:00:46. > :00:50.Morning folks, welcome to Sunday Politics. Could Britain thrive and
:00:50. > :00:54.prosper outside the European Union. Cabinet minister, Iain Duncan Smith,
:00:54. > :00:57.gave every impression this morning, that yes we can. We will ask
:00:57. > :01:01.Business Minister, David Willetts, what he makes of it, it is our top
:01:01. > :01:05.story. They are flying high in the polls, and they say winning the
:01:05. > :01:09.arguments on Europe. But can the UK Independence Party really stand up
:01:09. > :01:13.to the scrutiny that comes with success. Leader Nigel Farage joins
:01:13. > :01:18.us for the Sunday interview. Which of these two men would you
:01:18. > :01:22.like to see in the White House? With the US elections three days
:01:22. > :01:29.away, Diane Abbott and Dan Hannan go head-to-head on whether Obama or
:01:29. > :01:34.Romney will be better for Britain. In London, Michael Heseltine and
:01:34. > :01:44.Boris Johnson call for new leniency on decisions over the airport, is
:01:44. > :01:48.the Government dragging its feet when it comes to additional runways.
:01:48. > :01:52.With me, as always, the best and the brightest political panel in
:01:52. > :01:55.the business. Isabel Oakeshott, Janan Ganesh and, back an after
:01:55. > :01:58.extended period sunning himself on the other side of the world, Nick
:01:58. > :02:02.Watt. They will be serving wit, wisdom
:02:02. > :02:06.and frantic tweeting throughout the programme.
:02:06. > :02:10.Could the UK prosper as trading nation outside the European Union?
:02:10. > :02:16.Iain Duncan Smith was asked about that this morning, and here he is,
:02:16. > :02:20.very nearly saying, well, actually, yes! I'm an optimist about the UK,
:02:20. > :02:23.I have always been, involved with trade with our European partners,
:02:23. > :02:25.we will always be doing, whatever this relationship is, and the Prime
:02:25. > :02:28.Minister will talk about in the future. We are a member of the
:02:28. > :02:31.European Union, that gives us benefits, but we have to figure out
:02:31. > :02:34.where that is going. But in the world we are a global trader
:02:34. > :02:37.already, we are more of a global trader than any other country in
:02:37. > :02:41.Europe. I hate this argument that says, you know, little Britain or
:02:41. > :02:43.something outside, or Britain in part of a wider Europe, we can both
:02:44. > :02:47.be within our trading relationships and all the rest of it within
:02:47. > :02:51.Europe, but we can also be a fantastic global trader.
:02:51. > :02:55.That was Iain Duncan Smith talking to Andrew Marr earlier this morning.
:02:55. > :02:58.Nick, he couldn't have come closer to saying, sure, we will be fine
:02:58. > :03:01.outside? He went pretty close to the line, didn't he, but he didn't
:03:02. > :03:06.actually cross it. What we know is Iain Duncan Smith obviously made
:03:06. > :03:10.himself as a Maastricht rebel, he's no great fan of the European Union.
:03:10. > :03:13.If he were there to make the decision in 1973, would he have
:03:13. > :03:16.taken us in, maybe he wouldn't have done. What is really interesting
:03:16. > :03:19.about what he is saying is the debate about where we are at the
:03:19. > :03:22.moment. Which is pro-Europeans are holding their heads, not sure how
:03:22. > :03:27.do they make the pro-European case. They don't know what they are
:03:27. > :03:30.making the case for. Ten years ago there was a killer argument, the
:03:30. > :03:34.single market, the singable market guaranteed liberalism, the French
:03:34. > :03:38.didn't like it, therefore, it must be a good thing. The single market
:03:38. > :03:41.is not the top game in the European Union, it is the euro, we are not
:03:41. > :03:46.part of the euro, and not part of the eurozone governance
:03:46. > :03:51.arrangements, there is a danger that the 17 mers of the eurozone
:03:51. > :03:54.will be able to cork us and run the rules of the European Union. It is
:03:54. > :03:59.represented in the cabinet a caucus, that thinks we should be out of the
:03:59. > :04:03.EU? Yes, and there is a really intriguing story in The Mail on
:04:03. > :04:05.Sunday today, about a cabinet minister who was supposedly having
:04:05. > :04:11.a serious discussion last week about quitting and leading a euro-
:04:11. > :04:14.sceptic wing of the party. Do we know who it was? Could it be Iain
:04:14. > :04:17.Duncan Smith? What it shows is there is a real temperature
:04:17. > :04:22.building up inside the parliamentary party. I think the
:04:22. > :04:26.interesting thing about IDS's remarks, is it is time for the Tory
:04:26. > :04:29.euro-sceptics to examine the question of exactly how and whether
:04:29. > :04:32.Britain could succeed outside of the European Union. Until now, and
:04:32. > :04:36.for the past 20 years or so, Euro- scepticism has been about arguing
:04:36. > :04:39.that we should leave, or downgrade our relationship with the EU. The
:04:39. > :04:43.far more fundamental question is exactly what policies would we
:04:43. > :04:47.enact to enable us to thrive, without access to the single market,
:04:47. > :04:52.and without access to EU power and international trade negotiations.
:04:52. > :04:55.We shall see. Let's go now to Southampton, where we are joined by
:04:55. > :04:58.the Universities and Science Minister, David Willetts. Mr
:04:58. > :05:04.Willetts, welcome to the Sunday Politics, do you think Britain
:05:04. > :05:09.could survive and prosper outside the European Union? We're a proud
:05:09. > :05:12.nation state, and as Iain was rightly saying, we are a great
:05:12. > :05:17.global trading nation. What we are focusing on in the Government, we
:05:17. > :05:21.want a new settlement with Europe. We want to take some of the powers
:05:21. > :05:24.which have gone to Europe, which really decision its can be taken
:05:24. > :05:26.nationally we are doing a very careful analysis, we are going to
:05:26. > :05:30.argue that some of those should come back to individual nation
:05:30. > :05:33.states. We think, as well, Europe spends too much. That's the central
:05:33. > :05:37.argument, on that argument, the Government is absolutely focusing,
:05:37. > :05:40.on ensuring that we get the best possible deal from Europe. It was
:05:40. > :05:45.interesting though that Iain Duncan Smith didn't say a word in favour
:05:45. > :05:48.of our membership of the European Union? Across the cabinet we all
:05:48. > :05:52.understand the enormous value of the single market. And I don't
:05:52. > :05:55.think we should just say the single market is now a dead issue. We have
:05:55. > :05:59.just been celebrating 20 years of the sing market a there is still a
:05:59. > :06:04.hell of a lot to do, to ensure we have a proper ING single market,
:06:04. > :06:08.where our services can be -- single market, where our services can be
:06:08. > :06:11.sold over there and free movement of people. He didn't say a word in
:06:11. > :06:16.favour of the European Union? think Ian spoke very powerfully
:06:16. > :06:19.about the pride we can have in Britain in our atkhee.s and --
:06:19. > :06:23.achievements and global trading position. It is in our interests to
:06:23. > :06:29.be part of the single market. This fear that I heard from one of your
:06:29. > :06:33.panellists, about the 17 members of the eurozone caucusing against us,
:06:33. > :06:36.I think it is very important that the whole framework of the European
:06:36. > :06:40.single market continues to function. I know there are many member states,
:06:40. > :06:43.like Germany, who recognise the importance of having Britain around
:06:43. > :06:47.the table, whenever single market issues come up. That is clearly a
:06:48. > :06:52.crucial objective for the future. Let's go on to Michael Heseltine
:06:52. > :06:56.about growth in the British economy, he gave his report this week. It is
:06:56. > :07:00.enthused with his long standing beliefs in industrial policy, and
:07:00. > :07:04.state intervention. Are these ideas finding favour in the coalition now,
:07:04. > :07:08.even among Tories? Well, I think it is a great report. It is a very
:07:08. > :07:14.personal document, as you rightly say, Andrew. It actually goes back
:07:14. > :07:17.over his career in politics, over 40 years. I think coming into
:07:17. > :07:20.Government, and working in business, alongside Vince Cable, I think both
:07:20. > :07:24.of us, and the Government as a whole, as, we have come to
:07:24. > :07:28.recognise that there are lots of things that Government inevitably
:07:28. > :07:33.does and we should make sure we do them in the best possible way to
:07:33. > :07:36.support British industry. I mean, take for example, the amount
:07:36. > :07:40.Government spends. We spend hundreds of billions a year on
:07:40. > :07:44.procurement, we should do it better than Governments have historically
:07:44. > :07:48.done. One thing we have done, the first time any Government has done
:07:48. > :07:51.this, we have set out �70 billion for procurement plans, looking five
:07:51. > :07:55.years ahead, so that British business can see what we are
:07:55. > :07:58.planning to do, and can invest and prepare its products accordingly.
:07:58. > :08:01.There is things like that where Government is inevitably spending
:08:01. > :08:06.money, you either do it in a smart way that supports British business,
:08:06. > :08:09.or you make a mess of it. I'm in favour of a smart and effective way.
:08:09. > :08:12.I understand, I would venture to suggest, since you are reputed to
:08:12. > :08:16.have two brains, that you realised that Government spent money, even
:08:16. > :08:20.before you came into power. That you have not just worked that out
:08:20. > :08:24.since power. What I'm trying to get at is, have you been on a journey
:08:24. > :08:27.in Government, have you realised that actually some forms of state
:08:27. > :08:31.intervention, or an industrial policy, or strategy, are necessary
:08:31. > :08:36.and can can't just be left to the market? Yeah, first of all, on
:08:36. > :08:39.procurement, by the way, what I was shocked by is how badly it was done
:08:39. > :08:44.when we arrived, and we are trying to sort it out. More widely, what I
:08:44. > :08:48.have come to recognise, and across the cabinet Cuomo to recognise, for
:08:48. > :08:52.example, there is the convening -- have come to rebgt, for example,
:08:52. > :08:54.there is the convening power of Government. There is the
:08:54. > :08:58.researchers paying out of the university and science budget,
:08:58. > :09:02.together with the business leaders think be about to invest, and the R
:09:02. > :09:06.& D projects they are embarking on. If you get them together say let's
:09:06. > :09:09.have a respected group of experts to provide a technology Road Map in
:09:09. > :09:12.this area, which will identify where we are spending the public
:09:12. > :09:16.money and where you want to invest. Provided you don't think you can
:09:16. > :09:18.get it all perfectly right and don't pick individual business
:09:18. > :09:21.winners, when you engage in that type of exercise and show the
:09:21. > :09:26.Government has skin in the game and you recognise business last a role,
:09:26. > :09:30.you can create something more effective than if you don't work
:09:30. > :09:36.together. I have seen myself, with my response bgts in high-tech, I
:09:36. > :09:43.can see how to do it in high- performance computing and synthetic
:09:43. > :09:48.biology, and the space sector. And Vince has led same things in the
:09:48. > :09:52.automotive industry, and Aerospace. It is important to do that well.
:09:52. > :09:55.New texts between Rebekah Brooks and the Prime Minister this morning
:09:55. > :09:59.published. Mr Brooks says she cries at David Cameron's speeches, have
:09:59. > :10:03.you cried too? I think David Cameron's speeches, certainly the
:10:03. > :10:08.one this year, was a very effective and powerful speech. Did you shed a
:10:08. > :10:11.tear? I guess, for me, I do find, when someone sets out the case for
:10:11. > :10:14.what we are doing to make the country a better place, I do accept
:10:14. > :10:19.it is not just a matter of appeal to the head, it should appeal to
:10:19. > :10:24.the heart as well. And great speeches by leader, including some
:10:24. > :10:29.of David's do just that. Is it healthy for a Prime Minister to be
:10:29. > :10:36.such bossom buddies with a powerful newspaper boss, who has a propriety
:10:36. > :10:39.with his own agenda. Is gl, proprietor with his own agenda. Is
:10:39. > :10:42.this healthy? This is because of the relationship over the years
:10:42. > :10:45.between politicians and the media. That is why the Prime Minister set
:10:45. > :10:50.up Leveson. No previous Government has said, look, let's take a step
:10:50. > :10:53.back. This relationship has become too close. But is it healthy?
:10:53. > :10:57.all recognise that relationship between politicians as a group, and
:10:57. > :11:02.newspapers and the media as a group, had become too close. The purpose
:11:02. > :11:06.of Leveson is to take a step back, and just see what makes sense and
:11:06. > :11:09.what is the right regime. The Prime Minister has always complied with
:11:09. > :11:14.every request from Leveson for information. He hasn't relosed all
:11:14. > :11:18.the texts? He has -- Released all the texts? He has complied with all
:11:18. > :11:21.requests for information from Leveson, we will wait and see what
:11:21. > :11:27.Lord Leveson proposes. No previous Government set up Leveson, it is
:11:27. > :11:30.the coalition that has done it. What do you make of the texts, I
:11:30. > :11:34.saw the headline in The Mail on Sunday and my little heart leaped,
:11:35. > :11:38.and there is only a couple of more texts and don't tell us anything we
:11:38. > :11:41.didn't know? I think they are a bit of fun, aren't they. They fire up
:11:42. > :11:45.the imagination as to what else might be out there. People who ride
:11:45. > :11:50.horses discuss what the horse was like, I don't think there is
:11:50. > :11:54.anything particularly bad about that. I found the texts distinctly
:11:54. > :11:57.underwhelming, posh people do this kind of thing, they ride horses and
:11:57. > :12:00.compliment them. The idea that David Cameron's text was
:12:00. > :12:06.tantermount to flirtation or anything untoward is incredible.
:12:06. > :12:13.The question is, is there a further cachet of texts that we haven't
:12:13. > :12:16.seen yet and we will see in the press that will be further damaging.
:12:16. > :12:20.That text from David Cameron not great, but the weepy text from
:12:20. > :12:25.Rebekah Brooks, I would love to know Samantha Cameron to know about
:12:25. > :12:31.that, I'm sure she finds her a bit too bubbly. There may have been
:12:31. > :12:39.gibles. Sor maybe no breakfast for the Prime Minister!
:12:39. > :12:44.There were scenes reminiscent in the Commons last week of the
:12:44. > :12:49.Maastricht wars they are happy days indeed for a man who has made a
:12:49. > :12:52.career out of banging on about Europe, Nigel Farage of the UKIP
:12:52. > :12:56.party. A poll today puts them third ahead of the Liberal Democrats,
:12:56. > :13:03.could they be on the verge of a major political breakthrough.
:13:03. > :13:07.These are exciting tieplgs for Nigel Farage and UKIP. -- times for
:13:08. > :13:13.Nigel Farage and UKIP. Their views on Europe are becoming increasingly
:13:14. > :13:17.mainstream. With Labour's tactical shift on Europe, the prospect of an
:13:17. > :13:21."in-out" referendum is growing. All this is paying off in the polls
:13:21. > :13:26.with the party's support pricing as high as 12% over the summer. No
:13:26. > :13:30.wonder those urging David Cameron to forge a pact with UKIP in time
:13:30. > :13:33.for the next general election are being taken seriously Mr Farage
:13:33. > :13:43.says, any deal would require a referendum promise, written in
:13:43. > :13:45.
:13:45. > :13:48.blood. In the meantime, UKIP have high hopes of beating the other
:13:48. > :13:55.parties to second in the next election. As they look to enter a
:13:55. > :13:59.new phase as a serious player in UK politics. UKIP and the leader must
:13:59. > :14:06.endure the greatest scrutiny that comes with success. The UKIP leader,
:14:07. > :14:09.Nigel Farage, joins me now for the Sunday interview.
:14:09. > :14:13.Nigel Farage, welcome, your primary purpose is withdrawal from the
:14:13. > :14:18.European Union, so let's go and look at the economic impact. Let me
:14:18. > :14:24.show you this slide coming up here. This, it shows that the EU accounts
:14:24. > :14:32.for 48% of our exports. Even the United States is a poor second at
:14:32. > :14:35.16%, China way down at 3%, you would put our access to this huge
:14:35. > :14:39.market to an end? The figure is wrong, there are all sorts of
:14:39. > :14:43.tricks used with this. The important thing to recognise is
:14:43. > :14:48.that figure is falling every year, as the EU becomes a smaller market
:14:48. > :14:51.place in the world. It is still huge? Of course it is, our next
:14:51. > :14:57.door neighbours are a very important market place. Remember a
:14:57. > :15:02.couple of things. Firstly, we trade at the EU with a massive deficit,
:15:02. > :15:08.the last year is 2010 with figures, they told us �50 billion more worth
:15:08. > :15:13.of goods than we sold them. You don't have to be a political
:15:13. > :15:16.European to buy -- in a political union to buy and sell goods to the
:15:16. > :15:20.European Union. You have said we should trade a lot more with
:15:20. > :15:23.emerging markets, look at India down at 2%, of course there is a
:15:23. > :15:27.huge upside, I understand that, but it will take years to get these
:15:27. > :15:30.markets to anything like Europe? One of the reasons we are doing so
:15:30. > :15:34.little business with countries like India, is because we are prohibited,
:15:34. > :15:39.forbidden, banned from making our own trade deals with any other
:15:39. > :15:44.country in the world, because we are part of a European customs
:15:45. > :15:47.union, and that is our whole thinking, for four decades it has
:15:47. > :15:52.been eurocentric, a huge mistake. We are living in a global economy,
:15:52. > :15:55.and we need to be free and able, as the Swiss are, to do our own deals.
:15:55. > :15:59.You might think it would be bad for British business to leave, but the
:15:59. > :16:06.people who run British business clearly think it. Look at this,
:16:06. > :16:11.from a mori poll, would leaving the EU damage British business? 73% say
:16:11. > :16:14.yes. These are people who invest and create jobs? They didn't ask
:16:14. > :16:18.small businessmen in Britain, or medium-ranking business people in
:16:18. > :16:21.Britain, that would be 73% I would guess of multinational companies.
:16:21. > :16:25.Of the big companies. That is British industry. No, the BBC has
:16:25. > :16:29.always done this, it misrepresents the big businesses as being the
:16:29. > :16:34.British economy. The truth is, 60% of jobs are created in companies
:16:34. > :16:38.that employ less than ten people. Most of those firms, you know, you
:16:38. > :16:43.will find, have bases in Europe, they love the European Union.
:16:43. > :16:46.Because the regulation that comes with the single market puts out of
:16:46. > :16:50.business small and medium-sized competition. Can you name a single
:16:50. > :16:53.large exporting company that supports leaving the EU? I have
:16:53. > :16:56.spoken, as I travelled around manufacturing companies, City
:16:56. > :17:00.institutions over the last few months, and there is now a, I would
:17:00. > :17:05.say it is 50-50. Can you name one? That is for them to say, not me. I
:17:05. > :17:08.would say it is probably now 50-50, even amongst the bigger-sized firms,
:17:08. > :17:12.where they are saying, whilst we want access to the European market,
:17:12. > :17:16.the cost of regulation is something we can't afford. You said, not one
:17:16. > :17:23.job in Britain depends on EU membership, other than people like
:17:23. > :17:27.yourself? And our commission. if your opponents exaggerate the
:17:27. > :17:32.potential job losses, let's concede maybe they do. It is not fair to
:17:32. > :17:36.say not one job depends on the EU? The truth is we could create a lot
:17:36. > :17:38.of jobs outside the European Union. Not only would we have bigger
:17:38. > :17:40.export markets, but the UK Government would be allowed to
:17:41. > :17:44.relax employment regulation, especially for small companies,
:17:44. > :17:47.which would lead to hundreds of thousands of people being given a
:17:47. > :17:52.chance. No disruption, no dislocation, no tough times getting
:17:52. > :17:56.from A to B, if we leave? If we listen to what the European
:17:56. > :17:59.Commissioners have said, from Kinnock, through to the current
:17:59. > :18:02.Trade Commissioner, they have all said the same thing for years, if
:18:02. > :18:07.the UK doesn't want to be part of the European Union, and all we want
:18:07. > :18:10.is a single trade deal, or as was said, to be relegated to the status
:18:10. > :18:13.of Switzerland, they have always said that's on offer. We will come
:18:13. > :18:18.to that in a minute. Let's look at the car industry, what would happen
:18:18. > :18:23.to it. The car industry is now a net exporter again, it is a success
:18:23. > :18:27.story, we make good, reliable, productive cars. 50% of all the
:18:27. > :18:33.cars made in the UK are sold into the EU, they pay no import taxes.
:18:33. > :18:39.If we leave the EU they pay a tax of 10% on every vehicle, 22% on
:18:39. > :18:44.lorries. Immediately that means jobs in danger, the Nissan plant in
:18:44. > :18:47.Sunderland and the Mini-in Oxford. Are you suggesting Mercedes
:18:47. > :18:51.wouldn't sell their cars in this country if we left the European
:18:51. > :18:56.Union? Of course not. It is in the greater interests of Germany that
:18:56. > :18:59.we have a tarrif-free market, as it is for Nissan and companies like
:18:59. > :19:02.that. These are spurious examples put up. Are you saying there is no
:19:02. > :19:05.danger of a tarrif at all? believe, of course, what the
:19:05. > :19:08.European Commission always tell me, which is if you don't want to be
:19:09. > :19:14.part of political union, but you want a simple free trade agreement,
:19:14. > :19:18.that is on offer. Why would the EU do a sweetheart deal with the
:19:18. > :19:21.departing UK. Why would they give us the main reward of membership,
:19:21. > :19:26.the single market, with no obligation, why would they do that?
:19:26. > :19:29.That is a 50 years out of date view. That view talk about a post-war
:19:29. > :19:32.world with high tarrif barriers. In the last 40 years, despite the EU,
:19:32. > :19:37.we have had GATT, the World Trade Organisation, we have lived through
:19:37. > :19:41.a period of tarrifs being reduced. The primary reason why they would,
:19:41. > :19:44.if because I have said already in this intervueark they sell us �50
:19:44. > :19:48.billion worth of goods a year more than we sell them. They need us
:19:48. > :19:51.more than we need them. You are the first person to tell us that the EU
:19:51. > :19:56.doesn't operate in its own economic interests, how can you count on it?
:19:56. > :20:00.If they wanted, at the time of megacrisis in the eurozone, to cut
:20:00. > :20:05.off their noses to spite their faces, firstly I don't believe
:20:06. > :20:08.their own electorates would stand for it. Secondly, they would be in
:20:08. > :20:12.contravention of World Trade Organisation rules, I consider it
:20:12. > :20:17.highly unlikely. Let's see your other party politics, let's look at
:20:17. > :20:22.your tax and spend. You want to phase out national insurance over
:20:22. > :20:29.five years. You also want to phase out the national insurance that
:20:29. > :20:35.employees pay as well. This is tax simplification. You would combine
:20:35. > :20:41.national insurance and tax into one? Absolutely. Let's assume that
:20:41. > :20:45.did work, where would you find the �55 billion to make up for the
:20:45. > :20:48.employers' national insurance? abolition of employers' national
:20:48. > :20:53.insurance is a long-term aspiration. You said over five years. We can't
:20:53. > :20:57.do it overnight. Where would you find the �55 billion in five years.
:20:57. > :20:59.One thing we could do is we could get rid of employers' national
:20:59. > :21:04.insurance for companies, particularly small companies,
:21:04. > :21:09.taking people on from today. That would make a big difference. Let me
:21:09. > :21:13.see, this is what you say in your manifesto, let me show you what you
:21:13. > :21:19.said. The revenue will be recouped, this is about employers' national
:21:19. > :21:23.insurance. It comes to �55 billion, you say it would be recouped either
:21:23. > :21:27.as PAYE, corporation tax, sales tax, VAT, or reduced need for welfare
:21:27. > :21:31.state. You would have to put VAT up by a lot, and income tax up even
:21:31. > :21:36.more, and corporation tax. You have to find �55 billion? What we would
:21:36. > :21:39.have to do is create wealth and growth in the British economy. And
:21:39. > :21:45.we're firmly of the view that if you reviews regulation, if you get
:21:45. > :21:47.rid of some of the insanties of environmental regulation and green
:21:47. > :21:52.taxes that we are putting on manufacturing industries, we can
:21:52. > :21:55.create growth in this country. All parties have a five-year aspiration,
:21:56. > :21:59.this coalition says it will get rid of the deficit, it will fail. Our
:21:59. > :22:03.aspiration is to have a competitive Britain. You will have to find �55
:22:03. > :22:08.billion for employers' national insurance, take everybody out of
:22:08. > :22:13.tax up to �11,500, that is billions more. You will take away the top
:22:13. > :22:16.rates of 45%, that is millions more, you want to spend more and more on
:22:16. > :22:19.defence. Your policies, when you look at them, they are not
:22:19. > :22:22.credible? The policies are based on the idea that we can create growth,
:22:23. > :22:28.and we can enable Britain to be a global trading economy, not one
:22:28. > :22:30.that is too focused on Europe. Let's move on to transparency. The
:22:31. > :22:34.Denis MacShane scandal has brought MPs' expenses back into the news
:22:34. > :22:37.again, there has been lots of attacks on them, you have joined in
:22:38. > :22:47.on the attacks. Let's look at your record, you made the following
:22:48. > :22:55.
:22:55. > :22:58.We went to the UKIP website, transparency report section, there
:22:58. > :23:02.is no information about your expenses since December 2011, that
:23:02. > :23:08.is nearly a year? In fact we are doing it every six months, not
:23:08. > :23:13.quartly, that seemed more practical. You are right, I haven't done it
:23:13. > :23:19.this year at all, I haven't had time to do it. I accept I'm a few
:23:19. > :23:24.month late. You made a promise? accepting I'm late but I will get
:23:24. > :23:27.it done as fast as I can. You said last time the receipts were lost in
:23:27. > :23:32.transportation? I lost receipts so what. What you have published looks
:23:32. > :23:39.fishy, we looked at the statements, they seemed round number, �10,000
:23:39. > :23:43.office costs, �3,000 communications, �2,000 for stationary, �2,000 for
:23:43. > :23:49.travel? They are prox mits, I have receipts for most of it, an awful
:23:49. > :23:53.lot of receipts that aren't there. You don't sound sure about this?
:23:53. > :23:57.are not entitled or compelled to show anything. You promised in your
:23:57. > :24:00.manifesto that is what you would do, and you haven't done it? We are
:24:00. > :24:10.doing it every six months, not every quarter, which is is a
:24:10. > :24:10.
:24:10. > :24:15.practical application of it. Take your deputy, we have had him on the
:24:15. > :24:22.Daily Politics, he's a bit of a name, you are no longer a one-man-
:24:22. > :24:30.band. He has declared nothing since July 2011, he's unacceptable?
:24:30. > :24:35.to get his house in order. Will you have a word with him? I accept I'm
:24:35. > :24:39.behind, but I will do it. You have Neil Hamilton on the national
:24:39. > :24:43.executive? Elected by members. suggest that means you really have
:24:43. > :24:49.to be whiter than white? Unlike a lot of things had a have happened
:24:49. > :24:54.in the last three years, Mr Hamilton was convict of nothing.
:24:54. > :24:57.Subsistence allowance is blank in Mr Nuttall expenses, he has made a
:24:57. > :25:01.number of trips between Brussels and Strasbourg, we don't know how
:25:01. > :25:06.many. We are as in the dark about your expenses as other MPs?
:25:06. > :25:10.have all of mine up to 2011,ly do my 2012 stuff and it will be there.
:25:10. > :25:13.What do you do in Brussels. You claimed your subsist tense on the
:25:13. > :25:16.day of the European debate on the budget at the parliament, but you
:25:16. > :25:21.didn't vote? Because I was heading off to another meeting in another
:25:21. > :25:26.part of Europe. But we pay you to represent a part of Britain, at
:25:26. > :25:31.these votes, you didn't vote? I'm also one of the seven leaders
:25:31. > :25:37.of a parliamentary group in that parliament. My mission isn't to try
:25:37. > :25:39.to make the European Union slightly less worse, my mission is to
:25:39. > :25:49.encourage in the UK and elsewhere, different political parties that
:25:49. > :25:49.
:25:49. > :25:55.want to break this thing up. Do you believe in some way heading for a -
:25:55. > :25:58.- we are in some way heading for a yes-no referendum? I do believe
:25:58. > :26:06.that Mr Cameron and the political class will do everything to stop
:26:06. > :26:09.that choice. They want us stuck in the single market.
:26:09. > :26:13.It sounds innocuous but it is not. As you might have noticed there is
:26:13. > :26:16.an election in America, it will be close. In three days time Americans
:26:16. > :26:20.will decide whether Barack Obama should get four more years in the
:26:20. > :26:23.White House, or Mitt Romney should become the nation's first Mormon
:26:23. > :26:26.President. It is dramatic stuff, why should you care. We have hit
:26:26. > :26:33.the streets of the windy city. That is London in November, just in case
:26:33. > :26:40.you were wondering. To find out. The candidates have breezed back on
:26:40. > :26:45.to the campaign trail. Just days after Superstorm Sandy hit the US.
:26:45. > :26:48.I have been appointed Sunday Politics Washington Correspondent.
:26:48. > :26:53.He can September I'm still waiting for the call to go to DC, I'm stuck
:26:53. > :26:59.in London. But, walk around the city, with its
:27:00. > :27:04.statues of six, yes six, former Presidents and you will find plenty
:27:04. > :27:08.of reasons why the result matters here. Firstly, the economy.
:27:08. > :27:18.have to remember the US is the largest economy by far, twice the
:27:18. > :27:23.size of comien that's economy, $15 trillion, roughly -- China's
:27:23. > :27:27.economy, $15 trillion roughly. If that is not sustained, the whole of
:27:27. > :27:31.the UK will feel the consequences. That relies on how the US handles
:27:31. > :27:35.what is known as the fiscal cliff, a combination of automatic tax
:27:35. > :27:39.rises and spending cuts due there in January, that could tip the
:27:39. > :27:42.states back into recession, if Congress can't reach a deal to
:27:42. > :27:45.avoid it. Iran and its nuclear programme is the issue that
:27:46. > :27:48.dominates when it comes to global security. Mitt Romney is a good
:27:48. > :27:55.friend of the Israeli Prime Minister, but Obama has toughened
:27:55. > :28:01.up sanctions on the Iranians, while he has been in power. What about
:28:01. > :28:05.China? They will be choosing a new set of leaders, at almost exactly
:28:05. > :28:09.the same time. Romney has threatened to get tough with the
:28:09. > :28:13.Chinese over the value of their currency. But during the campaign,
:28:13. > :28:18.Obama hasn't presented himself as any friend of their's either.
:28:18. > :28:21.I think it is matter of style. Obama has built up the trust of the
:28:21. > :28:25.world community, more perhaps than his own population, in the last
:28:25. > :28:30.four years. Romney would be untested. If there is a crisis
:28:30. > :28:34.early in the Romney term, the reactions could be unpredictable.
:28:34. > :28:38.Where as with Obama we have a safer sense of where he would take it.
:28:38. > :28:41.Then there is the tricky issue of the atmosphere when our current
:28:42. > :28:47.leader has sat down with his American opposite numbers. When
:28:47. > :28:53.Mitt Romney visited David Cameron in the summer, he dised our
:28:53. > :29:01.preparation for theics. In contrast, the Prime Minister and Barack Obama
:29:01. > :29:06.look like best buddies. The British public feel the same way, favouring
:29:06. > :29:10.Obama over Romney by 10-1. Then there is the really big
:29:10. > :29:14.political issue, George W Bush used to have a bust of him in the Oval
:29:14. > :29:21.Office, Barack Obama sent it back, Romney says he will reinstate it.
:29:21. > :29:31.So, who gets your vote, Winston? Pardon, what was that?
:29:31. > :29:37.
:29:38. > :29:41.They are the only friends Adam has. Diane Abbott for Obama, and for
:29:41. > :29:45.Romney. Why should America want Obama to be
:29:45. > :29:49.re-elected? I think it will be a safer world if Obama is re-elected.
:29:49. > :29:54.It is difficult with Mitt Romney, on any policy, to know which Mitt
:29:55. > :30:03.Romney will show up at any given time. What we do know is 16 of his
:30:03. > :30:08.advisers are ex-Bush advisers, with Romney it is a return to neo-
:30:08. > :30:12.politics. I think he's a safer pair of hands. Why should we want Mitt
:30:12. > :30:16.Romney to be the next President, Dan Hannan? He likes us better. You
:30:16. > :30:25.have the thing with the Churchill bust, we have this thing of lining
:30:25. > :30:31.up with the world leaders, and Obama creating a company called
:30:31. > :30:35.British Petroleum, it hadn't existed since the oil spill. We had
:30:35. > :30:38.BP. We have had the unpleasant things he said about us in his
:30:38. > :30:42.books. This is the first US president that I felt we haven't
:30:42. > :30:46.really had a particularly good relationship. If Romney likes us
:30:46. > :30:52.better, why come and tell us we will make a mess of the Olympic,
:30:52. > :30:59.and we had one of the most successful Olympics ever. That is
:30:59. > :31:03.not a man that likes us? That is a ridiculous point. He expresses
:31:03. > :31:08.himself clumsly. Isn't that dangerous in a President. The idea
:31:08. > :31:13.he was dissing us. You know how it was, we had been as we do in this
:31:13. > :31:18.country, as cynical and pessimistic as we could be, he reflected 1% of
:31:18. > :31:23.what he read in the newspaper, he chose the moment when the mood was
:31:23. > :31:26.turning. You admitted it was clumcy. You are disappointed in President
:31:26. > :31:30.Obama, -- clumsy, you are disappointed in President Obama, we
:31:30. > :31:36.covered the election four years ago, and the hopes that were there, most
:31:36. > :31:46.Brits are disappointed in him? There was too much expectations. He
:31:46. > :31:46.
:31:46. > :31:50.inherited an American economy which was on a downward spiral. He knew
:31:50. > :31:58.that? Yes but the Dow has repounded spectacularly, and private sector
:31:58. > :32:04.jobs, month after month. And when The Economist said it is endorsing
:32:04. > :32:10.Obama, you have to believe that business ...That Is an elitist
:32:10. > :32:14.thing. This is a President who has added $1.3 trillion per year to the
:32:14. > :32:19.debt, they have a $16 trillion dollar debt, this is not just a
:32:19. > :32:23.problem for the US it is a central economy problem. If you are worried
:32:23. > :32:26.about debt worry about Romney, he's going to cut taxes and put up
:32:26. > :32:30.defence spending, how does he make the deficit good with those
:32:30. > :32:34.policies. This is why the Washington Post and New York Times
:32:34. > :32:40.refuse to endorse him, because his economic plans do not add up.
:32:40. > :32:44.New York Times refuse us to endorse Republican, shock. He a huge
:32:44. > :32:49.increase in defence spending, no tax cuts for the superrich.
:32:49. > :32:54.Americans are in hock to the tune of $14 trillion, that is worse.
:32:54. > :32:58.you look at the Ryan plan that is a plan. We know with Obama that the
:32:58. > :33:07.deficit will grow. We have a chance of improvement, versus the
:33:07. > :33:11.certainty of continued empty of the Treasury and exhausting the economy.
:33:11. > :33:15.If they thought the Ryan plan was Romney policy, he would lose the
:33:15. > :33:18.election, that is not the policy. No-one will return to a balanced
:33:18. > :33:26.budget in one-term. At least with Romney we have someone who will try
:33:26. > :33:30.and restore order and sanity. me go on to policy. Even Mr Obama's
:33:30. > :33:34.foreign policy is alien to British values and interests, Guantanamo is
:33:34. > :33:37.still open. A massive rise in the use of drones over Pakistan, it is
:33:37. > :33:40.getting terrorists, and killing a lot of innocent people as well. No
:33:40. > :33:46.progress in the Middle East peace, and he really has very little
:33:46. > :33:51.interest in Britain or Europe? regret the fact that Guantanamo is
:33:51. > :33:54.still open. You are disappointed? Just a tiny bit! But he has taken
:33:54. > :33:58.Iraq out of Iraq, he's trying to take America out of Afghanistan,
:33:58. > :34:04.and unlike Romney he doesn't want a trade war with China. That has to
:34:04. > :34:07.be a good thing. If Romney get in, wouldn't it be back to Bush II, he
:34:07. > :34:10.despises the Palestinians, saying they are not interested in peace.
:34:10. > :34:15.He implies he's prepared to attack Iran, and he knows nothing about
:34:15. > :34:23.Britain, as we saw when he came here, or Europe? I hard lie think
:34:23. > :34:28.it is fair to say he despises the Palestinians, he said there was a
:34:28. > :34:32.cultural component in Israel's society, it is not the same as
:34:32. > :34:36.saying he despises them. He said they were not interested in peace.
:34:36. > :34:41.Under both US Presidents there will be force on the table as an option
:34:41. > :34:46.with Iran. As there was in Libya, there is not a massive difference
:34:46. > :34:50.between them. Romney is more likely to bomb Iraq. Look I was an
:34:50. > :34:52.opponent of the Iraq War. And I wasn't big on the war in
:34:52. > :34:56.Afghanistan. But when we are talking about Iran, to say that
:34:56. > :35:02.there shouldn't be any possibility of taking any kind of action, we
:35:03. > :35:08.should just try and jolly the Ayatollah's out of their nuclear
:35:08. > :35:13.ambitions is the wrong line to take. He doesn't really care about the UK
:35:13. > :35:16.and would treat us as a backwater in the second term, wouldn't he,
:35:16. > :35:23.Obama? His foreign policy is cheaper than Romney's foreign
:35:23. > :35:28.policy, he's more likely to bomb Iraq. Maybe Obama removed the bust
:35:28. > :35:34.of Winston Churchill, but I still think we should go with him.
:35:34. > :35:39.will win? Probably Obama? turnout is right, and white
:35:39. > :35:43.suburban women break for Obama, it will be Obama.
:35:43. > :35:46.Two for Obama, puts your money on Romney! I wouldn't actually. Thank
:35:46. > :35:50.you. This is Sunday Politics. Coming up in just over 20 minutes,
:35:50. > :36:00.I will be looking at the week ahead with our political panel. Until
:36:00. > :36:01.
:36:01. > :36:05.then, the Sunday Politics across the UK.
:36:05. > :36:09.Welcome to the London section of the programme. Our focus today is
:36:09. > :36:13.growth. From airport expansion, and East London river crossings, to the
:36:13. > :36:16.booming sale of English law, both here and abroad. With growing
:36:16. > :36:21.impatience over the time it takes to get things done, is the
:36:21. > :36:26.Government doing enough to hurry things along. With me throughout
:36:27. > :36:32.today's edition are two legal eagle, Emily Thornberry and Martin O'Neill,
:36:32. > :36:34.also a barrister. -- Bob Neil, also a barrister. Pressure is growing
:36:34. > :36:39.for airport expansion throughout the south-east, the Prime Minister
:36:39. > :36:42.has comixed the Davies Review, not due to report until the next
:36:42. > :36:47.election. This week again Boris Johnson criticised the delay,
:36:47. > :36:52.calling it a policy of utter inertia. These comments came after
:36:52. > :36:56.Lord Heseltine warned, that with no new runways, Heathrow, Stanstead
:36:56. > :37:02.and Gatwick will be at full capacity. He said he believed there
:37:02. > :37:06.was a way forward, injecting more urgency into the decision making
:37:06. > :37:09.process, and confidence for all those who want to invest in our
:37:10. > :37:13.economy. He called on the Government to clarify its solution.
:37:13. > :37:16.The two blonde bombshells seem to agree, what about the silver fox,
:37:16. > :37:20.they are right, the Government needs to get off the fence and make
:37:20. > :37:25.its own decision? The Government is getting on with it. The whole point
:37:25. > :37:29.of it was setting up the Davies Review. It has a unusually long
:37:29. > :37:32.history, but it is important to get the thing right. It is interesting
:37:32. > :37:35.that Michael Heseltine talks about runway capacity in a general sense
:37:35. > :37:42.A lot of people feel that. We need that runway capacity in the right
:37:42. > :37:45.place. You will know, the amount of environmental difficulties,
:37:45. > :37:50.Heathrow currently causes for people in west lon. Do when we get
:37:50. > :37:53.the decision, quickly -- London. When we do get the decision,
:37:53. > :37:56.quickly. What is new to decide, that means the Davies Commission
:37:56. > :38:01.can't report until after the next election? The first thing to think
:38:01. > :38:08.about is do you need a physical, single hub, or do you have what
:38:08. > :38:12.some people call a virtual hub. Those issues are important to get
:38:12. > :38:15.right. The funding mechanisms need to be in place. We need to look at
:38:15. > :38:18.means of speeding up the planning process, and we have already done
:38:18. > :38:21.that in a number of ways. Is he right it say that the Government
:38:21. > :38:26.needs to clarify urgently its preferred solution, get on with it?
:38:26. > :38:30.That has to be done on the basis of up-to-date evidence. There is a lot
:38:30. > :38:34.of changing evidence. There is the issue about what use. The reality
:38:34. > :38:38.is we want to get it right. I don't buy the fact that simple low
:38:38. > :38:44.rushing into this for the sake of it -- simply rushing in this for
:38:44. > :38:48.the sake of it is the right answer. We don't want to rush into this,
:38:48. > :38:51.the Labour Party took a position in 2010, back the runway, are you
:38:51. > :38:54.still there? I don't understand why we are two years into a Labour
:38:54. > :38:58.Government, I wish, two years into a Conservative Government and they
:38:58. > :39:03.have just started to think maybe we ought to make a decision about it.
:39:03. > :39:06.Where are Labour on this? position is this, that these huge
:39:06. > :39:10.infrastructure projects need to be agreed, and we need to get on with
:39:10. > :39:14.them. Actually we need to have some form of cross-party agreement on
:39:14. > :39:18.them. You can't tell us, as Bob can't tell us, where the Labour
:39:18. > :39:23.Party are on it, do you back a third runway or not? Our position
:39:23. > :39:26.is, that we have to get the two main parties together on this. That
:39:26. > :39:30.means there has to be a lead from this Government, they can't just do
:39:30. > :39:34.nothing for two years, and then go, maybe we will have a think about it,
:39:34. > :39:39.but the decision will be made after the next general election. Their
:39:39. > :39:42.problem is, it is a proxy, the third runway is a proxy battle
:39:42. > :39:45.between David Cameron and Boris Johnson, it's actually about
:39:45. > :39:48.something else. More of this in a moment. We will go from a policy
:39:48. > :39:52.that could be described as being up in the air, to one that you might
:39:52. > :39:57.describe as being a bridge too far. Delays on other big infrastructure
:39:57. > :40:00.projects have been highlighted this week, after Transport for London
:40:00. > :40:06.opened the second consultation on new river crossings for the south-
:40:06. > :40:09.east of London, the black wall and Woolich crossings are under strain,
:40:09. > :40:16.with delays the order of the day every day. The case for New
:40:16. > :40:22.Crossings has long been made, with plans for a new bridge under Ken
:40:22. > :40:27.Livingston on the table, but cancelled in 2008 by Boris Johnson.
:40:27. > :40:35.A new ferry crossings with gallions reach would possibly replace the
:40:35. > :40:40.Woolich ferry, and the Silvertown tunnel would connect Greenwich, to
:40:40. > :40:45.relieve the Blackwall Tunnel. The Government has designated the
:40:45. > :40:48.silvertown tunnel as a national significant project. Funding
:40:48. > :40:51.options for the project could include a community infrastructure
:40:51. > :40:55.levy, controversially, a toll. charge for the Blackwall Tunnel,
:40:55. > :41:01.that is too old, it is like saying charge for the Rotherhithe tunnel
:41:01. > :41:06.as well. They are too old. No. would need to improve the situation
:41:06. > :41:10.for the commuters, it is usually queuing to pay and queue I don't
:41:10. > :41:14.think it very fair. We don't have a choice, there is no other way to
:41:14. > :41:17.get into London. It is another con. Business groups welcomed the plan,
:41:18. > :41:21.with many arguing there is a desperate need for the crossing,
:41:21. > :41:25.but environmental groups argue the plans will create more noise and
:41:25. > :41:30.pollution. I'm joined now by Baroness
:41:30. > :41:35.Valentine, chief executive of London First, a business group. Do
:41:35. > :41:39.we need the crossing, desperately. We have been waiting a while?
:41:39. > :41:43.don't get it quickly, we had a brilliant Olympics and part of that
:41:43. > :41:47.was to spur regeneration in the ee. That means the infrom structure.
:41:47. > :41:51.You have 16 crossings to the west of Tower Bridge three only to the
:41:51. > :41:56.east, and the same sort of distance. We need to get those links between
:41:56. > :41:59.the north and South Bank working to just regenerate the whole area.
:41:59. > :42:02.This has resonance with what we are talking about, with runways, we
:42:02. > :42:07.have been talking about crossings in the east of London forever?
:42:07. > :42:13.Let's get on with them. Even under this latest plan, Boris Johnson
:42:13. > :42:19.wants a tunnel at silvertown, that won't be open until 20212, in 21
:42:19. > :42:23.years of London having a -- 2021, in 21 years of London having a
:42:23. > :42:27.mayor all we have delivered is a cable crossing? We have delivered
:42:27. > :42:30.the Olympic, the huge regeneration of that patch. I would love all the
:42:30. > :42:32.infrastructure built better, I would love a decision on the
:42:33. > :42:38.airport today, and the thing built tomorrow. It is not going to happen.
:42:38. > :42:42.Is it. The quicker we can get it done, the better. It is vital to
:42:42. > :42:46.the regeneration, long-term, of East London. Business likes it,
:42:46. > :42:53.will you pay for it, at the moment we are talking about possibly
:42:53. > :42:56.charging people �2 on the Blackwall Tunnel and �2 for Silvertown?
:42:56. > :42:59.problem nowadays is somebody has to pay for infrastructure, you are
:42:59. > :43:08.talking about the tax-payers or the user. I have some sympathy with the
:43:08. > :43:12.user paying for it. How will that go down? Bob's constituents will be
:43:12. > :43:17.paying to cross the river? clearly need a New Crossing, they
:43:17. > :43:24.might put it in South-East London, they suffer with the queues at the
:43:24. > :43:28.black wall. Ken's proposal was -- BlackWall, Ken's proposal was the
:43:28. > :43:32.wrong crossing in the wrong place. Practised arguments in City Hall.
:43:32. > :43:36.That was a waste of time. You can't just cancel one bridge and do
:43:36. > :43:41.nothing for years, and then say, oh well maybe we will make a decision
:43:41. > :43:45.at some point. We need two bridges. That is nonsense and you know it,
:43:45. > :43:48.it was cancelled because rejected by evidence at the inquiry. We need
:43:48. > :43:52.two bridges between Tower Bridge, we need two bridges that side, or
:43:52. > :43:56.we need to have a tunnel. We need two fixed doioints, you know it, I
:43:56. > :43:59.know that, a cable car is not sufficient. You can't go around
:43:59. > :44:02.cancelling bridges without having something alternative to come
:44:02. > :44:06.forward with. That is narrow minded. What about the people who might
:44:06. > :44:11.have to pay for it, tolls the right way forward? The most important
:44:11. > :44:14.thing is to get on with it. There is some unfairness when Boris
:44:14. > :44:19.Johnson goes and cancels the extension of the Congestion Charge
:44:19. > :44:24.to west Londoners, so they end up with infrastructure they don't have
:44:24. > :44:30.to pay for, and the idea that east and south loners need to pay
:44:30. > :44:34.additional for - Londoners need to pay for additional infrastructuring.
:44:34. > :44:39.It has to be free-flowing. That is part of the problem, this lot can't
:44:39. > :44:44.agree. You are calling for the bridge, because you say it will
:44:44. > :44:47.make a difference to how London works. Is it a danger putting the
:44:47. > :44:50.stuff out east, that those in west London seeing the money going to
:44:50. > :44:54.the Olympics, will see the bridges and high-speed rail and CrossRail
:44:54. > :44:57.going to the east of London, will say, hang on, what about me?
:44:57. > :45:01.think west Londoners had it good for a long time. You have all the
:45:01. > :45:05.crossings on the west side. We were just on that fairness point about
:45:05. > :45:09.they have roads in west London, there are roads in East London, who
:45:09. > :45:14.pays for which roads. There is a pragmatic thing about getting these
:45:14. > :45:24.crossings paid for, in the situation we are now. And I think
:45:24. > :45:24.
:45:24. > :45:30.tough tell Blackwall -- toll Blackwall up once Silvertown is
:45:30. > :45:35.running. It is best to have any tolling thing linked in for the
:45:35. > :45:39.Dartford Tunnel, no toll booths, electronic charging so you don't
:45:39. > :45:42.get the queues. Maybe there is a solution in another part of the
:45:42. > :45:46.city. It is reported in this week that Saudi Arabia is to lobby the
:45:46. > :45:49.British Government to set up a confidential criminal court in
:45:49. > :45:52.London, to settle multimillion pound commercial disputes arising
:45:52. > :45:56.from inside the kingdom. It is the latest development in a billion
:45:56. > :46:03.pound business that is quietly growing in the City. As we report,
:46:03. > :46:06.the rule of English law has become one of the capital's biggest and
:46:06. > :46:11.fastest-growing exports. We export more of it than textiles, nearly as
:46:11. > :46:15.much of it abroad as the Scots do whiskey. It is English justice.
:46:15. > :46:21.Bringing �4 billion a year in trade into the economy, it has tripled in
:46:21. > :46:29.the last decade. Think the famous called libel tourism cases, such as
:46:29. > :46:33.when the film director Roman Polanski, sued Vanity Fair in
:46:33. > :46:38.London. This is the tip of the iceberg. The large majority will be
:46:38. > :46:40.commercial work done in the City of London behind me. London deals with
:46:40. > :46:45.more commercial international contract law than any place on
:46:45. > :46:48.earth. The figures are staggering, commercial firms say 90% of their
:46:48. > :46:51.work involves at least one foreign party. A lot of it will include no
:46:51. > :46:54.English parties at all. If a Russian and Mexican want to do
:46:54. > :46:58.business, they will do it here in London. They will sign the
:46:58. > :47:04.contracts here, and it will be enforcible under English law.
:47:04. > :47:07.the waim way that the English language has become -- same way
:47:07. > :47:10.that English language has become the international language of
:47:10. > :47:13.business, English law is seen as the law for international commerce.
:47:13. > :47:20.It is seen to be stable, it is seen to be certain, and you know that
:47:20. > :47:25.when you get a judgment that it is correct and it is enforcible.
:47:25. > :47:30.Indeed, what many people as a centre banking in the City, law is
:47:30. > :47:34.beige part of it. There were 140,000 banking jobs in London, but
:47:34. > :47:38.120,000 in legal services. In the last six months while employment in
:47:38. > :47:42.banking is fall, in the law it is going up. Labour and collation
:47:42. > :47:45.Governments have been invested big money too. This is central London's
:47:45. > :47:51.Rolls Building, the world's largest commercial court. Opened last year
:47:51. > :48:01.at a cost of �300 million. Its first case was a dispute between
:48:01. > :48:04.Chelsea football club's Roman Abramavich and Boris Bersovski. It
:48:04. > :48:12.its business comes from other places, Hong Kong and other places
:48:12. > :48:19.all have courts that use English law, and dab buy and Qatar.
:48:19. > :48:24.predominant saw in Dubai and Qatar Sharia Law is the main run. And
:48:24. > :48:32.they have set up the court without Sharia Law. This week it is thought
:48:33. > :48:39.Saudi Arabia plans to open a court in the capital to resolve business
:48:39. > :48:42.disputes that arise in the kingdom. Freshfields is one of the biggest
:48:42. > :48:46.law firms. It is firms like this have been driving the spread of the
:48:46. > :48:49.law across the world. They say it is driven enormously that they take
:48:49. > :48:53.the best talent from all over the globe and take them to London. In
:48:53. > :48:57.fact, over 50 nationalties work in their London offices alone.
:48:57. > :49:01.According to the company, the Government's migration cap policy
:49:01. > :49:04.is a threat. At the moment people aren't bumping up against the cap,
:49:04. > :49:07.because the economy is a bit stagnant. Everyone is trying to
:49:07. > :49:11.encourage growth. If you are looking to recruit. Then things
:49:11. > :49:17.that get in the way of recruiting the best people are obviously
:49:17. > :49:20.unhelpful. With the desire to see immigration fall being one of
:49:20. > :49:26.voters' top priorities, Government will have to juggle those concerns
:49:26. > :49:32.with the call from some that our future growth another top priority,
:49:32. > :49:35.depends on letting people in. I'm joined by Lord Woolf the former
:49:35. > :49:38.Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, he has set up the court in
:49:38. > :49:42.Qatar. You have been playing for the opposition, time to join our
:49:42. > :49:47.side and talk up London, suppose? certainly will always talk up
:49:48. > :49:52.London. Because I have a huge regard for commercial law, and
:49:52. > :49:57.being disposed of in London. But I don't think that is an accurate
:49:57. > :50:01.description of what I have been doing. I think it is a tremendous
:50:01. > :50:09.compliment, which goes round the world, that somebody like myself,
:50:09. > :50:13.who has no connection with Qatar, when I became, as I like to say,
:50:13. > :50:21.statutory senile and had to retire as Chief Justice, and wasn't able
:50:21. > :50:25.to axe -- practice as a judge in London, but I found openingings
:50:25. > :50:30.elsewhere. It goes to show how high English law is held, and there is
:50:30. > :50:33.money to be made for London? are absolutely right. It is not
:50:33. > :50:37.only London, it is a positive contribution to their societies. We
:50:37. > :50:44.were all desperately worried when Hong Kong was handed back to the
:50:44. > :50:48.Chinese. Fortunately, it was handed back on terms that whenever that
:50:48. > :50:54.court sat in Hong Kong, there would be a final Court of Appeal, a new
:50:54. > :51:00.court, to replace the Privy Council, and it would always have upon it a
:51:00. > :51:04.judge from outside Hong Kong, who was a common law judge. It goes to
:51:04. > :51:09.the sense of reputation. What do you think about attracting people
:51:09. > :51:14.like the oligarchs, the Chelsea case, to London, is that where we
:51:14. > :51:17.want to go in terms of the reputation of London? It is a huge
:51:17. > :51:22.compliment, they could choose where they wanted to resolve their
:51:22. > :51:26.dispute. We could look at going back to the reforms I introduced, I
:51:26. > :51:32.was very keen that these heavy commercial cases, we should be able
:51:32. > :51:38.to make money for the court system, out of the costs that litigants pay,
:51:38. > :51:43.in order to have the disputes resolved. Why our system is
:51:43. > :51:53.respected and wanted, is because it's known it is uncorruptable. And
:51:53. > :51:56.in different parts of the world, there are problems. You talk about
:51:56. > :52:00.the respect of the British system, do you think that could be damaged
:52:00. > :52:04.by a Government that then goes into an international dispute with the
:52:05. > :52:12.European Court of Human Rights? do think that we should always make
:52:12. > :52:19.it clear that we are leaders in applying the rule of law. The rule
:52:19. > :52:24.of law is critical to the standards of society wherever it happens. It
:52:24. > :52:28.is very important that we set an example. Because at the moment, we
:52:29. > :52:31.are the mother country for the common law. Even when compared with
:52:31. > :52:37.the United States. The Prime Minister, you think, has got it
:52:37. > :52:42.wrong on this issue? I think he has got it wrong. And should do what?
:52:42. > :52:48.think that he should explain his statement and to take up the
:52:48. > :52:52.opportunity which the European Court has given him, of coming to a
:52:52. > :52:56.compromise solution. It would be so easy to have something which only
:52:56. > :52:59.involves people who are perhaps going to be reloseded in a few
:52:59. > :53:04.month. Having the -- released in a few months, having the right to
:53:04. > :53:12.vote. Equally, it would be very easy to have a system where we
:53:12. > :53:18.classify the offences, and certain offences that involve depravation
:53:18. > :53:22.of the vote and some that aren't, all crimes are not the same.
:53:22. > :53:26.swapped unpopular profession for another, the pair of you. Has
:53:26. > :53:35.London been hiding its legal light under a bushel for too long?
:53:35. > :53:40.don't think it has hiding its light, it is pretty well -- been hiding
:53:40. > :53:43.its bushel at all, it is well known for its expertise. The Government
:53:43. > :53:47.has announced an action programme set up to continue to promote and
:53:47. > :53:51.work with the Law Society and Bar Council to promote London and the
:53:51. > :53:56.UK as a venue of choice, with our international partners. I think we
:53:56. > :54:00.are very much behind this. Can we do more? The point that Lord Woolf
:54:01. > :54:04.has made, which I would like to pick up on, I don't think we mind
:54:04. > :54:07.Russian oligarchs fighting it out in our courts, so long as they are
:54:07. > :54:10.paying their way. If we can develop a system whereby people possibly
:54:11. > :54:15.put in a percentage of the value of the claim, that can go towards
:54:15. > :54:18.paying for the courts. That will then mean that we can cross-
:54:18. > :54:21.subsidise things like the small claims court, so you can go to the
:54:21. > :54:25.county court and get some help. Unfortunately, as a result of the
:54:25. > :54:27.cuts to the Legal Aid system, very few people at the bottom of the
:54:27. > :54:32.pile are getting legal representation. To be able to
:54:32. > :54:40.chuorn the money around within the system, I think -- chuorn the money
:54:40. > :54:43.around in the system it would be better. I think it is better than
:54:43. > :54:47.most of the world our world class system. If people want to come here
:54:47. > :54:52.and settle their cases we should encourage them. We are in danger of
:54:52. > :54:58.having the two-teir system, having the oligarchs and commercial firms
:54:58. > :55:01.arguing it out, and on the other end we have Legal Aid cuts and
:55:01. > :55:05.magistrates courts cutting down? There is a difference between
:55:05. > :55:09.commercial litigation where people pay for the cost, I think they
:55:09. > :55:12.should, and other areas where you have a considerable amount falling
:55:12. > :55:17.on the public purse, at a time when we have to reduce the deficit and
:55:17. > :55:21.every area has to make a contribution. People are not being
:55:21. > :55:24.supported. I think we can promote London as a legal way forward. I
:55:24. > :55:29.don't accept the position about the European Court of Human Rights.
:55:29. > :55:38.didn't think you would. I don't think that affects the integrity of
:55:38. > :55:45.our courts system. What or who was London 2012 secret
:55:45. > :55:49.weapon. Here is the week in 60 seconds.
:55:49. > :55:53.Hello, hello, hello, could it be time called at Scotland Yard, the
:55:53. > :55:58.Met needs to deliver savings of �500 million, and proposals this
:55:58. > :56:02.week could see the force move out of the HQ to a smaller building in
:56:02. > :56:07.Whitehall. To London Bridge Station, which is coming down. Rail bosses
:56:07. > :56:13.announced a �700 million rebuild, which will run until 2018, meaning
:56:13. > :56:18.years of disruption for passengers at London's oldest station. Mayor
:56:18. > :56:23.Boris Johnson's approval of the redevelopment of Walthamstow's dog
:56:23. > :56:30.track, has made cabinet member, Iain Duncan Smith, furious. IDS
:56:31. > :56:34.says his Chingford constituents wonder what is the point of Boris.
:56:34. > :56:37.Lord Co-identified Cherie Blair London's secret weapon, she
:56:37. > :56:43.apparently launched an attack at Jacques Chirac for criticising
:56:43. > :56:47.British cooking. Her intervention at an IOC reception made Jacques
:56:47. > :56:50.Chirac scar perks allowing the Prime Minister to push the case for
:56:50. > :57:00.-- scar per, allowing the Prime Minister to push the case for done
:57:00. > :57:01.
:57:01. > :57:10.lon. You two enjoying the case that Cherie Blair was scaring Jake. We
:57:10. > :57:13.saw a bit of the selling off of the silver! We have police stations and
:57:13. > :57:17.fire stations. In my constituency we have two of my fire stations
:57:17. > :57:20.under threat. Both of them. I heard somewhere someone trying to justify
:57:20. > :57:24.it by them saying we are going to go for the modern stations and
:57:24. > :57:27.close down the old ones. I have the oldest station, they are going to
:57:27. > :57:30.close, I have a modern one, and guess what, they are going to close
:57:30. > :57:34.that one too. It isn't about the amount of time it will take for a
:57:34. > :57:39.fire engine to get to your house, it seems to me to be about selling
:57:39. > :57:43.off the silver. Keeping down cost, by just flogging things off. We end
:57:43. > :57:49.up with no fire stations in Islington. Do you think this is the
:57:49. > :57:53.right way, shutting fire stations? It is very dangerous? It is not
:57:53. > :57:57.very dangerous at all. The reality is her statutory to requirement --
:57:57. > :58:00.there are statutory requirements a fire brigade has to meet about
:58:00. > :58:04.response times, they have to have an integrated risk management plan.
:58:04. > :58:09.That, I think, can be delivered, where you put the fire station, or
:58:09. > :58:13.where you put Scotland Yard, can be flexible. Because it makes sense to
:58:13. > :58:17.maximise the value of what is sometimes a very expensive bit of
:58:17. > :58:21.property. Look at Scotland Yard. It is a very expensive office block in
:58:21. > :58:24.London. A quick point to both of you, when you get rid of stuff
:58:24. > :58:29.people worry things are moving from their community? The expensive
:58:29. > :58:37.areas will end up with no fire stations or Police Stations, you
:58:37. > :58:41.will have sold them off because they are expensive. If a fire
:58:41. > :58:44.starts in Islington there will be no fire stations. You have office
:58:44. > :58:52.blocks like Scotland Yard in central London. You two can carry
:58:52. > :59:00.on for a I will whoo.thaus to awe the guests. -- for a while, thank
:59:00. > :59:04.you to all our guests, back to Andrew now.
:59:04. > :59:08.In a moment we will look ahead to the big stories that will dominate
:59:08. > :59:12.politics neck week with our political panel -- next week, with
:59:12. > :59:15.our political panel. First the news at noon.
:59:15. > :59:19.Good afternoon, the US presidential candidates are heading into the
:59:19. > :59:26.final two days of campaigning. With the outcome still too close to call.
:59:27. > :59:31.The latest ABC News, Washington Post survey, suggests that bau, and
:59:31. > :59:36.Mitt Romney are level with 48% of - - Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are
:59:36. > :59:39.level with 48% of the vote. matter how bad a storm is, we
:59:39. > :59:45.bounce back. No matter how tough times are, we are all in this
:59:45. > :59:51.together. We rise or fall as one- nation and as one people.
:59:51. > :59:58.A final push for votes, as the clock particulars towards Tuesday's
:59:58. > :00:03.-- ticks towards Tuesday's vote. Pauark is saying for more --
:00:03. > :00:06.President Obama is asking for more time to make the change. His
:00:06. > :00:11.challenger Mitt Romney is not letting up either. Both candidates
:00:11. > :00:15.trying to fantically attract undecided voters, in what are
:00:15. > :00:18.called the battleground state. The economy the big issue of the
:00:19. > :00:22.election. The question of this election comes down to this, do you
:00:22. > :00:27.want more of the same, or do you want real change. President Obama
:00:27. > :00:32.promised change, but he could not deliver change. I promise change, I
:00:32. > :00:35.have a record of achieving real change. The two contenders both
:00:35. > :00:40.have a punishing schedule ahead of them today. President Obama will go
:00:40. > :00:46.to New Hampshire, and then to Florida, and on to Ohio. Mitt
:00:46. > :00:49.Romney will go to Iowa first, then the crucial staid of Ohio, and from
:00:50. > :00:54.there to Pennsylvania. In this vast country, millions of American have
:00:55. > :01:01.already cast their ballots in early voting. I'm voting for President
:01:01. > :01:07.Barack Obama. Why is that? Because President Barack Obama, is making
:01:07. > :01:11.some changes. I feel like with Obama being in office for this next
:01:11. > :01:15.election things will change and be better for America, regardless.
:01:15. > :01:18.An opinion poll today put the two candidate at 48% of the vote each.
:01:18. > :01:25.With just two days of campaigning left, this election is still too
:01:25. > :01:28.close to call. Previously unseen texts between
:01:28. > :01:31.David Cameron and the former News International boss, Rebekah Brooks,
:01:31. > :01:36.have been published by The Mail on Sunday. The messages are from a
:01:36. > :01:39.series of texts and e-mails handed to Lord Justice Leveson during his
:01:39. > :01:43.media standards inquiry. Labour has challenged Mr Cameron to publish
:01:43. > :01:47.full details of all the material. The Children's Commissioner for
:01:47. > :01:53.Wales has backed calls for a new inquiry into the abuse of children
:01:54. > :01:57.at care homes in North Wales, in the 1970s and 1980s. The
:01:57. > :02:03.commissioner says he suspects a group of people were protected by
:02:03. > :02:06.each other's power, enabling the abuse to continue. Snow has been
:02:06. > :02:08.falling in the south west of England, covering parts of Somerset
:02:09. > :02:14.and Wiltshire, in up to three inches of the white stuff. Viewers
:02:14. > :02:17.have been sending in their pictures of the snow. It has already caused
:02:17. > :02:22.some disruption on the roads, as well as a suspended bus service
:02:22. > :02:32.this morning. That's all the news for now. There will be more news on
:02:32. > :02:35.
:02:35. > :02:41.BBC at 5. 50pm. Back to you, Andrew. Who will thrive in the presidential
:02:41. > :02:45.race on Tuesday, are David Cameron's backbenchers uncrownable
:02:45. > :02:49.over Europe. These are the questions for the week ahead.
:02:49. > :02:54.-- uncontrollable over Europe. These are the questions for the
:02:54. > :02:58.week ahead. Now the American election coming up, there was an
:02:58. > :03:02.October surprise, it is called Superstorm Sandy, and it has had an
:03:02. > :03:09.impact on the presidential election to Mr Obama's benefit so, far. This
:03:09. > :03:13.is the Republican Governor of New Jersey, whose state was savageed by
:03:13. > :03:16.the storm, Chris Christie, this is what he had to say. He has worked
:03:16. > :03:22.incredibly closely with me before the storm hit. This is our sixth
:03:22. > :03:25.conversation since the week yeped. It is a great -- weekend. It has
:03:25. > :03:29.been a great working relationship to make sure we are doing the jobs
:03:29. > :03:33.people elected us to do. I cannot thank the President enough for his
:03:33. > :03:37.personal concern and compassion for our state and the people of our
:03:37. > :03:43.state. It should be pointed out he may be candidate in 2016, so the
:03:43. > :03:49.cynics among us would say it suits him if Mr Romney doesn't win. So
:03:49. > :03:53.far the storm, it was the October surprise, that no-one saw coming.
:03:53. > :03:56.Has it helped tilt Mr Obama into victory? I take the rather
:03:56. > :04:00.unfashionable view that I think the impact of the storm is being
:04:01. > :04:04.overstated. Of course it matters if Chris Christie, the Republican
:04:04. > :04:06.Governor of New Jersey, the keynote speak at the Republican convention,
:04:06. > :04:10.saying nice things about Barack Obama. Of course it is significant
:04:10. > :04:13.if in the final hours of the election Mitt Romney is not getting
:04:13. > :04:16.on to TV. But this idea that people are looking at Barack Obama and
:04:16. > :04:19.saying isn't the President doing well, and isn't Mitt Romney
:04:20. > :04:23.irrelevant. I think forgets the fact that, guess what, the American
:04:23. > :04:30.people know that Barack Obama is President, and they know that Mitt
:04:30. > :04:36.Romney is an ex-gor nor, they know that. Those -- ex-governor, they
:04:36. > :04:39.know that. I think Barack Obama is attacked for not being as
:04:39. > :04:44.bipartisan as he could have been. The Republican governor praising
:04:44. > :04:47.him works in his favour. None of these significant events matter as
:04:47. > :04:52.much as the structural and fundamental aspect of the election.
:04:52. > :04:55.The big news of the week was job news, slightly better than thought.
:04:55. > :05:01.Nobody outside people like us will notice. I don't think it has been
:05:01. > :05:04.covered enough in the British media, is this Superstorm Sandy is still a
:05:04. > :05:09.moving story. Staten Island, the forgotten borough of New York is
:05:09. > :05:11.shades of Katrina about it. Millions of people can't get petrol
:05:11. > :05:16.and still haven't got power. It could turn on the President in the
:05:16. > :05:20.next 24 hours? It could, but what I have been struck by, is the amazing
:05:20. > :05:25.photo coverage there has been for Obama. You know, the pictures of
:05:25. > :05:31.Obama, hugging people, the pictures of him looking so statesmanlike. I
:05:31. > :05:39.think it is really a spin doctor's dream for him. Provided it doesn't
:05:39. > :05:49.get worse? That is absolutely right. Where did it go wrong forb gush,
:05:49. > :05:55.Katrina he looked e-- for gush? Katrina he looked really bad. It is
:05:55. > :05:59.going exactly the right way. Back here we saw the defeat for the
:05:59. > :06:03.Prime Minister on the European budget. Of course, they are now at
:06:03. > :06:09.each other's throats, this is what a senior Conservative backbencher
:06:09. > :06:13.had to say. Colleagues on this side of the House have a choice, we are
:06:13. > :06:16.either going to support the Prime Minister, or not support the Prime
:06:16. > :06:21.Minister. If colleagues are not prepared to support the Prime
:06:21. > :06:25.Minister, every time they go into a division lobby, different to that
:06:25. > :06:30.of the Prime Minister, they are weakening the Prime Minister's
:06:30. > :06:34.negotiating hand in Europe. So, is party discipline over? I think he
:06:34. > :06:39.has a point. The Tories are becoming increasingly ungovernable.
:06:39. > :06:44.I don't think they are completely ungovernable. On Europe they are?
:06:44. > :06:49.What if the spirit goes from the issue of Europe and contaminates
:06:49. > :06:53.other areas of policy. We have Autumn Statement coming up, what if
:06:53. > :06:59.on tax and spend they become increasingly vocal and disloyal.
:06:59. > :07:02.The problem for Cameron is he can't keep on indicating manania,
:07:02. > :07:08.tomorrow, tomorrow, I will do something about Europe at some
:07:08. > :07:12.indefinite point in the future. He's aware of that, that is why we
:07:12. > :07:16.will hear a big speech from calm ran where he will set out the
:07:16. > :07:20.vision for the relationship with Europe. He needs to do that to stop
:07:20. > :07:25.the temperature boiling. The fact is Mr Cameron's support on the
:07:25. > :07:32.backbenches has always been skin deep any way, he haven't favours to
:07:33. > :07:36.call on? He's thought as aloof, there was support from Sir Tony
:07:36. > :07:39.Baldry, he was speaking from the heart I'm sure. This vote last week,
:07:39. > :07:41.there was a rebellion and the Government lost, the reason the
:07:41. > :07:44.Government lost was because the Labour Party voted with people who
:07:44. > :07:47.want to leave the European Union. What will be interesting is this
:07:47. > :07:51.budget, if there is a deal, of course there will be a deal, at
:07:51. > :07:56.some point next year. That will have to come to the House of
:07:56. > :08:01.Commons, what will the haep do if they don't -- Labour Party do if
:08:01. > :08:06.they don't get what they want. Mr Farage catching up on his
:08:06. > :08:11.expenses? I think he will be, he's too clever to have made a serious
:08:11. > :08:14.mistake there. Europe will rumble on for the rest of the year,
:08:14. > :08:17.causing Mr Cameron problems? It is interesting in a coalition
:08:17. > :08:22.Government the biggest fault line is not between two parties but one
:08:22. > :08:27.party. We will have to leave it there. That's all for this week. We