your view, if your British companies were taken over and owned by foreign
:04:57. > :04:59.companies? I think this issue of foreign ownership is a bit of a red
:05:00. > :05:03.herring, it is not a question of whether it is foreign or not, it is
:05:04. > :05:07.a question of whether it is good for the British economy, good for a
:05:08. > :05:10.world-beating sector, like the pharmaceutical sector, good for the
:05:11. > :05:17.country. There have been good foreign takeovers, one thinks of
:05:18. > :05:23.Tata's takeover, Nissan, BMW-Mini- et cetera, the bad ones, the
:05:24. > :05:27.takeover by Hewlett Packard. It is not autonomy, it is whether it
:05:28. > :05:30.represents a long-term investment in our industrial base. On that
:05:31. > :05:35.particular point, because many people do believe in fact it matters
:05:36. > :05:39.whether or not the company is owned, you as a potential Business
:05:40. > :05:42.Secretary have no view on whether or not more or fewer companies should
:05:43. > :05:46.be British-owned and kept in the country? My preference would be I
:05:47. > :05:50.would much rather British firms taking over foreign ones and
:05:51. > :05:54.autonomy taking over the likes of Hewlett Packard. Ultimately I'm
:05:55. > :05:59.interested in what will this do for our science base, and is this inward
:06:00. > :06:02.investment, which we are open to and must welcome, will it create more of
:06:03. > :06:06.the high-skilled jobs we want to see here in Britain. That is the key
:06:07. > :06:10.issue here. What would you do, if you were Vince Cable tonight, he's
:06:11. > :06:15.suggested the possibility of applying a public interest test,
:06:16. > :06:20.that doesn't right now fit for drug companies. Although it does for
:06:21. > :06:24.others, it exists for defence and media companies, what else would you
:06:25. > :06:27.put on the list? First of all we would be clear that you need to have
:06:28. > :06:31.Government operating in a neutral fashion, looking at this objectively
:06:32. > :06:35.and seeing if it is good for the UK science base. Science for innovation
:06:36. > :06:38.is important. It is through innovating we can win the global
:06:39. > :06:41.race to the top. We are not going to compete with people on driving down
:06:42. > :06:44.people's terms and conditions, it is by innovation, the Business
:06:45. > :06:48.Secretary has said today that all options are on the table. What would
:06:49. > :06:55.you do? We would establish an independent body of people, the FT's
:06:56. > :06:58.editorial tomorrow has come out in favour of this idea. You would have
:06:59. > :07:01.another quango? No, how you constitute that as something we are
:07:02. > :07:05.looking at in the context of our policy review. You would have an
:07:06. > :07:09.independent group of people made up of industry and experts, who would
:07:10. > :07:12.advise Government on whether this was a good or bad thing or the US
:07:13. > :07:15.science and industrial base for the country. The Business Secretary has
:07:16. > :07:23.indicated he's ameanable to this. In order to add that UK science and R
:07:24. > :07:26.as a category under which you could have an intervention on public
:07:27. > :07:31.interest grounds, you need to introduce the statutory instrument.
:07:32. > :07:36.I'm saying this evening, we would be prepared to work with him to change
:07:37. > :07:40.the public interest test to include this particular category. So you
:07:41. > :07:44.would put drug companies on the list for a public interest test, whether
:07:45. > :07:48.you want to set up your own other quango is something else. You would
:07:49. > :07:51.put the pharmaceuticals sector on to that list. What wouldn't you put on
:07:52. > :07:55.the list? There is four categories under which Government can intervene
:07:56. > :07:59.at the moment, national security, competition, media peculiarity, and
:08:00. > :08:02.financial stability. That actually, some of those could affect all
:08:03. > :08:05.different companies. Would you add anything to that list? The list we
:08:06. > :08:10.are saying that the category we would add to that list would be
:08:11. > :08:13.science and R You would add science and research and development
:08:14. > :08:17.specifically to that list? That is what we are proposing. The Business
:08:18. > :08:19.Secretary seems to be indicating in the House of Commons he's
:08:20. > :08:23.considering all options and that would be one. We would be happy to
:08:24. > :08:26.work with him. The important thing is you have an independent
:08:27. > :08:29.assessment of what this means to the UK science base. The problem is
:08:30. > :08:34.people look at the form of Pfizer, and how they have a history of
:08:35. > :08:37.taking over companies, intellectually asset stripping them.
:08:38. > :08:40.British companies do that too, you said before it is not about whether
:08:41. > :08:44.or not it is a foreign company coming in, are you suggesting now it
:08:45. > :08:46.is? The public interest test applies regardless of whether it is a
:08:47. > :08:50.foreign takeover or not. That applies to all companies. Like I
:08:51. > :08:53.said this issue of whether it is foreign is a bit of a red herring.
:08:54. > :08:57.But you are sitting here tonight, potentially in a year or so you
:08:58. > :09:01.might be Business Secretary, you are suggesting perhaps another sort of
:09:02. > :09:05.quango and independent body set up just to look at this science deal,
:09:06. > :09:10.you are suggesting potentially adding science to the list of
:09:11. > :09:16.protected industries, it is all a bit confusing is it not, businesses
:09:17. > :09:19.looking at this position? You are calling it protec tectied
:09:20. > :09:23.industries, it is a category under which you gauge public interest. Can
:09:24. > :09:27.I make another point. What is clearly happening here, we have had
:09:28. > :09:32.AstraZeneca for the third time reject Pfizer's advances. One thing
:09:33. > :09:37.that is very worrying is if this deal potentially goes hostile, where
:09:38. > :09:41.the Pfizer board seeks to go over the British board here and appeals.
:09:42. > :09:46.That is up to them? But Laura that is... They are -- you are being
:09:47. > :09:50.unclear whether or not you would add other sectors to the list? I have
:09:51. > :09:54.been very clear. There are four existing categories and we would add
:09:55. > :09:57.another one. Any others? That is a category, that is the only one.
:09:58. > :10:01.Would you add any other sectors to that, because business will want to
:10:02. > :10:05.know? I will be very clear with business there are no sectors we are
:10:06. > :10:11.adding to the public interest category of four, a fifth that would
:10:12. > :10:15.be R and science and that is supported in the FT I'm pleased to
:10:16. > :10:18.say. Any other sectors you might consider adding to the list and any
:10:19. > :10:22.sectors that you will never intervene? I won't go through the
:10:23. > :10:29.list there are none others at the moment, that's it. Thank you. We
:10:30. > :10:32.have our other guest a former Conservative MP with us. The
:10:33. > :10:36.chairman of AstraZeneca appears worried that the Prime Minister is
:10:37. > :10:40.pushing the deal, where as the Government says it is neutral, is
:10:41. > :10:45.the chairman wrong? I think he's oversensitive on the point. I'm sure
:10:46. > :10:49.the Government is neutral on this. The Business Secretary stated many
:10:50. > :10:56.times that the Government are neutral, they are in touch with both
:10:57. > :11:02.AstraZeneca and Pfizer boards. There is a case for both camps. Are you
:11:03. > :11:07.saying he's being a bit oversensitive and touchy? Yes, I
:11:08. > :11:10.don't see that he has evidence that the Prime Minister is on the side of
:11:11. > :11:14.one company or another on all of this. I think it is important that
:11:15. > :11:18.the Government does stay neutral, there hasn't even been a formal bid
:11:19. > :11:23.that has been accepted yet. And it is way too premature to be taking
:11:24. > :11:28.one side or another, for one key point which is we don't know yet on
:11:29. > :11:31.what the board of AstraZeneca is basing its rejections. But the
:11:32. > :11:35.Government have clearly taken a side, have they not, or was the
:11:36. > :11:39.Treasury a bit too keen to come out and say marvellous the company will
:11:40. > :11:43.take advantage of our new tax regime? It is two separate things. I
:11:44. > :11:48.think this Government has made the UK economy a lot more competitive,
:11:49. > :11:52.particularly manufacturing and science-based industries, we are now
:11:53. > :11:58.a very competitive country in worldwide terms. That is a good
:11:59. > :12:01.thing. Is it giving the game away appearing to support the deal, when
:12:02. > :12:05.the Treasury let it be known that it was very pleased that Pfizer were
:12:06. > :12:09.citing the changes in tax arrangements as a reason to come to
:12:10. > :12:14.the UK? That is a separate matter to taking the side of Pfizer in any
:12:15. > :12:18.negotiations with AstraZeneca. It would be premature to do that. What
:12:19. > :12:21.about this idea of having a test, adding the pharmaceutical sector to
:12:22. > :12:28.tests in terms of the public interest, would you support that?
:12:29. > :12:31.Vince Cable didn't rule that out today. He dropped a heavy hint he
:12:32. > :12:35.would like to see it happen? I was sitting behind him, he just didn't
:12:36. > :12:39.rule it out. He said it would be a very serious step, not one that he
:12:40. > :12:44.would rule out, personally I hope that he doesn't go down that path.
:12:45. > :12:48.Why not? Because there are other people in your party, like the
:12:49. > :12:51.former Deputy Prime Minister, Michael Heseltine, who believe
:12:52. > :12:54.explicitly we are the only developed economy that doesn't have a test
:12:55. > :13:01.like this in the same way, and we ought to have this kind of
:13:02. > :13:04.mechanism? We do have a test in certain areas, and I think we have
:13:05. > :13:09.great strength in this economy, we have an open economy, we are
:13:10. > :13:15.delighted when companies like Rolls-Royce, GlaxoSmithKline, BG, go
:13:16. > :13:19.out and invest in other parts of the world and increase their global
:13:20. > :13:24.revenues, which in turn benefit the UK. We can't have it both ways, we
:13:25. > :13:27.can't be encouraging companies on the one hand to go out and
:13:28. > :13:30.globalise, but then put the barriers up when companies want to do the
:13:31. > :13:33.same thing in the UK. We have to leave it there, thank you very much
:13:34. > :13:39.indeed to you both for coming in. What does the country see in the
:13:40. > :13:43.mirror? Staring back right now is a population where eight million of us
:13:44. > :13:48.are not white, 14% of the population, but by 2050 that might
:13:49. > :13:51.have doubled. So says the think-tank Policy Exchange. And where
:13:52. > :13:56.populations shift, votes can shift too. So smart politicians and policy
:13:57. > :14:03.makers would do well to pay attention. But have they really
:14:04. > :14:07.cottoned on? Have you noticed something recently? Whether it is
:14:08. > :14:11.the Prime Minister visiting a part of the Punjab from where hundreds of
:14:12. > :14:15.thousands of British voters can trace their routes roots, or the
:14:16. > :14:20.Chancellor's reforms to flight taxes. It creates a great sense of
:14:21. > :14:25.injustice amongst our Caribbean and south Asian communities. Or the Home
:14:26. > :14:30.Secretary's announcement that police forces must cut back on their use of
:14:31. > :14:33.stop and search? I have told the House before I have long been
:14:34. > :14:38.learned about stop and search. The Conservatives are making direct
:14:39. > :14:41.appeals from voters from ethnic minority backgrounds. A report out
:14:42. > :14:46.today helps explain why, how the face of Britain is changing. Policy
:14:47. > :14:51.Exchange says by to 50 up to a third of the UK will be nonwhite. In
:14:52. > :14:54.Croydon today the black and ethnic minority communities make up half
:14:55. > :14:58.the population. The Conservatives won central Croydon from Labour in
:14:59. > :15:01.2010, with a year and day to go before the next election, it is a
:15:02. > :15:06.seat where black and Asian voters could decide the outcome next time
:15:07. > :15:11.round. Any politician standing in a place like Croydon probably already
:15:12. > :15:15.knows the importance of appealing to voters from ethnic minorities, but
:15:16. > :15:19.how do you do it? Anything that smells of cynical electioneering,
:15:20. > :15:23.will leave people feeling used and put them off voting for you. Then
:15:24. > :15:27.again does it make sense to talk about the BME vote as one block,
:15:28. > :15:31.when there is so much diversity within it. I think absolutely not
:15:32. > :15:36.treating them as a block is the right way forward. Pick housing, the
:15:37. > :15:40.Indian community overwhelmingly own their own homes, you contrast to the
:15:41. > :15:44.black African communities where homeownership is low, policies
:15:45. > :15:48.around stamp duty or help to buy, "Mansion Tax"s and interest rates
:15:49. > :15:51.will be of particular concern to the Indian community and a way for
:15:52. > :15:54.politicians to engage with them. Are the political classes ready for a
:15:55. > :15:58.doubling of the nonwhite population by 2050. This campaigner wants
:15:59. > :16:02.Croydon's minorities more engaged in politics. He knows what would help.
:16:03. > :16:06.When people look at the political parties, and they don't actually see
:16:07. > :16:11.themselves within those political parties, they don't feel part of
:16:12. > :16:15.those political democratic process, they don't feel that their views are
:16:16. > :16:19.actually going to be represented at those tables. Just look at all those
:16:20. > :16:24.white faces, it is hardly surprising that black and minority ethnic
:16:25. > :16:30.voters can feel alienated from politics. 27 MPs, 4. 2% of the
:16:31. > :16:34.Commons come from ethnic minority backgrounds. If parliament reflected
:16:35. > :16:39.the population accurately, there would be 117. The BME electorate
:16:40. > :16:44.tends to vote Labour. At the last general election 68% did, 16% voted
:16:45. > :16:49.Conservative and 14% Lib Dem. How worried are people within the
:16:50. > :16:52.Conservative Party? Long-term it is an existential threat to the
:16:53. > :16:56.Conservative Party. We can see the way the demography of the country is
:16:57. > :17:00.changing, there is a self-interest there, and it is also a matter of
:17:01. > :17:05.principle, making sure we are a party that, every weekend I go out
:17:06. > :17:07.and meet people whose values are Conservatives but don't vote for the
:17:08. > :17:10.Conservative Party because they don't feel it is for them. That is
:17:11. > :17:16.the fundamental perception we need to change. The Mayor of London has
:17:17. > :17:20.cottoned on faster than many. Reaching out to the black church
:17:21. > :17:25.community, and was special guest in front of 40,000 black Christians a
:17:26. > :17:30.month before the elections. Here in the UK the black church could be as
:17:31. > :17:34.significant as it is in the United States, and getting Barack Obama
:17:35. > :17:38.elected for a second term. It is huge there, and it is beginning to
:17:39. > :17:42.become politically huge here, what the Pastors are now saying, yes it
:17:43. > :17:49.is good to pray, but it is equally good to vote. Operation Black Vote
:17:50. > :17:54.says in 168 marginal seats like Croydon central, the ethnic vote is
:17:55. > :18:03.bigger than the sitting MP's majority. With us now are Ken
:18:04. > :18:08.Livingston, the former Mayor of London and the Conservative whip and
:18:09. > :18:13.former parliamentary Private Secretary to the Prime Minister. Ken
:18:14. > :18:16.Livingston, firstly to you, running London where the demographics are
:18:17. > :18:19.racing ahead in much of the country, do you have to be a different kind
:18:20. > :18:31.of politician to do it? I don't think you do actually. I
:18:32. > :18:40.I remember Sadique Khan to say close my eyes, and people come to Britain
:18:41. > :18:43.to be part of it not to change it. The defining thing is not your
:18:44. > :18:48.colour or religion it is your level of income. David Cameron has just
:18:49. > :18:57.appointed the first British person of Pakistani origin, when I look at
:18:58. > :19:02.him I don't see that, I see a banker making money every year. People vote
:19:03. > :19:05.according to their income. If you look, it might be a generation
:19:06. > :19:10.before people catch up. If I think back. If we were talking 50 years
:19:11. > :19:15.ago, the Roman Catholic community, the Irish community, the Jewish
:19:16. > :19:18.community in Britain solidly Labour, still the Irish Catholic community
:19:19. > :19:22.are still Labour, because it is still not terribly rich. As the
:19:23. > :19:25.Jewish community got richer they moved to vote for Margaret Thatcher
:19:26. > :19:32.in Finchley. Aren't politicians missing a trick. There is a big
:19:33. > :19:37.demographic change, Policy Exchanging suggested by 2050 nearly
:19:38. > :19:41.a third of voters from nonwhite backgrounds, is it carry on as you
:19:42. > :19:46.are? The report is a fascinating insight into what Britain looks like
:19:47. > :19:51.today, it projects what Britain will look like in 2050. On that I think
:19:52. > :19:55.it is slightly patronising to suggest that some how people's
:19:56. > :20:01.voting attitudes now will persist into 2050, we don't say that about
:20:02. > :20:09.any groups in society, why say it about BME groups is what I will say.
:20:10. > :20:12.It is not all that, I disagree with Ken about level of income. People
:20:13. > :20:16.vote according to their values, with was said in the package, and what I
:20:17. > :20:22.certainly see, and in my own background is a lot of the values
:20:23. > :20:25.people have are Conservative values. Except if you look at the statistics
:20:26. > :20:29.in all BME communities, and they are a patchwork, it is not correct to
:20:30. > :20:33.lump them all into the same, but across those communities, regardless
:20:34. > :20:37.of age and social class, they strongly support the Labour Party in
:20:38. > :20:43.every single one? I think you made a point there, it is important not to
:20:44. > :20:49.lump all of them together. Let 's not put everyone in a box, every
:20:50. > :20:53.delivering community and delivering generations have where they live
:20:54. > :20:56.will affect how they vote. Yes there is work for Conservatives to do, but
:20:57. > :21:02.if we look at parliamentary representation, which you touched
:21:03. > :21:07.on, in 2001 there were zero BME Conservative MPs, by 2010 there were
:21:08. > :21:15.11, the Labour Party has 16. It is still woeful, it is had. 2%, 27p MPs
:21:16. > :21:19.out of 650. There is work to be done. But I also think there is a
:21:20. > :21:28.nuance here that we shouldn't confuse representation with being
:21:29. > :21:34.relevant to people. In your package earlier there was a seat represented
:21:35. > :21:37.with 56% of them were BME, he's a white man working very hard and
:21:38. > :21:42.brilliant for the constituents. It may be a tight seat. How do you see
:21:43. > :21:44.this changing some of the debates we have already, for example on
:21:45. > :21:47.immigration. Politicians talk about immigration in way they wouldn't
:21:48. > :21:54.have done ten years ago, will this shift on to too? I think we had a
:21:55. > :21:58.problem back in 1968, Enoch Powell made his Rivers of Blood Speech,
:21:59. > :22:02.that polarised politics. The majority of Conservatives aren't
:22:03. > :22:06.racist and the majority of people in UKIP aren't racist, they are worried
:22:07. > :22:11.about immigration, we can have a fair debate about that. The issue is
:22:12. > :22:14.far too many constituencies, we are underrepresented. You are right when
:22:15. > :22:19.you talked about those numbers, it doesn't yet reflect Britain. But
:22:20. > :22:24.where as it was only 1987 we had our first black and Asian MPs getting in
:22:25. > :22:28.modern times, I think it will pick up now. The racism is a lot less
:22:29. > :22:33.than it was in politics. Finally to you Sam? I think in terms of winning
:22:34. > :22:36.people over and just going back to ten's point, delivering for people,
:22:37. > :22:42.so we talk about our long-term economic plan, if people have moved
:22:43. > :22:46.to have this country this is because they want to get on. If they want to
:22:47. > :22:50.get on, things like cutting taxes for them to keep more of what they
:22:51. > :22:55.earn, three million people being removed from tax all together and 26
:22:56. > :22:58.million people with a tax cut. That is the sort of thing that makes
:22:59. > :23:01.people believe Government is delivering for them. Their
:23:02. > :23:06.expectations of Government is what we have to deal with in order to get
:23:07. > :23:10.them to vote for us. I know you two will carry on disagreeing what it
:23:11. > :23:14.takes to get people to vote for you. Thank you for your thoughts.
:23:15. > :23:19.Oscar Pistorius was accused in court today of making a sinister remark,
:23:20. > :23:22.trying to intimidate one of his former girlfriend's friends. It is
:23:23. > :23:27.yet another episode in the court drama in real life that is gripping
:23:28. > :23:32.South Africa. But millions of its stat accepts have to live with the
:23:33. > :23:36.-- citizens have to live with the drama of sky high crime rates every
:23:37. > :23:41.day. There are elections there tomorrow, but few voters have
:23:42. > :23:49.confidence in politicians that they will bring the long arm of the law
:23:50. > :23:55.out to deal with everyone equally. The police Police say they are
:23:56. > :24:01.bracing themselves for more violent clashes tonight. Guns, there are
:24:02. > :24:07.guns. Violence, gun crime, people living in constant fear. The Oscar
:24:08. > :24:26.Pistorius trial is forcing South Africa to confront some
:24:27. > :24:29.uncomfortable truths. My daughter being raped, my granddaughter being
:24:30. > :24:37.raped, that is something that happens in this country. My fears
:24:38. > :24:41.are for my children, it is my childrens' life, I'm all that is
:24:42. > :24:46.there for my children, other than their uncles and aunts, but I have
:24:47. > :24:51.raised them on my own for 16 years, and I am the only person who can
:24:52. > :24:57.really take care of them. So I need self-defence. Many South Africans
:24:58. > :25:01.resort to buying firearms to defend themselves against would-be
:25:02. > :25:05.attackers. People like Charlene who is here to get her gun license have
:25:06. > :25:14.lost confidence in the police. As a woman it is not that easy to defend
:25:15. > :25:18.oneself, especially when most of the crime is gang-related. It is more
:25:19. > :25:22.than one person attacking you. If you are proficient in weapon use,
:25:23. > :25:27.and confident in it, then you will be able to take care of yourself and
:25:28. > :25:31.your family. 45 people are murdered here every day. The numbers are
:25:32. > :25:38.down, but compared to other countries still high. The Oscar
:25:39. > :25:41.Pistorius crime and white crime in general continues to grab
:25:42. > :25:46.international headlines, but the truth is white people are less
:25:47. > :25:49.likely to be attacked now in the new South Africa than under apartheid.
:25:50. > :25:52.So while rich whites are more fearful of crime, the reality is
:25:53. > :25:57.that the bulk of victims happen to be poor and black. In this township
:25:58. > :26:01.one of the most dangerous in the country, there is a feeling that the
:26:02. > :26:05.justice system doesn't work for ordinary people. The trial has
:26:06. > :26:10.raised concerns about crime and safety in our society, what do you
:26:11. > :26:16.think about that? I think three or four months back the owner of a shop
:26:17. > :26:23.was killed there, and the police station is two streets away from us,
:26:24. > :26:31.but their response was not there, we don't even trust our own cops. We
:26:32. > :26:35.live in fear in our own homes. If I got my girlfriend I would be in jail
:26:36. > :26:39.right now, right now. With all my money and everything I would still
:26:40. > :26:45.be in jail. First degree murder, the only person I know who has got bail,
:26:46. > :26:50.first degree murder, it is crazy. Back at home with Charlene on the
:26:51. > :26:54.outskirts of Johannesburg, the family feel abandoned and isolated.
:26:55. > :26:59.What happened is the burglars gained entry into the kitchen... The family
:27:00. > :27:03.has had to make its own security arrangements, at night her daughter
:27:04. > :27:10.organises the local Neighbourhood Watch The Internet is full of Oscar
:27:11. > :27:18.and there is ratings on Oscar. He is getting all of the attention. It is
:27:19. > :27:22.unfair that he as a known person, a celebrity, somebody who people
:27:23. > :27:26.looked up to is getting all of this kind of attention. Where as I had a
:27:27. > :27:32.break in to my house, although not much was taken, it was a small case,
:27:33. > :27:42.I understand, but a case wasn't even opened. So you obviously have the
:27:43. > :27:47.feelings of self blame, why did I stay that long? Maybe you need to go
:27:48. > :27:49.back and look at the forgiveness issue.
:27:50. > :27:54.But the Pistorius case has forced South Africa to face up to problems
:27:55. > :27:59.of domestic violence. He hit me with an iron pipe, and I didn't know what
:28:00. > :28:05.exactly he was hitting me with, I was trying to defend myself, we were
:28:06. > :28:09.fighting. Every eight hours a woman is murdered by her intimate partner.
:28:10. > :28:14.After I was lying there on the bed, you know, in the hospital, I was
:28:15. > :28:19.looking up, there was a light, a big light on my face. It is then a
:28:20. > :28:24.decision came to me that I'm going to die in this house. I'm really
:28:25. > :28:29.going to die if I don't move out. Because I have been having advice to
:28:30. > :28:34.move out but it was not yet the time. And then I decided on that
:28:35. > :28:39.hospital bed, I decided I'm moving out no matter what. I didn't have a
:28:40. > :28:47.place to go, I wasn't working, but the fear disappeared on that bed.
:28:48. > :28:53.She sought refuge in this orphanage, she became homeless following the
:28:54. > :28:57.divorce from her abusive husband. What is it about South African women
:28:58. > :29:04.that makes them feel so trapped that they cannot leave these abusive
:29:05. > :29:08.husbands or partners? Most often women are controlled by culture,
:29:09. > :29:13.they get in a marriage to make their parents proud. Some of the things is
:29:14. > :29:18.that we don't have knowledge. You get in a marriage without knowing
:29:19. > :29:23.what your rights are. You only, it is not about you, it is all about a
:29:24. > :29:28.man. Because they say you don't ask him where he has come from, his word
:29:29. > :29:32.is final. For many in South Africa, the Pistorius case is a distraction
:29:33. > :29:37.from some of the fundamental problems facing the country. There
:29:38. > :29:40.is a lot of people who, a lot of families going through the same
:29:41. > :29:44.thing that these families are, they don't get the same treatment, their
:29:45. > :29:49.trials aren't televised, they don't get the same scrutiny as he is. I
:29:50. > :29:52.don't think it is fair. It is Oscar Pistorius and that is all that
:29:53. > :29:55.really matters about this trial, not the justice system working, because
:29:56. > :30:01.it is working now, because it is one rich man and one beautiful girl that
:30:02. > :30:05.had lots of talent and one guy who had lots of talent. It is working
:30:06. > :30:09.now, but who else is it going to work for. The Pistorius case has
:30:10. > :30:11.brought renewed attention to South Africa's problems, but there is a
:30:12. > :30:16.frustration that politicians lack the will or ability to deliver real
:30:17. > :30:20.change. Now the names of the authors who
:30:21. > :30:25.opposed it could almost have been a best-seller list themselves, the
:30:26. > :30:29.Ministry of Justice plans to limit prisoners access to books provoked
:30:30. > :30:32.howls of protests in sometimes rather nonliterary terms. But this
:30:33. > :30:35.evening Newsnight has discovered the Government might have run into a bit
:30:36. > :30:40.of trouble with the plans. Emily is here. What's happening. Let me talk
:30:41. > :30:44.you through it, in my hands I have details of the legal challenge that
:30:45. > :30:48.has just been served on the Ministry of Justice over this prisoner book
:30:49. > :30:54.ban. That was the shorthand term we gave what they would call the
:30:55. > :31:00."incentives and earned privileges scheme", it was to stop prisoners
:31:01. > :31:05.receiving small packages, many carrying books they needed could
:31:06. > :31:08.help to reinvent advise them particularly when serving long
:31:09. > :31:12.sentences. We have heard a bunch of lawyers are going to run a test case
:31:13. > :31:16.against one claimant, a woman who is serving a life sentence, she is an
:31:17. > :31:21.epilepsy sufferer, highly qualified, she has said her life is in despair
:31:22. > :31:27.without access to these books, which have really been taking her through
:31:28. > :31:31.this life sentence. Any response so far from the Government? Very
:31:32. > :31:35.interesting, because the MOJ, who haven't received the full bunkedle
:31:36. > :31:39.yet, they will get 2,000-pages. I have got the advice and
:31:40. > :31:40.yet, they will get 2,000-pages. I here. They will get the full
:31:41. > :31:45.package, 2,000 pages, 44 blames here. They will get the full
:31:46. > :31:48.that pack -- claims in here. They will get the full
:31:49. > :31:51.they have been told about this and they have said it is run out of
:31:52. > :31:55.time. The policy was introduced last November, it is three months and
:31:56. > :31:58.they have run out of time. The legal team say it doesn't matter because
:31:59. > :32:02.the piecemeal way was introduced, which means their climbant has only
:32:03. > :32:06.just started feeling the effects of it now, she is devastated. If they
:32:07. > :32:09.win it could turn over the policy. The beginning of what could be a
:32:10. > :32:13.very interesting story. You might be forgiven for being
:32:14. > :32:16.surprised to learn there are limits on how much football clubs can
:32:17. > :32:21.spend. You might wonder how effective the fair finance rules are
:32:22. > :32:27.when top earners can take home ?300 a week. Yes a week -- ?300,000 a
:32:28. > :32:32.week. Yes a week. Non-league players are lucky to get an orange slice at
:32:33. > :32:37.half time. UEFA have created a set of rules to try to stop reckless
:32:38. > :32:41.spending and prevent clubs building up suicidal levels of debt. They
:32:42. > :32:49.face hefty penalties if they ignore them. The same bulging check book
:32:50. > :32:55.that secured Manchester City the Premiership is set to land them in
:32:56. > :32:58.trouble. A lot of kids right now will be dreaming of playing for
:32:59. > :33:04.Manchester City. They look likely to win the league. But it is not all
:33:05. > :33:07.Roy of the Rovers stuff for them. City faces a ?50 million fine and
:33:08. > :33:12.retruction to the number of players it can use in European competition.
:33:13. > :33:18.That's because UEFA, the European football body, thinks City may have
:33:19. > :33:22.breached its financial fair play rules. These are rules that aim to
:33:23. > :33:25.prevent clubs from collapsing because they spent more than they
:33:26. > :33:29.make. Many football fans like the idea of these financial fair play
:33:30. > :33:32.rules. That is because a lot of supporters are quite suspicious of
:33:33. > :33:37.the role of big money in football. They don't like the idea that you
:33:38. > :33:41.just need to find some oligarch, or some foreign princeling to back your
:33:42. > :33:46.team, and then you can walk your way to the Premier League title. That is
:33:47. > :33:49.why clubs like AFC Wimbledon, fan-owned, have a lot of sympathy
:33:50. > :33:55.and support from fans of other teams. Manchester City's owner from
:33:56. > :33:59.Abu Dhabi has certainly poured money into the club. This season alone,
:34:00. > :34:04.despite starting with a team that finished strongly last year, they
:34:05. > :34:09.spent ?95 million on transfers. Crystal Palace, by contrast, who
:34:10. > :34:13.play in the same league, spent only ?24 million. Now big spending alone
:34:14. > :34:22.isn't the problem, it is spending a lot more than you make. Ed the rules
:34:23. > :34:31.say a club can only spent 45 million euros more than that it spends on
:34:32. > :34:36.running costs on sponsorship deals and players. So UEFA has to find out
:34:37. > :34:40.how much money they are spending and how much they have got. The problem
:34:41. > :34:44.is while it is pretty easy to work out how much a club is spending, it
:34:45. > :34:50.is difficult to work out exactly how much money it is earning. So if a
:34:51. > :34:53.club just spent 45 million euros more than they earned over a
:34:54. > :34:58.two-year period, and they got the owner to bail them out, UEFA would
:34:59. > :35:02.tackle that kind of behaviour. What if the club owner knew a guy who
:35:03. > :35:08.owed them favour who could put the money in for them, that might swerve
:35:09. > :35:13.around the rules. UEFA is worried about this, it calls it a "related
:35:14. > :35:21.party transaction", that is why City are in trouble. The club thinks its
:35:22. > :35:27.overspend is below 45 million euros, or ?37 million. Those numbers rest
:35:28. > :35:32.on a big sponsorship deal, worth about ?40 million with the Abu Dhabi
:35:33. > :35:35.airline headed by their owner's half brother. UEFA will want to know
:35:36. > :35:42.whether City got an unusually good deal. UEFA can also show teams a red
:35:43. > :35:46.card, banning them from European competitions all together. But it
:35:47. > :35:49.will hope that fines, which effectively cut club's financial
:35:50. > :35:56.fair play limited in future years will do. I think what UEFA are
:35:57. > :36:03.hoping to do is to get compliance by agreement, by settlement, and
:36:04. > :36:08.therefore the harsher sanctions of points deduction or actually
:36:09. > :36:13.removing clubs from the competition. I can't see it happening in the
:36:14. > :36:18.short-term. When not booking buses for a new celebration of the coming
:36:19. > :36:25.weeks, City is in negotiation with UEFA about these issues, so too is
:36:26. > :36:29.PSG, backed by Qatar. So we're in the slightly peculiar position that
:36:30. > :36:33.a rulebook, designed to stop clubs from going bust, is now catching out
:36:34. > :36:41.the clubs who have the most solvent backing of all. With us is the
:36:42. > :36:48.former chief executive of the FA, and in Salford an expert in sport
:36:49. > :36:51.finance. Firstly to you Mark, it looks like
:36:52. > :36:57.the first fines will be applied here, but with a bit of financial
:36:58. > :37:01.jigry pokery around the edges, are the rules working as designed to? I
:37:02. > :37:05.think the very fact that we are having a debate is to me, it is the
:37:06. > :37:10.proof in the pudding. We are starting a debate. Five or ten years
:37:11. > :37:15.ago we weren't having the debate, that is an important point to make.
:37:16. > :37:18.You have to distinguish between UEFA's rules at the top end of the
:37:19. > :37:21.game and the other rules that have been copied, if you like, in the
:37:22. > :37:25.Premier League and further down the leison. Down the league it is having
:37:26. > :37:29.an effect. That is where you really have to look at protecting clubs
:37:30. > :37:32.against financial problems. At the top end it is more about creating a
:37:33. > :37:36.level playing field. Can you create a level playing field, you are still
:37:37. > :37:40.going to get clubs like Manchester City, PSG, with the deepest pockets
:37:41. > :37:43.in the world, just piling cash in, it is not really going to make that
:37:44. > :37:48.much difference? Unless you stand back and get to looking at sport and
:37:49. > :37:51.saying it is a special case, at the heart of professional sport, at the
:37:52. > :37:55.heart of sport as a business and as a sport, you have this conflict. In
:37:56. > :37:58.any other business you kill off your competitors, in sport you have to
:37:59. > :38:04.maintain that competitive playing field. Professor was this a problem
:38:05. > :38:09.that really needed to be solved in your view? It didn't, if you look at
:38:10. > :38:15.the top of the English Premiership, you have three clubs in the top five
:38:16. > :38:18.not owned by super-rich Middle East oligarch, nor is it true in Europe,
:38:19. > :38:23.if you look at the Champions League, one of the teams in the Champions
:38:24. > :38:26.League final is clearly not in terms of Athletico Madrid like that. The
:38:27. > :38:30.whole issue of financial fair play is based on a false premise, which
:38:31. > :38:35.is that it is in some way to have less fair to have a foreign investor
:38:36. > :38:39.put money in, than having the situation you have in Spain where
:38:40. > :38:43.the distribution of income is such that actually the team at the bottom
:38:44. > :38:47.of the Spanish First Division gets virtually nothing, and the team at
:38:48. > :38:50.the top, whether Real Madrid or Barcelona scoop the pool. If
:38:51. > :38:55.Manchester City got the share of income that Real Madrid or Barcelona
:38:56. > :39:00.get at the English TV income, they could have had the extra ?50 million
:39:01. > :39:04.for the last three years and not in trouble at all. The whole premise is
:39:05. > :39:07.false. When you listen to those numbers it sounds like this didn't
:39:08. > :39:12.need to happen, because the equation between money in and rewards out
:39:13. > :39:15.isn't as simple as you suggest? I think what you have to do is stand
:39:16. > :39:18.back and look at this. You are looking at Manchester City at a
:39:19. > :39:21.particular point in time, you are looking at other clubs at a
:39:22. > :39:25.particular point in time. Unless you take a broader view you will come to
:39:26. > :39:29.a specific conclusion that supports your case. Take for example Arsenal,
:39:30. > :39:34.who now complain that Manchester City should be punished in, or
:39:35. > :39:39.Arsene Wenger does, but when you look at it is a function of timing.
:39:40. > :39:43.Yes Arsenal run their ship in a much more business-like way, rather than
:39:44. > :39:48.the benefactor model that Manchester City has got. They are there already
:39:49. > :39:53.and pulling up the draw bridge if you apply the rules harshly. Are you
:39:54. > :39:58.saying there is not a problem with money and football? I don't think
:39:59. > :40:02.there is the problem that UEFA first brought. It is not the problem. If
:40:03. > :40:06.you look at the German league, last year the Champions League was
:40:07. > :40:14.dominated by German club, and in a European level they are, in a sense,
:40:15. > :40:18.an ideal model, they are owned by the fans. They originally talked
:40:19. > :40:21.about the problem being debt. And the most indebted club in England
:40:22. > :40:24.has hardly been touched. Whether they were in the Champions League or
:40:25. > :40:28.not, they are not touched by this. And then the comparison between
:40:29. > :40:33.City, for example, and PSG is even more absurd. City actually have got
:40:34. > :40:38.a very good sponsorship deal, which is justified by the massive
:40:39. > :40:41.developments taking place at the stadium. You are getting the
:40:42. > :40:45.redevelopments of one of the most deprived areas of Greater Manchester
:40:46. > :40:49.on the back of the campus development. Comparing that for
:40:50. > :40:53.example with what is happening at PSG is nonsense. To see City
:40:54. > :40:56.penalised to the same degree as PSG is absurd, you have got very
:40:57. > :41:00.different scenarios and very different strategies for the two
:41:01. > :41:07.clubs. It is a completely false situation being created. So the
:41:08. > :41:12.professor is not too impressed by UEFA's grasp on the figures, isn't
:41:13. > :41:19.it the wages of footballers that get people going? Again stepping back to
:41:20. > :41:23.this, the rotting Rhino on the table is players wages are too high. If a
:41:24. > :41:27.kid was getting a million pound a year would he bother to play
:41:28. > :41:31.football? Yes he would. If he was getting ?5 million would it make a
:41:32. > :41:35.difference? Probably not, where does the extra cash go? Thank you very
:41:36. > :41:39.much indeed for joining us. Now to a very different sporting
:41:40. > :41:43.era, running a mile in less than four minutes still probably feels
:41:44. > :41:49.pretty unlikely to most of us. But until 60 years ago today no-one had
:41:50. > :41:53.ever done it. And Roger Banser, who achieved the feat wasn't even a
:41:54. > :42:00.full-time athlete when he scourged around the track in Oxford. We have
:42:01. > :42:18.set Stephen Smith the marginally easy task of telling Sir Roger's
:42:19. > :42:23.story in 3. 59 seconds! I feel the muscle pain that I had at the end,
:42:24. > :42:33.the first part felt very easy because I hadn't run or trained for
:42:34. > :42:38.five days. I went to America once, I arrived alone, and the next day
:42:39. > :42:43.someone wrote a letter, "he arrived alone, no masseur, no coach, no
:42:44. > :42:50.manager, he's either nuts or he's good"! There are lovely stories
:42:51. > :42:55.about the day, how you went to a friend's house for a ham salad and a
:42:56. > :42:59.key factor in whether to go ahead was whether a particular flag was
:43:00. > :43:05.flapping in the wind or not? There was a strong wind and lots of wane,
:43:06. > :43:14.and the tracks then were cinder tracks and it slowed a runner down
:43:15. > :43:22.perhaps by four seconds over a mile. Dr Roger Bannister. Before the BBC
:43:23. > :43:28.rightly stamped down on fakers, Record Breakers recreated the tannoy
:43:29. > :43:30.of the record, not preserved on the day. The British Empire and world
:43:31. > :43:42.record, the time 3. day. The British Empire and world
:43:43. > :43:46.after that the noise of the crowd obliterated the noise of his
:43:47. > :43:50.announcement. I'm overwhelmed, and delighted, it was a great surprise
:43:51. > :44:00.to me to be able to do it today, I this was very lucky. Bannister's
:44:01. > :44:07.pals were pace makers, both Oxbridge graduates. The academic Mary Beard
:44:08. > :44:11.has praised Bannister's achievement, but also raised a ticklish question.
:44:12. > :44:20.She also talks about a class element to it, the fact that the man who
:44:21. > :44:23.finished fourth, Tom Houlat was from a working-class background, he's
:44:24. > :44:29.rather forgotten in this great event? I think he came fourth in
:44:30. > :44:35.about 4. 20, I think it was really quite a slow event, and had been
:44:36. > :44:41.selected as one of the team but he did not happen to be the one who was
:44:42. > :44:49.involved in helping me. I would be sad if he had this feeling. My own
:44:50. > :44:55.father came from Lancashire and had no prospects in Lancashire and so he
:44:56. > :45:01.had came to London. Britain and the Commonwealth were producing
:45:02. > :45:08.Corinthian heros, scaling Everest, scourging around a craneder track --
:45:09. > :45:13.cinder track. Did they find trace elements of ham
:45:14. > :45:17.salad on you on the momentous occasion, were there any drug
:45:18. > :45:25.testing? There were drugs used already, I think, in cycling. And in
:45:26. > :45:31.the last century they were, but they were peculiarly useless drugs, I
:45:32. > :45:37.can't see how strychnine can help you perform better. You want to give
:45:38. > :45:41.that to the rivals presumably! Sir Roger, who is 85 has spent most of
:45:42. > :45:48.his life in medicine. It recently emerged that he has Parkinsons'
:45:49. > :45:52.disease. It is a bit ironic that as a neurologist, I have treated many,
:45:53. > :45:58.many patients in the course of my career and I'm not making too much
:45:59. > :46:02.of it. It is a problem, but I have had a wonderful life. The tape is
:46:03. > :46:08.broken and so is the record, athletes have long been dreaming
:46:09. > :46:10.about. And that 3. 59 was indeed your lot. That's all we have time
:46:11. > :46:26.for, good night. Some showers around for the rest of
:46:27. > :46:29.the night and we are upping the potential for getting wet over the
:46:30. > :46:33.next few days, in fact for Wednesday we will see outbreaks of rain,
:46:34. > :46:37.heading across Northern Ireland, northern England and into southern
:46:38. > :46:40.Scotland. It is breezy and there are showers to be had. A wet spot of
:46:41. > :46:46.weather into Northern Ireland, reaching to at least southern
:46:47. > :46:47.Scotland may hold off the belt until later on. Northern half of