06/05/2014 Newsnight


In-depth investigation and analysis of the stories behind the day's headlines with Jeremy Paxman.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 06/05/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Sticking their noses in, the Business Secretary threatens to


change the law so he could stop a megamerger. But why shouldn't


American drug giant Pfizer gobble up AstraZeneca if that's what the


market want. On the eve of the elections in South Africa, has the


Pistorius trial shown there is one rule for white and one for black. If


I shot my girlfriend I would be in jail right now, with all my money


and everything I would still be in jail. First degree murder, only


person I know who has got bail. The tape is broken and so the record


athletes have been long dreaming about. It is six decades since Roger


Bannister ran into the record books, he tells us how he did it. He


arrived alone, no masseur, no coach, no manager, he's either nuts or he's


good! Vince Cable delighted his party once by warning capitalism can


kill, he meant kill off competition, where big businesses simply become


too big and squeeze their rivals out of business. Today he suggested he


might even change the law to use a so called public interest test,


potentially to block American drug giant Pfizer from grabbing the


British pharmaceutical girl, AstraZeneca. The Business Secretary


claims the Government is neutral on the deal. And back room talks with


the fills continue. How much should the Government really interfere with


private sector deals. For a purely commercial matter, Pfizer's pursuit


of AstraZeneca looks decidedly political. The Prime Minister,


Chancellor and Business Secretary all discussed the takeover with the


US predator, but not with its prey. To sweeten the pill, Pfizer said its


headquarters would move to the UK, but critics say it is takeover


driven not by scientific logic but tax. If we look back at what has


happened to Warner Lambert, to Pharmacia and Wyatt Laboratories,


early acquisitions made by Pfizer, we will see that research and


development has been significantly reduced and over 50,000 jobs have


been lost. Norths, Pfizer have been acting in my language like a preying


mantis. They have been sucking the life blood out of those three units


in order to sustain themselves. Today Vince Cable insisted he


wouldn't let the UK be used as a tax haven. The Government has only


limited powers to block takeovers on grounds of public interest, in


media, banking and defence industries, but if binding


assurances on research and jobs weren't given, he said, those powers


could be expanded. We are very alive to the national interest


considerations here. We see the future of the UK as a knowledge


economy, not a tax haven. And our focus is on what is best for the UK,


securing Great British science, research and manufacturing jobs and


decision making in the life sciences sector. Pfizer's critics have


pointed to swinging job cuts in Kent where Viagra was discovered. But


they have closed down facilities, AstraZeneca, cutting hundreds of


jobs. Does it make sense to talk of a national champion. If you look at


it emotionally, yes, if you look at it scientifically, no, not really.


Certainly if you want to look at it presidentically, not at all. If you


are a patient what you want is good medicine, I'm not sure if you care


if they come from Roche, GSK or Pfizer. The pharmaceutical industry


is a high-takes game, one blockbuster, Viagra, can make up for


billions not going anywhere, but only until the patent runs out. What


counts for a drug company isn't so much saving tax or cost, it is


having enough research capacity to find the next blockbuster. What led


drug firms to prosper in the UK in the first place was not taxes or


takeover restrictions, but the presence of one of the most


important customers in the world, the NHS, what happens most to


sciences isn't nationality, but the financial support they need to


create drugs that win the big battle, not with an industrial preto


but with disease. Here with us is the Shadow Business Secretary, thank


you for coming in. On a point of principle, would it be better in


your view, if your British companies were taken over and owned by foreign


companies? I think this issue of foreign ownership is a bit of a red


herring, it is not a question of whether it is foreign or not, it is


a question of whether it is good for the British economy, good for a


world-beating sector, like the pharmaceutical sector, good for the


country. There have been good foreign takeovers, one thinks of


Tata's takeover, Nissan, BMW-Mini- et cetera, the bad ones, the


takeover by Hewlett Packard. It is not autonomy, it is whether it


represents a long-term investment in our industrial base. On that


particular point, because many people do believe in fact it matters


whether or not the company is owned, you as a potential Business


Secretary have no view on whether or not more or fewer companies should


be British-owned and kept in the country? My preference would be I


would much rather British firms taking over foreign ones and


autonomy taking over the likes of Hewlett Packard. Ultimately I'm


interested in what will this do for our science base, and is this inward


investment, which we are open to and must welcome, will it create more of


the high-skilled jobs we want to see here in Britain. That is the key


issue here. What would you do, if you were Vince Cable tonight, he's


suggested the possibility of applying a public interest test,


that doesn't right now fit for drug companies. Although it does for


others, it exists for defence and media companies, what else would you


put on the list? First of all we would be clear that you need to have


Government operating in a neutral fashion, looking at this objectively


and seeing if it is good for the UK science base. Science for innovation


is important. It is through innovating we can win the global


race to the top. We are not going to compete with people on driving down


people's terms and conditions, it is by innovation, the Business


Secretary has said today that all options are on the table. What would


you do? We would establish an independent body of people, the FT's


editorial tomorrow has come out in favour of this idea. You would have


another quango? No, how you constitute that as something we are


looking at in the context of our policy review. You would have an


independent group of people made up of industry and experts, who would


advise Government on whether this was a good or bad thing or the US


science and industrial base for the country. The Business Secretary has


indicated he's ameanable to this. In order to add that UK science and R


as a category under which you could have an intervention on public


interest grounds, you need to introduce the statutory instrument.


I'm saying this evening, we would be prepared to work with him to change


the public interest test to include this particular category. So you


would put drug companies on the list for a public interest test, whether


you want to set up your own other quango is something else. You would


put the pharmaceuticals sector on to that list. What wouldn't you put on


the list? There is four categories under which Government can intervene


at the moment, national security, competition, media peculiarity, and


financial stability. That actually, some of those could affect all


different companies. Would you add anything to that list? The list we


are saying that the category we would add to that list would be


science and R You would add science and research and development


specifically to that list? That is what we are proposing. The Business


Secretary seems to be indicating in the House of Commons he's


considering all options and that would be one. We would be happy to


work with him. The important thing is you have an independent


assessment of what this means to the UK science base. The problem is


people look at the form of Pfizer, and how they have a history of


taking over companies, intellectually asset stripping them.


British companies do that too, you said before it is not about whether


or not it is a foreign company coming in, are you suggesting now it


is? The public interest test applies regardless of whether it is a


foreign takeover or not. That applies to all companies. Like I


said this issue of whether it is foreign is a bit of a red herring.


But you are sitting here tonight, potentially in a year or so you


might be Business Secretary, you are suggesting perhaps another sort of


quango and independent body set up just to look at this science deal,


you are suggesting potentially adding science to the list of


protected industries, it is all a bit confusing is it not, businesses


looking at this position? You are calling it protec tectied


industries, it is a category under which you gauge public interest. Can


I make another point. What is clearly happening here, we have had


AstraZeneca for the third time reject Pfizer's advances. One thing


that is very worrying is if this deal potentially goes hostile, where


the Pfizer board seeks to go over the British board here and appeals.


That is up to them? But Laura that is... They are -- you are being


unclear whether or not you would add other sectors to the list? I have


been very clear. There are four existing categories and we would add


another one. Any others? That is a category, that is the only one.


Would you add any other sectors to that, because business will want to


know? I will be very clear with business there are no sectors we are


adding to the public interest category of four, a fifth that would


be R and science and that is supported in the FT I'm pleased to


say. Any other sectors you might consider adding to the list and any


sectors that you will never intervene? I won't go through the


list there are none others at the moment, that's it. Thank you. We


have our other guest a former Conservative MP with us. The


chairman of AstraZeneca appears worried that the Prime Minister is


pushing the deal, where as the Government says it is neutral, is


the chairman wrong? I think he's oversensitive on the point. I'm sure


the Government is neutral on this. The Business Secretary stated many


times that the Government are neutral, they are in touch with both


AstraZeneca and Pfizer boards. There is a case for both camps. Are you


saying he's being a bit oversensitive and touchy? Yes, I


don't see that he has evidence that the Prime Minister is on the side of


one company or another on all of this. I think it is important that


the Government does stay neutral, there hasn't even been a formal bid


that has been accepted yet. And it is way too premature to be taking


one side or another, for one key point which is we don't know yet on


what the board of AstraZeneca is basing its rejections. But the


Government have clearly taken a side, have they not, or was the


Treasury a bit too keen to come out and say marvellous the company will


take advantage of our new tax regime? It is two separate things. I


think this Government has made the UK economy a lot more competitive,


particularly manufacturing and science-based industries, we are now


a very competitive country in worldwide terms. That is a good


thing. Is it giving the game away appearing to support the deal, when


the Treasury let it be known that it was very pleased that Pfizer were


citing the changes in tax arrangements as a reason to come to


the UK? That is a separate matter to taking the side of Pfizer in any


negotiations with AstraZeneca. It would be premature to do that. What


about this idea of having a test, adding the pharmaceutical sector to


tests in terms of the public interest, would you support that?


Vince Cable didn't rule that out today. He dropped a heavy hint he


would like to see it happen? I was sitting behind him, he just didn't


rule it out. He said it would be a very serious step, not one that he


would rule out, personally I hope that he doesn't go down that path.


Why not? Because there are other people in your party, like the


former Deputy Prime Minister, Michael Heseltine, who believe


explicitly we are the only developed economy that doesn't have a test


like this in the same way, and we ought to have this kind of


mechanism? We do have a test in certain areas, and I think we have


great strength in this economy, we have an open economy, we are


delighted when companies like Rolls-Royce, GlaxoSmithKline, BG, go


out and invest in other parts of the world and increase their global


revenues, which in turn benefit the UK. We can't have it both ways, we


can't be encouraging companies on the one hand to go out and


globalise, but then put the barriers up when companies want to do the


same thing in the UK. We have to leave it there, thank you very much


indeed to you both for coming in. What does the country see in the


mirror? Staring back right now is a population where eight million of us


are not white, 14% of the population, but by 2050 that might


have doubled. So says the think-tank Policy Exchange. And where


populations shift, votes can shift too. So smart politicians and policy


makers would do well to pay attention. But have they really


cottoned on? Have you noticed something recently? Whether it is


the Prime Minister visiting a part of the Punjab from where hundreds of


thousands of British voters can trace their routes roots, or the


Chancellor's reforms to flight taxes. It creates a great sense of


injustice amongst our Caribbean and south Asian communities. Or the Home


Secretary's announcement that police forces must cut back on their use of


stop and search? I have told the House before I have long been


learned about stop and search. The Conservatives are making direct


appeals from voters from ethnic minority backgrounds. A report out


today helps explain why, how the face of Britain is changing. Policy


Exchange says by to 50 up to a third of the UK will be nonwhite. In


Croydon today the black and ethnic minority communities make up half


the population. The Conservatives won central Croydon from Labour in


2010, with a year and day to go before the next election, it is a


seat where black and Asian voters could decide the outcome next time


round. Any politician standing in a place like Croydon probably already


knows the importance of appealing to voters from ethnic minorities, but


how do you do it? Anything that smells of cynical electioneering,


will leave people feeling used and put them off voting for you. Then


again does it make sense to talk about the BME vote as one block,


when there is so much diversity within it. I think absolutely not


treating them as a block is the right way forward. Pick housing, the


Indian community overwhelmingly own their own homes, you contrast to the


black African communities where homeownership is low, policies


around stamp duty or help to buy, "Mansion Tax"s and interest rates


will be of particular concern to the Indian community and a way for


politicians to engage with them. Are the political classes ready for a


doubling of the nonwhite population by 2050. This campaigner wants


Croydon's minorities more engaged in politics. He knows what would help.


When people look at the political parties, and they don't actually see


themselves within those political parties, they don't feel part of


those political democratic process, they don't feel that their views are


actually going to be represented at those tables. Just look at all those


white faces, it is hardly surprising that black and minority ethnic


voters can feel alienated from politics. 27 MPs, 4. 2% of the


Commons come from ethnic minority backgrounds. If parliament reflected


the population accurately, there would be 117. The BME electorate


tends to vote Labour. At the last general election 68% did, 16% voted


Conservative and 14% Lib Dem. How worried are people within the


Conservative Party? Long-term it is an existential threat to the


Conservative Party. We can see the way the demography of the country is


changing, there is a self-interest there, and it is also a matter of


principle, making sure we are a party that, every weekend I go out


and meet people whose values are Conservatives but don't vote for the


Conservative Party because they don't feel it is for them. That is


the fundamental perception we need to change. The Mayor of London has


cottoned on faster than many. Reaching out to the black church


community, and was special guest in front of 40,000 black Christians a


month before the elections. Here in the UK the black church could be as


significant as it is in the United States, and getting Barack Obama


elected for a second term. It is huge there, and it is beginning to


become politically huge here, what the Pastors are now saying, yes it


is good to pray, but it is equally good to vote. Operation Black Vote


says in 168 marginal seats like Croydon central, the ethnic vote is


bigger than the sitting MP's majority. With us now are Ken


Livingston, the former Mayor of London and the Conservative whip and


former parliamentary Private Secretary to the Prime Minister. Ken


Livingston, firstly to you, running London where the demographics are


racing ahead in much of the country, do you have to be a different kind


of politician to do it? I don't think you do actually. I


I remember Sadique Khan to say close my eyes, and people come to Britain


to be part of it not to change it. The defining thing is not your


colour or religion it is your level of income. David Cameron has just


appointed the first British person of Pakistani origin, when I look at


him I don't see that, I see a banker making money every year. People vote


according to their income. If you look, it might be a generation


before people catch up. If I think back. If we were talking 50 years


ago, the Roman Catholic community, the Irish community, the Jewish


community in Britain solidly Labour, still the Irish Catholic community


are still Labour, because it is still not terribly rich. As the


Jewish community got richer they moved to vote for Margaret Thatcher


in Finchley. Aren't politicians missing a trick. There is a big


demographic change, Policy Exchanging suggested by 2050 nearly


a third of voters from nonwhite backgrounds, is it carry on as you


are? The report is a fascinating insight into what Britain looks like


today, it projects what Britain will look like in 2050. On that I think


it is slightly patronising to suggest that some how people's


voting attitudes now will persist into 2050, we don't say that about


any groups in society, why say it about BME groups is what I will say.


It is not all that, I disagree with Ken about level of income. People


vote according to their values, with was said in the package, and what I


certainly see, and in my own background is a lot of the values


people have are Conservative values. Except if you look at the statistics


in all BME communities, and they are a patchwork, it is not correct to


lump them all into the same, but across those communities, regardless


of age and social class, they strongly support the Labour Party in


every single one? I think you made a point there, it is important not to


lump all of them together. Let 's not put everyone in a box, every


delivering community and delivering generations have where they live


will affect how they vote. Yes there is work for Conservatives to do, but


if we look at parliamentary representation, which you touched


on, in 2001 there were zero BME Conservative MPs, by 2010 there were


11, the Labour Party has 16. It is still woeful, it is had. 2%, 27p MPs


out of 650. There is work to be done. But I also think there is a


nuance here that we shouldn't confuse representation with being


relevant to people. In your package earlier there was a seat represented


with 56% of them were BME, he's a white man working very hard and


brilliant for the constituents. It may be a tight seat. How do you see


this changing some of the debates we have already, for example on


immigration. Politicians talk about immigration in way they wouldn't


have done ten years ago, will this shift on to too? I think we had a


problem back in 1968, Enoch Powell made his Rivers of Blood Speech,


that polarised politics. The majority of Conservatives aren't


racist and the majority of people in UKIP aren't racist, they are worried


about immigration, we can have a fair debate about that. The issue is


far too many constituencies, we are underrepresented. You are right when


you talked about those numbers, it doesn't yet reflect Britain. But


where as it was only 1987 we had our first black and Asian MPs getting in


modern times, I think it will pick up now. The racism is a lot less


than it was in politics. Finally to you Sam? I think in terms of winning


people over and just going back to ten's point, delivering for people,


so we talk about our long-term economic plan, if people have moved


to have this country this is because they want to get on. If they want to


get on, things like cutting taxes for them to keep more of what they


earn, three million people being removed from tax all together and 26


million people with a tax cut. That is the sort of thing that makes


people believe Government is delivering for them. Their


expectations of Government is what we have to deal with in order to get


them to vote for us. I know you two will carry on disagreeing what it


takes to get people to vote for you. Thank you for your thoughts.


Oscar Pistorius was accused in court today of making a sinister remark,


trying to intimidate one of his former girlfriend's friends. It is


yet another episode in the court drama in real life that is gripping


South Africa. But millions of its stat accepts have to live with the


-- citizens have to live with the drama of sky high crime rates every


day. There are elections there tomorrow, but few voters have


confidence in politicians that they will bring the long arm of the law


out to deal with everyone equally. The police Police say they are


bracing themselves for more violent clashes tonight. Guns, there are


guns. Violence, gun crime, people living in constant fear. The Oscar


Pistorius trial is forcing South Africa to confront some


uncomfortable truths. My daughter being raped, my granddaughter being


raped, that is something that happens in this country. My fears


are for my children, it is my childrens' life, I'm all that is


there for my children, other than their uncles and aunts, but I have


raised them on my own for 16 years, and I am the only person who can


really take care of them. So I need self-defence. Many South Africans


resort to buying firearms to defend themselves against would-be


attackers. People like Charlene who is here to get her gun license have


lost confidence in the police. As a woman it is not that easy to defend


oneself, especially when most of the crime is gang-related. It is more


than one person attacking you. If you are proficient in weapon use,


and confident in it, then you will be able to take care of yourself and


your family. 45 people are murdered here every day. The numbers are


down, but compared to other countries still high. The Oscar


Pistorius crime and white crime in general continues to grab


international headlines, but the truth is white people are less


likely to be attacked now in the new South Africa than under apartheid.


So while rich whites are more fearful of crime, the reality is


that the bulk of victims happen to be poor and black. In this township


one of the most dangerous in the country, there is a feeling that the


justice system doesn't work for ordinary people. The trial has


raised concerns about crime and safety in our society, what do you


think about that? I think three or four months back the owner of a shop


was killed there, and the police station is two streets away from us,


but their response was not there, we don't even trust our own cops. We


live in fear in our own homes. If I got my girlfriend I would be in jail


right now, right now. With all my money and everything I would still


be in jail. First degree murder, the only person I know who has got bail,


first degree murder, it is crazy. Back at home with Charlene on the


outskirts of Johannesburg, the family feel abandoned and isolated.


What happened is the burglars gained entry into the kitchen... The family


has had to make its own security arrangements, at night her daughter


organises the local Neighbourhood Watch The Internet is full of Oscar


and there is ratings on Oscar. He is getting all of the attention. It is


unfair that he as a known person, a celebrity, somebody who people


looked up to is getting all of this kind of attention. Where as I had a


break in to my house, although not much was taken, it was a small case,


I understand, but a case wasn't even opened. So you obviously have the


feelings of self blame, why did I stay that long? Maybe you need to go


back and look at the forgiveness issue.


But the Pistorius case has forced South Africa to face up to problems


of domestic violence. He hit me with an iron pipe, and I didn't know what


exactly he was hitting me with, I was trying to defend myself, we were


fighting. Every eight hours a woman is murdered by her intimate partner.


After I was lying there on the bed, you know, in the hospital, I was


looking up, there was a light, a big light on my face. It is then a


decision came to me that I'm going to die in this house. I'm really


going to die if I don't move out. Because I have been having advice to


move out but it was not yet the time. And then I decided on that


hospital bed, I decided I'm moving out no matter what. I didn't have a


place to go, I wasn't working, but the fear disappeared on that bed.


She sought refuge in this orphanage, she became homeless following the


divorce from her abusive husband. What is it about South African women


that makes them feel so trapped that they cannot leave these abusive


husbands or partners? Most often women are controlled by culture,


they get in a marriage to make their parents proud. Some of the things is


that we don't have knowledge. You get in a marriage without knowing


what your rights are. You only, it is not about you, it is all about a


man. Because they say you don't ask him where he has come from, his word


is final. For many in South Africa, the Pistorius case is a distraction


from some of the fundamental problems facing the country. There


is a lot of people who, a lot of families going through the same


thing that these families are, they don't get the same treatment, their


trials aren't televised, they don't get the same scrutiny as he is. I


don't think it is fair. It is Oscar Pistorius and that is all that


really matters about this trial, not the justice system working, because


it is working now, because it is one rich man and one beautiful girl that


had lots of talent and one guy who had lots of talent. It is working


now, but who else is it going to work for. The Pistorius case has


brought renewed attention to South Africa's problems, but there is a


frustration that politicians lack the will or ability to deliver real


change. Now the names of the authors who


opposed it could almost have been a best-seller list themselves, the


Ministry of Justice plans to limit prisoners access to books provoked


howls of protests in sometimes rather nonliterary terms. But this


evening Newsnight has discovered the Government might have run into a bit


of trouble with the plans. Emily is here. What's happening. Let me talk


you through it, in my hands I have details of the legal challenge that


has just been served on the Ministry of Justice over this prisoner book


ban. That was the shorthand term we gave what they would call the


"incentives and earned privileges scheme", it was to stop prisoners


receiving small packages, many carrying books they needed could


help to reinvent advise them particularly when serving long


sentences. We have heard a bunch of lawyers are going to run a test case


against one claimant, a woman who is serving a life sentence, she is an


epilepsy sufferer, highly qualified, she has said her life is in despair


without access to these books, which have really been taking her through


this life sentence. Any response so far from the Government? Very


interesting, because the MOJ, who haven't received the full bunkedle


yet, they will get 2,000-pages. I have got the advice and


yet, they will get 2,000-pages. I here. They will get the full


package, 2,000 pages, 44 blames here. They will get the full


that pack -- claims in here. They will get the full


they have been told about this and they have said it is run out of


time. The policy was introduced last November, it is three months and


they have run out of time. The legal team say it doesn't matter because


the piecemeal way was introduced, which means their climbant has only


just started feeling the effects of it now, she is devastated. If they


win it could turn over the policy. The beginning of what could be a


very interesting story. You might be forgiven for being


surprised to learn there are limits on how much football clubs can


spend. You might wonder how effective the fair finance rules are


when top earners can take home ?300 a week. Yes a week -- ?300,000 a


week. Yes a week. Non-league players are lucky to get an orange slice at


half time. UEFA have created a set of rules to try to stop reckless


spending and prevent clubs building up suicidal levels of debt. They


face hefty penalties if they ignore them. The same bulging check book


that secured Manchester City the Premiership is set to land them in


trouble. A lot of kids right now will be dreaming of playing for


Manchester City. They look likely to win the league. But it is not all


Roy of the Rovers stuff for them. City faces a ?50 million fine and


retruction to the number of players it can use in European competition.


That's because UEFA, the European football body, thinks City may have


breached its financial fair play rules. These are rules that aim to


prevent clubs from collapsing because they spent more than they


make. Many football fans like the idea of these financial fair play


rules. That is because a lot of supporters are quite suspicious of


the role of big money in football. They don't like the idea that you


just need to find some oligarch, or some foreign princeling to back your


team, and then you can walk your way to the Premier League title. That is


why clubs like AFC Wimbledon, fan-owned, have a lot of sympathy


and support from fans of other teams. Manchester City's owner from


Abu Dhabi has certainly poured money into the club. This season alone,


despite starting with a team that finished strongly last year, they


spent ?95 million on transfers. Crystal Palace, by contrast, who


play in the same league, spent only ?24 million. Now big spending alone


isn't the problem, it is spending a lot more than you make. Ed the rules


say a club can only spent 45 million euros more than that it spends on


running costs on sponsorship deals and players. So UEFA has to find out


how much money they are spending and how much they have got. The problem


is while it is pretty easy to work out how much a club is spending, it


is difficult to work out exactly how much money it is earning. So if a


club just spent 45 million euros more than they earned over a


two-year period, and they got the owner to bail them out, UEFA would


tackle that kind of behaviour. What if the club owner knew a guy who


owed them favour who could put the money in for them, that might swerve


around the rules. UEFA is worried about this, it calls it a "related


party transaction", that is why City are in trouble. The club thinks its


overspend is below 45 million euros, or ?37 million. Those numbers rest


on a big sponsorship deal, worth about ?40 million with the Abu Dhabi


airline headed by their owner's half brother. UEFA will want to know


whether City got an unusually good deal. UEFA can also show teams a red


card, banning them from European competitions all together. But it


will hope that fines, which effectively cut club's financial


fair play limited in future years will do. I think what UEFA are


hoping to do is to get compliance by agreement, by settlement, and


therefore the harsher sanctions of points deduction or actually


removing clubs from the competition. I can't see it happening in the


short-term. When not booking buses for a new celebration of the coming


weeks, City is in negotiation with UEFA about these issues, so too is


PSG, backed by Qatar. So we're in the slightly peculiar position that


a rulebook, designed to stop clubs from going bust, is now catching out


the clubs who have the most solvent backing of all. With us is the


former chief executive of the FA, and in Salford an expert in sport


finance. Firstly to you Mark, it looks like


the first fines will be applied here, but with a bit of financial


jigry pokery around the edges, are the rules working as designed to? I


think the very fact that we are having a debate is to me, it is the


proof in the pudding. We are starting a debate. Five or ten years


ago we weren't having the debate, that is an important point to make.


You have to distinguish between UEFA's rules at the top end of the


game and the other rules that have been copied, if you like, in the


Premier League and further down the leison. Down the league it is having


an effect. That is where you really have to look at protecting clubs


against financial problems. At the top end it is more about creating a


level playing field. Can you create a level playing field, you are still


going to get clubs like Manchester City, PSG, with the deepest pockets


in the world, just piling cash in, it is not really going to make that


much difference? Unless you stand back and get to looking at sport and


saying it is a special case, at the heart of professional sport, at the


heart of sport as a business and as a sport, you have this conflict. In


any other business you kill off your competitors, in sport you have to


maintain that competitive playing field. Professor was this a problem


that really needed to be solved in your view? It didn't, if you look at


the top of the English Premiership, you have three clubs in the top five


not owned by super-rich Middle East oligarch, nor is it true in Europe,


if you look at the Champions League, one of the teams in the Champions


League final is clearly not in terms of Athletico Madrid like that. The


whole issue of financial fair play is based on a false premise, which


is that it is in some way to have less fair to have a foreign investor


put money in, than having the situation you have in Spain where


the distribution of income is such that actually the team at the bottom


of the Spanish First Division gets virtually nothing, and the team at


the top, whether Real Madrid or Barcelona scoop the pool. If


Manchester City got the share of income that Real Madrid or Barcelona


get at the English TV income, they could have had the extra ?50 million


for the last three years and not in trouble at all. The whole premise is


false. When you listen to those numbers it sounds like this didn't


need to happen, because the equation between money in and rewards out


isn't as simple as you suggest? I think what you have to do is stand


back and look at this. You are looking at Manchester City at a


particular point in time, you are looking at other clubs at a


particular point in time. Unless you take a broader view you will come to


a specific conclusion that supports your case. Take for example Arsenal,


who now complain that Manchester City should be punished in, or


Arsene Wenger does, but when you look at it is a function of timing.


Yes Arsenal run their ship in a much more business-like way, rather than


the benefactor model that Manchester City has got. They are there already


and pulling up the draw bridge if you apply the rules harshly. Are you


saying there is not a problem with money and football? I don't think


there is the problem that UEFA first brought. It is not the problem. If


you look at the German league, last year the Champions League was


dominated by German club, and in a European level they are, in a sense,


an ideal model, they are owned by the fans. They originally talked


about the problem being debt. And the most indebted club in England


has hardly been touched. Whether they were in the Champions League or


not, they are not touched by this. And then the comparison between


City, for example, and PSG is even more absurd. City actually have got


a very good sponsorship deal, which is justified by the massive


developments taking place at the stadium. You are getting the


redevelopments of one of the most deprived areas of Greater Manchester


on the back of the campus development. Comparing that for


example with what is happening at PSG is nonsense. To see City


penalised to the same degree as PSG is absurd, you have got very


different scenarios and very different strategies for the two


clubs. It is a completely false situation being created. So the


professor is not too impressed by UEFA's grasp on the figures, isn't


it the wages of footballers that get people going? Again stepping back to


this, the rotting Rhino on the table is players wages are too high. If a


kid was getting a million pound a year would he bother to play


football? Yes he would. If he was getting ?5 million would it make a


difference? Probably not, where does the extra cash go? Thank you very


much indeed for joining us. Now to a very different sporting


era, running a mile in less than four minutes still probably feels


pretty unlikely to most of us. But until 60 years ago today no-one had


ever done it. And Roger Banser, who achieved the feat wasn't even a


full-time athlete when he scourged around the track in Oxford. We have


set Stephen Smith the marginally easy task of telling Sir Roger's


story in 3. 59 seconds! I feel the muscle pain that I had at the end,


the first part felt very easy because I hadn't run or trained for


five days. I went to America once, I arrived alone, and the next day


someone wrote a letter, "he arrived alone, no masseur, no coach, no


manager, he's either nuts or he's good"! There are lovely stories


about the day, how you went to a friend's house for a ham salad and a


key factor in whether to go ahead was whether a particular flag was


flapping in the wind or not? There was a strong wind and lots of wane,


and the tracks then were cinder tracks and it slowed a runner down


perhaps by four seconds over a mile. Dr Roger Bannister. Before the BBC


rightly stamped down on fakers, Record Breakers recreated the tannoy


of the record, not preserved on the day. The British Empire and world


record, the time 3. day. The British Empire and world


after that the noise of the crowd obliterated the noise of his


announcement. I'm overwhelmed, and delighted, it was a great surprise


to me to be able to do it today, I this was very lucky. Bannister's


pals were pace makers, both Oxbridge graduates. The academic Mary Beard


has praised Bannister's achievement, but also raised a ticklish question.


She also talks about a class element to it, the fact that the man who


finished fourth, Tom Houlat was from a working-class background, he's


rather forgotten in this great event? I think he came fourth in


about 4. 20, I think it was really quite a slow event, and had been


selected as one of the team but he did not happen to be the one who was


involved in helping me. I would be sad if he had this feeling. My own


father came from Lancashire and had no prospects in Lancashire and so he


had came to London. Britain and the Commonwealth were producing


Corinthian heros, scaling Everest, scourging around a craneder track --


cinder track. Did they find trace elements of ham


salad on you on the momentous occasion, were there any drug


testing? There were drugs used already, I think, in cycling. And in


the last century they were, but they were peculiarly useless drugs, I


can't see how strychnine can help you perform better. You want to give


that to the rivals presumably! Sir Roger, who is 85 has spent most of


his life in medicine. It recently emerged that he has Parkinsons'


disease. It is a bit ironic that as a neurologist, I have treated many,


many patients in the course of my career and I'm not making too much


of it. It is a problem, but I have had a wonderful life. The tape is


broken and so is the record, athletes have long been dreaming


about. And that 3. 59 was indeed your lot. That's all we have time


for, good night. Some showers around for the rest of


the night and we are upping the potential for getting wet over the


next few days, in fact for Wednesday we will see outbreaks of rain,


heading across Northern Ireland, northern England and into southern


Scotland. It is breezy and there are showers to be had. A wet spot of


weather into Northern Ireland, reaching to at least southern


Scotland may hold off the belt until later on. Northern half of


Download Subtitles