04/11/2012 Sunday Politics London

Morning folks, welcome to Sunday Politics. Could Britain thrive and

prosper outside the European Union. Cabinet minister, Iain Duncan Smith,

gave every impression this morning, that yes we can. We will ask

Business Minister, David Willetts, what he makes of it, it is our top

story. They are flying high in the polls, and they say winning the

arguments on Europe. But can the UK Independence Party really stand up

to the scrutiny that comes with success. Leader Nigel Farage joins

us for the Sunday interview. Which of these two men would you

like to see in the White House? With the US elections three days

away, Diane Abbott and Dan Hannan go head-to-head on whether Obama or

Romney will be better for Britain. In London, Michael Heseltine and

Boris Johnson call for new leniency on decisions over the airport, is

the Government dragging its feet when it comes to additional runways.

With me, as always, the best and the brightest political panel in

the business. Isabel Oakeshott, Janan Ganesh and, back an after

extended period sunning himself on the other side of the world, Nick

Watt. They will be serving wit, wisdom

and frantic tweeting throughout the programme.

Could the UK prosper as trading nation outside the European Union?

Iain Duncan Smith was asked about that this morning, and here he is,

very nearly saying, well, actually, yes! I'm an optimist about the UK,

I have always been, involved with trade with our European partners,

we will always be doing, whatever this relationship is, and the Prime

Minister will talk about in the future. We are a member of the

European Union, that gives us benefits, but we have to figure out

where that is going. But in the world we are a global trader

already, we are more of a global trader than any other country in

Europe. I hate this argument that says, you know, little Britain or

something outside, or Britain in part of a wider Europe, we can both

be within our trading relationships and all the rest of it within

Europe, but we can also be a fantastic global trader.

That was Iain Duncan Smith talking to Andrew Marr earlier this morning.

Nick, he couldn't have come closer to saying, sure, we will be fine

outside? He went pretty close to the line, didn't he, but he didn't

actually cross it. What we know is Iain Duncan Smith obviously made

himself as a Maastricht rebel, he's no great fan of the European Union.

If he were there to make the decision in 1973, would he have

taken us in, maybe he wouldn't have done. What is really interesting

about what he is saying is the debate about where we are at the

moment. Which is pro-Europeans are holding their heads, not sure how

do they make the pro-European case. They don't know what they are

making the case for. Ten years ago there was a killer argument, the

single market, the singable market guaranteed liberalism, the French

didn't like it, therefore, it must be a good thing. The single market

is not the top game in the European Union, it is the euro, we are not

part of the euro, and not part of the eurozone governance

arrangements, there is a danger that the 17 mers of the eurozone

will be able to cork us and run the rules of the European Union. It is

represented in the cabinet a caucus, that thinks we should be out of the

EU? Yes, and there is a really intriguing story in The Mail on

Sunday today, about a cabinet minister who was supposedly having

a serious discussion last week about quitting and leading a euro-

sceptic wing of the party. Do we know who it was? Could it be Iain

Duncan Smith? What it shows is there is a real temperature

building up inside the parliamentary party. I think the

interesting thing about IDS's remarks, is it is time for the Tory

euro-sceptics to examine the question of exactly how and whether

Britain could succeed outside of the European Union. Until now, and

for the past 20 years or so, Euro- scepticism has been about arguing

that we should leave, or downgrade our relationship with the EU. The

far more fundamental question is exactly what policies would we

enact to enable us to thrive, without access to the single market,

and without access to EU power and international trade negotiations.

We shall see. Let's go now to Southampton, where we are joined by

the Universities and Science Minister, David Willetts. Mr

Willetts, welcome to the Sunday Politics, do you think Britain

could survive and prosper outside the European Union? We're a proud

nation state, and as Iain was rightly saying, we are a great

global trading nation. What we are focusing on in the Government, we

want a new settlement with Europe. We want to take some of the powers

which have gone to Europe, which really decision its can be taken

nationally we are doing a very careful analysis, we are going to

argue that some of those should come back to individual nation

states. We think, as well, Europe spends too much. That's the central

argument, on that argument, the Government is absolutely focusing,

on ensuring that we get the best possible deal from Europe. It was

interesting though that Iain Duncan Smith didn't say a word in favour

of our membership of the European Union? Across the cabinet we all

understand the enormous value of the single market. And I don't

think we should just say the single market is now a dead issue. We have

just been celebrating 20 years of the sing market a there is still a

hell of a lot to do, to ensure we have a proper ING single market,

where our services can be -- single market, where our services can be

sold over there and free movement of people. He didn't say a word in

favour of the European Union? think Ian spoke very powerfully

about the pride we can have in Britain in our atkhee.s and --

achievements and global trading position. It is in our interests to

be part of the single market. This fear that I heard from one of your

panellists, about the 17 members of the eurozone caucusing against us,

I think it is very important that the whole framework of the European

single market continues to function. I know there are many member states,

like Germany, who recognise the importance of having Britain around

the table, whenever single market issues come up. That is clearly a

crucial objective for the future. Let's go on to Michael Heseltine

about growth in the British economy, he gave his report this week. It is

enthused with his long standing beliefs in industrial policy, and

state intervention. Are these ideas finding favour in the coalition now,

even among Tories? Well, I think it is a great report. It is a very

personal document, as you rightly say, Andrew. It actually goes back

over his career in politics, over 40 years. I think coming into

Government, and working in business, alongside Vince Cable, I think both

of us, and the Government as a whole, as, we have come to

recognise that there are lots of things that Government inevitably

does and we should make sure we do them in the best possible way to

support British industry. I mean, take for example, the amount

Government spends. We spend hundreds of billions a year on

procurement, we should do it better than Governments have historically

done. One thing we have done, the first time any Government has done

this, we have set out �70 billion for procurement plans, looking five

years ahead, so that British business can see what we are

planning to do, and can invest and prepare its products accordingly.

There is things like that where Government is inevitably spending

money, you either do it in a smart way that supports British business,

or you make a mess of it. I'm in favour of a smart and effective way.

I understand, I would venture to suggest, since you are reputed to

have two brains, that you realised that Government spent money, even

before you came into power. That you have not just worked that out

since power. What I'm trying to get at is, have you been on a journey

in Government, have you realised that actually some forms of state

intervention, or an industrial policy, or strategy, are necessary

and can can't just be left to the market? Yeah, first of all, on

procurement, by the way, what I was shocked by is how badly it was done

when we arrived, and we are trying to sort it out. More widely, what I

have come to recognise, and across the cabinet Cuomo to recognise, for

example, there is the convening -- have come to rebgt, for example,

there is the convening power of Government. There is the

researchers paying out of the university and science budget,

together with the business leaders think be about to invest, and the R

& D projects they are embarking on. If you get them together say let's

have a respected group of experts to provide a technology Road Map in

this area, which will identify where we are spending the public

money and where you want to invest. Provided you don't think you can

get it all perfectly right and don't pick individual business

winners, when you engage in that type of exercise and show the

Government has skin in the game and you recognise business last a role,

you can create something more effective than if you don't work

together. I have seen myself, with my response bgts in high-tech, I

can see how to do it in high- performance computing and synthetic

biology, and the space sector. And Vince has led same things in the

automotive industry, and Aerospace. It is important to do that well.

New texts between Rebekah Brooks and the Prime Minister this morning

published. Mr Brooks says she cries at David Cameron's speeches, have

you cried too? I think David Cameron's speeches, certainly the

one this year, was a very effective and powerful speech. Did you shed a

tear? I guess, for me, I do find, when someone sets out the case for

what we are doing to make the country a better place, I do accept

it is not just a matter of appeal to the head, it should appeal to

the heart as well. And great speeches by leader, including some

of David's do just that. Is it healthy for a Prime Minister to be

such bossom buddies with a powerful newspaper boss, who has a propriety

with his own agenda. Is gl, proprietor with his own agenda. Is

this healthy? This is because of the relationship over the years

between politicians and the media. That is why the Prime Minister set

up Leveson. No previous Government has said, look, let's take a step

back. This relationship has become too close. But is it healthy?

all recognise that relationship between politicians as a group, and

newspapers and the media as a group, had become too close. The purpose

of Leveson is to take a step back, and just see what makes sense and

what is the right regime. The Prime Minister has always complied with

every request from Leveson for information. He hasn't relosed all

the texts? He has -- Released all the texts? He has complied with all

requests for information from Leveson, we will wait and see what

Lord Leveson proposes. No previous Government set up Leveson, it is

the coalition that has done it. What do you make of the texts, I

saw the headline in The Mail on Sunday and my little heart leaped,

and there is only a couple of more texts and don't tell us anything we

didn't know? I think they are a bit of fun, aren't they. They fire up

the imagination as to what else might be out there. People who ride

horses discuss what the horse was like, I don't think there is

anything particularly bad about that. I found the texts distinctly

underwhelming, posh people do this kind of thing, they ride horses and

compliment them. The idea that David Cameron's text was

tantermount to flirtation or anything untoward is incredible.

The question is, is there a further cachet of texts that we haven't

seen yet and we will see in the press that will be further damaging.

That text from David Cameron not great, but the weepy text from

Rebekah Brooks, I would love to know Samantha Cameron to know about

that, I'm sure she finds her a bit too bubbly. There may have been

gibles. Sor maybe no breakfast for the Prime Minister!

There were scenes reminiscent in the Commons last week of the

Maastricht wars they are happy days indeed for a man who has made a

career out of banging on about Europe, Nigel Farage of the UKIP

party. A poll today puts them third ahead of the Liberal Democrats,

could they be on the verge of a major political breakthrough.

These are exciting tieplgs for Nigel Farage and UKIP. -- times for

Nigel Farage and UKIP. Their views on Europe are becoming increasingly

mainstream. With Labour's tactical shift on Europe, the prospect of an

"in-out" referendum is growing. All this is paying off in the polls

with the party's support pricing as high as 12% over the summer. No

wonder those urging David Cameron to forge a pact with UKIP in time

for the next general election are being taken seriously Mr Farage

says, any deal would require a referendum promise, written in

blood. In the meantime, UKIP have high hopes of beating the other

parties to second in the next election. As they look to enter a

new phase as a serious player in UK politics. UKIP and the leader must

endure the greatest scrutiny that comes with success. The UKIP leader,

Nigel Farage, joins me now for the Sunday interview.

Nigel Farage, welcome, your primary purpose is withdrawal from the

European Union, so let's go and look at the economic impact. Let me

show you this slide coming up here. This, it shows that the EU accounts

for 48% of our exports. Even the United States is a poor second at

16%, China way down at 3%, you would put our access to this huge

market to an end? The figure is wrong, there are all sorts of

tricks used with this. The important thing to recognise is

that figure is falling every year, as the EU becomes a smaller market

place in the world. It is still huge? Of course it is, our next

door neighbours are a very important market place. Remember a

couple of things. Firstly, we trade at the EU with a massive deficit,

the last year is 2010 with figures, they told us �50 billion more worth

of goods than we sold them. You don't have to be a political

European to buy -- in a political union to buy and sell goods to the

European Union. You have said we should trade a lot more with

emerging markets, look at India down at 2%, of course there is a

huge upside, I understand that, but it will take years to get these

markets to anything like Europe? One of the reasons we are doing so

little business with countries like India, is because we are prohibited,

forbidden, banned from making our own trade deals with any other

country in the world, because we are part of a European customs

union, and that is our whole thinking, for four decades it has

been eurocentric, a huge mistake. We are living in a global economy,

and we need to be free and able, as the Swiss are, to do our own deals.

You might think it would be bad for British business to leave, but the

people who run British business clearly think it. Look at this,

from a mori poll, would leaving the EU damage British business? 73% say

yes. These are people who invest and create jobs? They didn't ask

small businessmen in Britain, or medium-ranking business people in

Britain, that would be 73% I would guess of multinational companies.

Of the big companies. That is British industry. No, the BBC has

always done this, it misrepresents the big businesses as being the

British economy. The truth is, 60% of jobs are created in companies

that employ less than ten people. Most of those firms, you know, you

will find, have bases in Europe, they love the European Union.

Because the regulation that comes with the single market puts out of

business small and medium-sized competition. Can you name a single

large exporting company that supports leaving the EU? I have

spoken, as I travelled around manufacturing companies, City

institutions over the last few months, and there is now a, I would

say it is 50-50. Can you name one? That is for them to say, not me. I

would say it is probably now 50-50, even amongst the bigger-sized firms,

where they are saying, whilst we want access to the European market,

the cost of regulation is something we can't afford. You said, not one

job in Britain depends on EU membership, other than people like

yourself? And our commission. if your opponents exaggerate the

potential job losses, let's concede maybe they do. It is not fair to

say not one job depends on the EU? The truth is we could create a lot

of jobs outside the European Union. Not only would we have bigger

export markets, but the UK Government would be allowed to

relax employment regulation, especially for small companies,

which would lead to hundreds of thousands of people being given a

chance. No disruption, no dislocation, no tough times getting

from A to B, if we leave? If we listen to what the European

Commissioners have said, from Kinnock, through to the current

Trade Commissioner, they have all said the same thing for years, if

the UK doesn't want to be part of the European Union, and all we want

is a single trade deal, or as was said, to be relegated to the status

of Switzerland, they have always said that's on offer. We will come

to that in a minute. Let's look at the car industry, what would happen

to it. The car industry is now a net exporter again, it is a success

story, we make good, reliable, productive cars. 50% of all the

cars made in the UK are sold into the EU, they pay no import taxes.

If we leave the EU they pay a tax of 10% on every vehicle, 22% on

lorries. Immediately that means jobs in danger, the Nissan plant in

Sunderland and the Mini-in Oxford. Are you suggesting Mercedes

wouldn't sell their cars in this country if we left the European

Union? Of course not. It is in the greater interests of Germany that

we have a tarrif-free market, as it is for Nissan and companies like

that. These are spurious examples put up. Are you saying there is no

danger of a tarrif at all? believe, of course, what the

European Commission always tell me, which is if you don't want to be

part of political union, but you want a simple free trade agreement,

that is on offer. Why would the EU do a sweetheart deal with the

departing UK. Why would they give us the main reward of membership,

the single market, with no obligation, why would they do that?

That is a 50 years out of date view. That view talk about a post-war

world with high tarrif barriers. In the last 40 years, despite the EU,

we have had GATT, the World Trade Organisation, we have lived through

a period of tarrifs being reduced. The primary reason why they would,

if because I have said already in this intervueark they sell us �50

billion worth of goods a year more than we sell them. They need us

more than we need them. You are the first person to tell us that the EU

doesn't operate in its own economic interests, how can you count on it?

If they wanted, at the time of megacrisis in the eurozone, to cut

off their noses to spite their faces, firstly I don't believe

their own electorates would stand for it. Secondly, they would be in

contravention of World Trade Organisation rules, I consider it

highly unlikely. Let's see your other party politics, let's look at

your tax and spend. You want to phase out national insurance over

five years. You also want to phase out the national insurance that

employees pay as well. This is tax simplification. You would combine

national insurance and tax into one? Absolutely. Let's assume that

did work, where would you find the �55 billion to make up for the

employers' national insurance? abolition of employers' national

insurance is a long-term aspiration. You said over five years. We can't

do it overnight. Where would you find the �55 billion in five years.

One thing we could do is we could get rid of employers' national

insurance for companies, particularly small companies,

taking people on from today. That would make a big difference. Let me

see, this is what you say in your manifesto, let me show you what you

said. The revenue will be recouped, this is about employers' national

insurance. It comes to �55 billion, you say it would be recouped either

as PAYE, corporation tax, sales tax, VAT, or reduced need for welfare

state. You would have to put VAT up by a lot, and income tax up even

more, and corporation tax. You have to find �55 billion? What we would

have to do is create wealth and growth in the British economy. And

we're firmly of the view that if you reviews regulation, if you get

rid of some of the insanties of environmental regulation and green

taxes that we are putting on manufacturing industries, we can

create growth in this country. All parties have a five-year aspiration,

this coalition says it will get rid of the deficit, it will fail. Our

aspiration is to have a competitive Britain. You will have to find �55

billion for employers' national insurance, take everybody out of

tax up to �11,500, that is billions more. You will take away the top

rates of 45%, that is millions more, you want to spend more and more on

defence. Your policies, when you look at them, they are not

credible? The policies are based on the idea that we can create growth,

and we can enable Britain to be a global trading economy, not one

that is too focused on Europe. Let's move on to transparency. The

Denis MacShane scandal has brought MPs' expenses back into the news

again, there has been lots of attacks on them, you have joined in

on the attacks. Let's look at your record, you made the following

We went to the UKIP website, transparency report section, there

is no information about your expenses since December 2011, that

is nearly a year? In fact we are doing it every six months, not

quartly, that seemed more practical. You are right, I haven't done it

this year at all, I haven't had time to do it. I accept I'm a few

month late. You made a promise? accepting I'm late but I will get

it done as fast as I can. You said last time the receipts were lost in

transportation? I lost receipts so what. What you have published looks

fishy, we looked at the statements, they seemed round number, �10,000

office costs, �3,000 communications, �2,000 for stationary, �2,000 for

travel? They are prox mits, I have receipts for most of it, an awful

lot of receipts that aren't there. You don't sound sure about this?

are not entitled or compelled to show anything. You promised in your

manifesto that is what you would do, and you haven't done it? We are

doing it every six months, not every quarter, which is is a

practical application of it. Take your deputy, we have had him on the

Daily Politics, he's a bit of a name, you are no longer a one-man-

band. He has declared nothing since July 2011, he's unacceptable?

to get his house in order. Will you have a word with him? I accept I'm

behind, but I will do it. You have Neil Hamilton on the national

executive? Elected by members. suggest that means you really have

to be whiter than white? Unlike a lot of things had a have happened

in the last three years, Mr Hamilton was convict of nothing.

Subsistence allowance is blank in Mr Nuttall expenses, he has made a

number of trips between Brussels and Strasbourg, we don't know how

many. We are as in the dark about your expenses as other MPs?

have all of mine up to 2011,ly do my 2012 stuff and it will be there.

What do you do in Brussels. You claimed your subsist tense on the

day of the European debate on the budget at the parliament, but you

didn't vote? Because I was heading off to another meeting in another

part of Europe. But we pay you to represent a part of Britain, at

these votes, you didn't vote? I'm also one of the seven leaders

of a parliamentary group in that parliament. My mission isn't to try

to make the European Union slightly less worse, my mission is to

encourage in the UK and elsewhere, different political parties that

want to break this thing up. Do you believe in some way heading for a -

- we are in some way heading for a yes-no referendum? I do believe

that Mr Cameron and the political class will do everything to stop

that choice. They want us stuck in the single market.

It sounds innocuous but it is not. As you might have noticed there is

an election in America, it will be close. In three days time Americans

will decide whether Barack Obama should get four more years in the

White House, or Mitt Romney should become the nation's first Mormon

President. It is dramatic stuff, why should you care. We have hit

the streets of the windy city. That is London in November, just in case

you were wondering. To find out. The candidates have breezed back on

to the campaign trail. Just days after Superstorm Sandy hit the US.

I have been appointed Sunday Politics Washington Correspondent.

He can September I'm still waiting for the call to go to DC, I'm stuck

in London. But, walk around the city, with its

statues of six, yes six, former Presidents and you will find plenty

of reasons why the result matters here. Firstly, the economy.

have to remember the US is the largest economy by far, twice the

size of comien that's economy, $15 trillion, roughly -- China's

economy, $15 trillion roughly. If that is not sustained, the whole of

the UK will feel the consequences. That relies on how the US handles

what is known as the fiscal cliff, a combination of automatic tax

rises and spending cuts due there in January, that could tip the

states back into recession, if Congress can't reach a deal to

avoid it. Iran and its nuclear programme is the issue that

dominates when it comes to global security. Mitt Romney is a good

friend of the Israeli Prime Minister, but Obama has toughened

up sanctions on the Iranians, while he has been in power. What about

China? They will be choosing a new set of leaders, at almost exactly

the same time. Romney has threatened to get tough with the

Chinese over the value of their currency. But during the campaign,

Obama hasn't presented himself as any friend of their's either.

I think it is matter of style. Obama has built up the trust of the

world community, more perhaps than his own population, in the last

four years. Romney would be untested. If there is a crisis

early in the Romney term, the reactions could be unpredictable.

Where as with Obama we have a safer sense of where he would take it.

Then there is the tricky issue of the atmosphere when our current

leader has sat down with his American opposite numbers. When

Mitt Romney visited David Cameron in the summer, he dised our

preparation for theics. In contrast, the Prime Minister and Barack Obama

look like best buddies. The British public feel the same way, favouring

Obama over Romney by 10-1. Then there is the really big

political issue, George W Bush used to have a bust of him in the Oval

Office, Barack Obama sent it back, Romney says he will reinstate it.

So, who gets your vote, Winston? Pardon, what was that?

They are the only friends Adam has. Diane Abbott for Obama, and for

Romney. Why should America want Obama to be

re-elected? I think it will be a safer world if Obama is re-elected.

It is difficult with Mitt Romney, on any policy, to know which Mitt

Romney will show up at any given time. What we do know is 16 of his

advisers are ex-Bush advisers, with Romney it is a return to neo-

politics. I think he's a safer pair of hands. Why should we want Mitt

Romney to be the next President, Dan Hannan? He likes us better. You

have the thing with the Churchill bust, we have this thing of lining

up with the world leaders, and Obama creating a company called

British Petroleum, it hadn't existed since the oil spill. We had

BP. We have had the unpleasant things he said about us in his

books. This is the first US president that I felt we haven't

really had a particularly good relationship. If Romney likes us

better, why come and tell us we will make a mess of the Olympic,

and we had one of the most successful Olympics ever. That is

not a man that likes us? That is a ridiculous point. He expresses

himself clumsly. Isn't that dangerous in a President. The idea

he was dissing us. You know how it was, we had been as we do in this

country, as cynical and pessimistic as we could be, he reflected 1% of

what he read in the newspaper, he chose the moment when the mood was

turning. You admitted it was clumcy. You are disappointed in President

Obama, -- clumsy, you are disappointed in President Obama, we

covered the election four years ago, and the hopes that were there, most

Brits are disappointed in him? There was too much expectations. He

inherited an American economy which was on a downward spiral. He knew

that? Yes but the Dow has repounded spectacularly, and private sector

jobs, month after month. And when The Economist said it is endorsing

Obama, you have to believe that business ...That Is an elitist

thing. This is a President who has added $1.3 trillion per year to the

debt, they have a $16 trillion dollar debt, this is not just a

problem for the US it is a central economy problem. If you are worried

about debt worry about Romney, he's going to cut taxes and put up

defence spending, how does he make the deficit good with those

policies. This is why the Washington Post and New York Times

refuse to endorse him, because his economic plans do not add up.

New York Times refuse us to endorse Republican, shock. He a huge

increase in defence spending, no tax cuts for the superrich.

Americans are in hock to the tune of $14 trillion, that is worse.

you look at the Ryan plan that is a plan. We know with Obama that the

deficit will grow. We have a chance of improvement, versus the

certainty of continued empty of the Treasury and exhausting the economy.

If they thought the Ryan plan was Romney policy, he would lose the

election, that is not the policy. No-one will return to a balanced

budget in one-term. At least with Romney we have someone who will try

and restore order and sanity. me go on to policy. Even Mr Obama's

foreign policy is alien to British values and interests, Guantanamo is

still open. A massive rise in the use of drones over Pakistan, it is

getting terrorists, and killing a lot of innocent people as well. No

progress in the Middle East peace, and he really has very little

interest in Britain or Europe? regret the fact that Guantanamo is

still open. You are disappointed? Just a tiny bit! But he has taken

Iraq out of Iraq, he's trying to take America out of Afghanistan,

and unlike Romney he doesn't want a trade war with China. That has to

be a good thing. If Romney get in, wouldn't it be back to Bush II, he

despises the Palestinians, saying they are not interested in peace.

He implies he's prepared to attack Iran, and he knows nothing about

Britain, as we saw when he came here, or Europe? I hard lie think

it is fair to say he despises the Palestinians, he said there was a

cultural component in Israel's society, it is not the same as

saying he despises them. He said they were not interested in peace.

Under both US Presidents there will be force on the table as an option

with Iran. As there was in Libya, there is not a massive difference

between them. Romney is more likely to bomb Iraq. Look I was an

opponent of the Iraq War. And I wasn't big on the war in

Afghanistan. But when we are talking about Iran, to say that

there shouldn't be any possibility of taking any kind of action, we

should just try and jolly the Ayatollah's out of their nuclear

ambitions is the wrong line to take. He doesn't really care about the UK

and would treat us as a backwater in the second term, wouldn't he,

Obama? His foreign policy is cheaper than Romney's foreign

policy, he's more likely to bomb Iraq. Maybe Obama removed the bust

of Winston Churchill, but I still think we should go with him.

will win? Probably Obama? turnout is right, and white

suburban women break for Obama, it will be Obama.

Two for Obama, puts your money on Romney! I wouldn't actually. Thank

you. This is Sunday Politics. Coming up in just over 20 minutes,

I will be looking at the week ahead with our political panel. Until

then, the Sunday Politics across the UK.

Welcome to the London section of the programme. Our focus today is

growth. From airport expansion, and East London river crossings, to the

booming sale of English law, both here and abroad. With growing

impatience over the time it takes to get things done, is the

Government doing enough to hurry things along. With me throughout

today's edition are two legal eagle, Emily Thornberry and Martin O'Neill,

also a barrister. -- Bob Neil, also a barrister. Pressure is growing

for airport expansion throughout the south-east, the Prime Minister

has comixed the Davies Review, not due to report until the next

election. This week again Boris Johnson criticised the delay,

calling it a policy of utter inertia. These comments came after

Lord Heseltine warned, that with no new runways, Heathrow, Stanstead

and Gatwick will be at full capacity. He said he believed there

was a way forward, injecting more urgency into the decision making

process, and confidence for all those who want to invest in our

economy. He called on the Government to clarify its solution.

The two blonde bombshells seem to agree, what about the silver fox,

they are right, the Government needs to get off the fence and make

its own decision? The Government is getting on with it. The whole point

of it was setting up the Davies Review. It has a unusually long

history, but it is important to get the thing right. It is interesting

that Michael Heseltine talks about runway capacity in a general sense

A lot of people feel that. We need that runway capacity in the right

place. You will know, the amount of environmental difficulties,

Heathrow currently causes for people in west lon. Do when we get

the decision, quickly -- London. When we do get the decision,

quickly. What is new to decide, that means the Davies Commission

can't report until after the next election? The first thing to think

about is do you need a physical, single hub, or do you have what

some people call a virtual hub. Those issues are important to get

right. The funding mechanisms need to be in place. We need to look at

means of speeding up the planning process, and we have already done

that in a number of ways. Is he right it say that the Government

needs to clarify urgently its preferred solution, get on with it?

That has to be done on the basis of up-to-date evidence. There is a lot

of changing evidence. There is the issue about what use. The reality

is we want to get it right. I don't buy the fact that simple low

rushing into this for the sake of it -- simply rushing in this for

the sake of it is the right answer. We don't want to rush into this,

the Labour Party took a position in 2010, back the runway, are you

still there? I don't understand why we are two years into a Labour

Government, I wish, two years into a Conservative Government and they

have just started to think maybe we ought to make a decision about it.

Where are Labour on this? position is this, that these huge

infrastructure projects need to be agreed, and we need to get on with

them. Actually we need to have some form of cross-party agreement on

them. You can't tell us, as Bob can't tell us, where the Labour

Party are on it, do you back a third runway or not? Our position

is, that we have to get the two main parties together on this. That

means there has to be a lead from this Government, they can't just do

nothing for two years, and then go, maybe we will have a think about it,

but the decision will be made after the next general election. Their

problem is, it is a proxy, the third runway is a proxy battle

between David Cameron and Boris Johnson, it's actually about

something else. More of this in a moment. We will go from a policy

that could be described as being up in the air, to one that you might

describe as being a bridge too far. Delays on other big infrastructure

projects have been highlighted this week, after Transport for London

opened the second consultation on new river crossings for the south-

east of London, the black wall and Woolich crossings are under strain,

with delays the order of the day every day. The case for New

Crossings has long been made, with plans for a new bridge under Ken

Livingston on the table, but cancelled in 2008 by Boris Johnson.

A new ferry crossings with gallions reach would possibly replace the

Woolich ferry, and the Silvertown tunnel would connect Greenwich, to

relieve the Blackwall Tunnel. The Government has designated the

silvertown tunnel as a national significant project. Funding

options for the project could include a community infrastructure

levy, controversially, a toll. charge for the Blackwall Tunnel,

that is too old, it is like saying charge for the Rotherhithe tunnel

as well. They are too old. No. would need to improve the situation

for the commuters, it is usually queuing to pay and queue I don't

think it very fair. We don't have a choice, there is no other way to

get into London. It is another con. Business groups welcomed the plan,

with many arguing there is a desperate need for the crossing,

but environmental groups argue the plans will create more noise and

pollution. I'm joined now by Baroness

Valentine, chief executive of London First, a business group. Do

we need the crossing, desperately. We have been waiting a while?

don't get it quickly, we had a brilliant Olympics and part of that

was to spur regeneration in the ee. That means the infrom structure.

You have 16 crossings to the west of Tower Bridge three only to the

east, and the same sort of distance. We need to get those links between

the north and South Bank working to just regenerate the whole area.

This has resonance with what we are talking about, with runways, we

have been talking about crossings in the east of London forever?

Let's get on with them. Even under this latest plan, Boris Johnson

wants a tunnel at silvertown, that won't be open until 20212, in 21

years of London having a -- 2021, in 21 years of London having a

mayor all we have delivered is a cable crossing? We have delivered

the Olympic, the huge regeneration of that patch. I would love all the

infrastructure built better, I would love a decision on the

airport today, and the thing built tomorrow. It is not going to happen.

Is it. The quicker we can get it done, the better. It is vital to

the regeneration, long-term, of East London. Business likes it,

will you pay for it, at the moment we are talking about possibly

charging people �2 on the Blackwall Tunnel and �2 for Silvertown?

problem nowadays is somebody has to pay for infrastructure, you are

talking about the tax-payers or the user. I have some sympathy with the

user paying for it. How will that go down? Bob's constituents will be

paying to cross the river? clearly need a New Crossing, they

might put it in South-East London, they suffer with the queues at the

black wall. Ken's proposal was -- BlackWall, Ken's proposal was the

wrong crossing in the wrong place. Practised arguments in City Hall.

That was a waste of time. You can't just cancel one bridge and do

nothing for years, and then say, oh well maybe we will make a decision

at some point. We need two bridges. That is nonsense and you know it,

it was cancelled because rejected by evidence at the inquiry. We need

two bridges between Tower Bridge, we need two bridges that side, or

we need to have a tunnel. We need two fixed doioints, you know it, I

know that, a cable car is not sufficient. You can't go around

cancelling bridges without having something alternative to come

forward with. That is narrow minded. What about the people who might

have to pay for it, tolls the right way forward? The most important

thing is to get on with it. There is some unfairness when Boris

Johnson goes and cancels the extension of the Congestion Charge

to west Londoners, so they end up with infrastructure they don't have

to pay for, and the idea that east and south loners need to pay

additional for - Londoners need to pay for additional infrastructuring.

It has to be free-flowing. That is part of the problem, this lot can't

agree. You are calling for the bridge, because you say it will

make a difference to how London works. Is it a danger putting the

stuff out east, that those in west London seeing the money going to

the Olympics, will see the bridges and high-speed rail and CrossRail

going to the east of London, will say, hang on, what about me?

think west Londoners had it good for a long time. You have all the

crossings on the west side. We were just on that fairness point about

they have roads in west London, there are roads in East London, who

pays for which roads. There is a pragmatic thing about getting these

crossings paid for, in the situation we are now. And I think

tough tell Blackwall -- toll Blackwall up once Silvertown is

running. It is best to have any tolling thing linked in for the

Dartford Tunnel, no toll booths, electronic charging so you don't

get the queues. Maybe there is a solution in another part of the

city. It is reported in this week that Saudi Arabia is to lobby the

British Government to set up a confidential criminal court in

London, to settle multimillion pound commercial disputes arising

from inside the kingdom. It is the latest development in a billion

pound business that is quietly growing in the City. As we report,

the rule of English law has become one of the capital's biggest and

fastest-growing exports. We export more of it than textiles, nearly as

much of it abroad as the Scots do whiskey. It is English justice.

Bringing �4 billion a year in trade into the economy, it has tripled in

the last decade. Think the famous called libel tourism cases, such as

when the film director Roman Polanski, sued Vanity Fair in

London. This is the tip of the iceberg. The large majority will be

commercial work done in the City of London behind me. London deals with

more commercial international contract law than any place on

earth. The figures are staggering, commercial firms say 90% of their

work involves at least one foreign party. A lot of it will include no

English parties at all. If a Russian and Mexican want to do

business, they will do it here in London. They will sign the

contracts here, and it will be enforcible under English law.

the waim way that the English language has become -- same way

that English language has become the international language of

business, English law is seen as the law for international commerce.

It is seen to be stable, it is seen to be certain, and you know that

when you get a judgment that it is correct and it is enforcible.

Indeed, what many people as a centre banking in the City, law is

beige part of it. There were 140,000 banking jobs in London, but

120,000 in legal services. In the last six months while employment in

banking is fall, in the law it is going up. Labour and collation

Governments have been invested big money too. This is central London's

Rolls Building, the world's largest commercial court. Opened last year

at a cost of �300 million. Its first case was a dispute between

Chelsea football club's Roman Abramavich and Boris Bersovski. It

its business comes from other places, Hong Kong and other places

all have courts that use English law, and dab buy and Qatar.

predominant saw in Dubai and Qatar Sharia Law is the main run. And

they have set up the court without Sharia Law. This week it is thought

Saudi Arabia plans to open a court in the capital to resolve business

disputes that arise in the kingdom. Freshfields is one of the biggest

law firms. It is firms like this have been driving the spread of the

law across the world. They say it is driven enormously that they take

the best talent from all over the globe and take them to London. In

fact, over 50 nationalties work in their London offices alone.

According to the company, the Government's migration cap policy

is a threat. At the moment people aren't bumping up against the cap,

because the economy is a bit stagnant. Everyone is trying to

encourage growth. If you are looking to recruit. Then things

that get in the way of recruiting the best people are obviously

unhelpful. With the desire to see immigration fall being one of

voters' top priorities, Government will have to juggle those concerns

with the call from some that our future growth another top priority,

depends on letting people in. I'm joined by Lord Woolf the former

Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, he has set up the court in

Qatar. You have been playing for the opposition, time to join our

side and talk up London, suppose? certainly will always talk up

London. Because I have a huge regard for commercial law, and

being disposed of in London. But I don't think that is an accurate

description of what I have been doing. I think it is a tremendous

compliment, which goes round the world, that somebody like myself,

who has no connection with Qatar, when I became, as I like to say,

statutory senile and had to retire as Chief Justice, and wasn't able

to axe -- practice as a judge in London, but I found openingings

elsewhere. It goes to show how high English law is held, and there is

money to be made for London? are absolutely right. It is not

only London, it is a positive contribution to their societies. We

were all desperately worried when Hong Kong was handed back to the

Chinese. Fortunately, it was handed back on terms that whenever that

court sat in Hong Kong, there would be a final Court of Appeal, a new

court, to replace the Privy Council, and it would always have upon it a

judge from outside Hong Kong, who was a common law judge. It goes to

the sense of reputation. What do you think about attracting people

like the oligarchs, the Chelsea case, to London, is that where we

want to go in terms of the reputation of London? It is a huge

compliment, they could choose where they wanted to resolve their

dispute. We could look at going back to the reforms I introduced, I

was very keen that these heavy commercial cases, we should be able

to make money for the court system, out of the costs that litigants pay,

in order to have the disputes resolved. Why our system is

respected and wanted, is because it's known it is uncorruptable. And

in different parts of the world, there are problems. You talk about

the respect of the British system, do you think that could be damaged

by a Government that then goes into an international dispute with the

European Court of Human Rights? do think that we should always make

it clear that we are leaders in applying the rule of law. The rule

of law is critical to the standards of society wherever it happens. It

is very important that we set an example. Because at the moment, we

are the mother country for the common law. Even when compared with

the United States. The Prime Minister, you think, has got it

wrong on this issue? I think he has got it wrong. And should do what?

think that he should explain his statement and to take up the

opportunity which the European Court has given him, of coming to a

compromise solution. It would be so easy to have something which only

involves people who are perhaps going to be reloseded in a few

month. Having the -- released in a few months, having the right to

vote. Equally, it would be very easy to have a system where we

classify the offences, and certain offences that involve depravation

of the vote and some that aren't, all crimes are not the same.

swapped unpopular profession for another, the pair of you. Has

London been hiding its legal light under a bushel for too long?

don't think it has hiding its light, it is pretty well -- been hiding

its bushel at all, it is well known for its expertise. The Government

has announced an action programme set up to continue to promote and

work with the Law Society and Bar Council to promote London and the

UK as a venue of choice, with our international partners. I think we

are very much behind this. Can we do more? The point that Lord Woolf

has made, which I would like to pick up on, I don't think we mind

Russian oligarchs fighting it out in our courts, so long as they are

paying their way. If we can develop a system whereby people possibly

put in a percentage of the value of the claim, that can go towards

paying for the courts. That will then mean that we can cross-

subsidise things like the small claims court, so you can go to the

county court and get some help. Unfortunately, as a result of the

cuts to the Legal Aid system, very few people at the bottom of the

pile are getting legal representation. To be able to

chuorn the money around within the system, I think -- chuorn the money

around in the system it would be better. I think it is better than

most of the world our world class system. If people want to come here

and settle their cases we should encourage them. We are in danger of

having the two-teir system, having the oligarchs and commercial firms

arguing it out, and on the other end we have Legal Aid cuts and

magistrates courts cutting down? There is a difference between

commercial litigation where people pay for the cost, I think they

should, and other areas where you have a considerable amount falling

on the public purse, at a time when we have to reduce the deficit and

every area has to make a contribution. People are not being

supported. I think we can promote London as a legal way forward. I

don't accept the position about the European Court of Human Rights.

didn't think you would. I don't think that affects the integrity of

our courts system. What or who was London 2012 secret

weapon. Here is the week in 60 seconds.

Hello, hello, hello, could it be time called at Scotland Yard, the

Met needs to deliver savings of �500 million, and proposals this

week could see the force move out of the HQ to a smaller building in

Whitehall. To London Bridge Station, which is coming down. Rail bosses

announced a �700 million rebuild, which will run until 2018, meaning

years of disruption for passengers at London's oldest station. Mayor

Boris Johnson's approval of the redevelopment of Walthamstow's dog

track, has made cabinet member, Iain Duncan Smith, furious. IDS

says his Chingford constituents wonder what is the point of Boris.

Lord Co-identified Cherie Blair London's secret weapon, she

apparently launched an attack at Jacques Chirac for criticising

British cooking. Her intervention at an IOC reception made Jacques

Chirac scar perks allowing the Prime Minister to push the case for

-- scar per, allowing the Prime Minister to push the case for done

lon. You two enjoying the case that Cherie Blair was scaring Jake. We

saw a bit of the selling off of the silver! We have police stations and

fire stations. In my constituency we have two of my fire stations

under threat. Both of them. I heard somewhere someone trying to justify

it by them saying we are going to go for the modern stations and

close down the old ones. I have the oldest station, they are going to

close, I have a modern one, and guess what, they are going to close

that one too. It isn't about the amount of time it will take for a

fire engine to get to your house, it seems to me to be about selling

off the silver. Keeping down cost, by just flogging things off. We end

up with no fire stations in Islington. Do you think this is the

right way, shutting fire stations? It is very dangerous? It is not

very dangerous at all. The reality is her statutory to requirement --

there are statutory requirements a fire brigade has to meet about

response times, they have to have an integrated risk management plan.

That, I think, can be delivered, where you put the fire station, or

where you put Scotland Yard, can be flexible. Because it makes sense to

maximise the value of what is sometimes a very expensive bit of

property. Look at Scotland Yard. It is a very expensive office block in

London. A quick point to both of you, when you get rid of stuff

people worry things are moving from their community? The expensive

areas will end up with no fire stations or Police Stations, you

will have sold them off because they are expensive. If a fire

starts in Islington there will be no fire stations. You have office

blocks like Scotland Yard in central London. You two can carry

on for a I will whoo.thaus to awe the guests. -- for a while, thank

you to all our guests, back to Andrew now.

In a moment we will look ahead to the big stories that will dominate

politics neck week with our political panel -- next week, with

our political panel. First the news at noon.

Good afternoon, the US presidential candidates are heading into the

final two days of campaigning. With the outcome still too close to call.

The latest ABC News, Washington Post survey, suggests that bau, and

Mitt Romney are level with 48% of - - Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are

level with 48% of the vote. matter how bad a storm is, we

bounce back. No matter how tough times are, we are all in this

together. We rise or fall as one- nation and as one people.

A final push for votes, as the clock particulars towards Tuesday's

-- ticks towards Tuesday's vote. Pauark is saying for more --

President Obama is asking for more time to make the change. His

challenger Mitt Romney is not letting up either. Both candidates

trying to fantically attract undecided voters, in what are

called the battleground state. The economy the big issue of the

election. The question of this election comes down to this, do you

want more of the same, or do you want real change. President Obama

promised change, but he could not deliver change. I promise change, I

have a record of achieving real change. The two contenders both

have a punishing schedule ahead of them today. President Obama will go

to New Hampshire, and then to Florida, and on to Ohio. Mitt

Romney will go to Iowa first, then the crucial staid of Ohio, and from

there to Pennsylvania. In this vast country, millions of American have

already cast their ballots in early voting. I'm voting for President

Barack Obama. Why is that? Because President Barack Obama, is making

some changes. I feel like with Obama being in office for this next

election things will change and be better for America, regardless.

An opinion poll today put the two candidate at 48% of the vote each.

With just two days of campaigning left, this election is still too

close to call. Previously unseen texts between

David Cameron and the former News International boss, Rebekah Brooks,

have been published by The Mail on Sunday. The messages are from a

series of texts and e-mails handed to Lord Justice Leveson during his

media standards inquiry. Labour has challenged Mr Cameron to publish

full details of all the material. The Children's Commissioner for

Wales has backed calls for a new inquiry into the abuse of children

at care homes in North Wales, in the 1970s and 1980s. The

commissioner says he suspects a group of people were protected by

each other's power, enabling the abuse to continue. Snow has been

falling in the south west of England, covering parts of Somerset

and Wiltshire, in up to three inches of the white stuff. Viewers

have been sending in their pictures of the snow. It has already caused

some disruption on the roads, as well as a suspended bus service

this morning. That's all the news for now. There will be more news on

BBC at 5. 50pm. Back to you, Andrew. Who will thrive in the presidential

race on Tuesday, are David Cameron's backbenchers uncrownable

over Europe. These are the questions for the week ahead.

-- uncontrollable over Europe. These are the questions for the

week ahead. Now the American election coming up, there was an

October surprise, it is called Superstorm Sandy, and it has had an

impact on the presidential election to Mr Obama's benefit so, far. This

is the Republican Governor of New Jersey, whose state was savageed by

the storm, Chris Christie, this is what he had to say. He has worked

incredibly closely with me before the storm hit. This is our sixth

conversation since the week yeped. It is a great -- weekend. It has

been a great working relationship to make sure we are doing the jobs

people elected us to do. I cannot thank the President enough for his

personal concern and compassion for our state and the people of our

state. It should be pointed out he may be candidate in 2016, so the

cynics among us would say it suits him if Mr Romney doesn't win. So

far the storm, it was the October surprise, that no-one saw coming.

Has it helped tilt Mr Obama into victory? I take the rather

unfashionable view that I think the impact of the storm is being

overstated. Of course it matters if Chris Christie, the Republican

Governor of New Jersey, the keynote speak at the Republican convention,

saying nice things about Barack Obama. Of course it is significant

if in the final hours of the election Mitt Romney is not getting

on to TV. But this idea that people are looking at Barack Obama and

saying isn't the President doing well, and isn't Mitt Romney

irrelevant. I think forgets the fact that, guess what, the American

people know that Barack Obama is President, and they know that Mitt

Romney is an ex-gor nor, they know that. Those -- ex-governor, they

know that. I think Barack Obama is attacked for not being as

bipartisan as he could have been. The Republican governor praising

him works in his favour. None of these significant events matter as

much as the structural and fundamental aspect of the election.

The big news of the week was job news, slightly better than thought.

Nobody outside people like us will notice. I don't think it has been

covered enough in the British media, is this Superstorm Sandy is still a

moving story. Staten Island, the forgotten borough of New York is

shades of Katrina about it. Millions of people can't get petrol

and still haven't got power. It could turn on the President in the

next 24 hours? It could, but what I have been struck by, is the amazing

photo coverage there has been for Obama. You know, the pictures of

Obama, hugging people, the pictures of him looking so statesmanlike. I

think it is really a spin doctor's dream for him. Provided it doesn't

get worse? That is absolutely right. Where did it go wrong forb gush,

Katrina he looked e-- for gush? Katrina he looked really bad. It is

going exactly the right way. Back here we saw the defeat for the

Prime Minister on the European budget. Of course, they are now at

each other's throats, this is what a senior Conservative backbencher

had to say. Colleagues on this side of the House have a choice, we are

either going to support the Prime Minister, or not support the Prime

Minister. If colleagues are not prepared to support the Prime

Minister, every time they go into a division lobby, different to that

of the Prime Minister, they are weakening the Prime Minister's

negotiating hand in Europe. So, is party discipline over? I think he

has a point. The Tories are becoming increasingly ungovernable.

I don't think they are completely ungovernable. On Europe they are?

What if the spirit goes from the issue of Europe and contaminates

other areas of policy. We have Autumn Statement coming up, what if

on tax and spend they become increasingly vocal and disloyal.

The problem for Cameron is he can't keep on indicating manania,

tomorrow, tomorrow, I will do something about Europe at some

indefinite point in the future. He's aware of that, that is why we

will hear a big speech from calm ran where he will set out the

vision for the relationship with Europe. He needs to do that to stop

the temperature boiling. The fact is Mr Cameron's support on the

backbenches has always been skin deep any way, he haven't favours to

call on? He's thought as aloof, there was support from Sir Tony

Baldry, he was speaking from the heart I'm sure. This vote last week,

there was a rebellion and the Government lost, the reason the

Government lost was because the Labour Party voted with people who

want to leave the European Union. What will be interesting is this

budget, if there is a deal, of course there will be a deal, at

some point next year. That will have to come to the House of

Commons, what will the haep do if they don't -- Labour Party do if

they don't get what they want. Mr Farage catching up on his

expenses? I think he will be, he's too clever to have made a serious

mistake there. Europe will rumble on for the rest of the year,

causing Mr Cameron problems? It is interesting in a coalition

Government the biggest fault line is not between two parties but one

party. We will have to leave it there. That's all for this week. We