16/10/2011 The Politics Show London

This week on the Politics Show: As the fallout from the Fox affair

continues, what does his departure mean for David Cameron and the

Government? And does it prove that money still buys access in British

politics? We'll hear from minister Grant Shapps, Shadow Defence

Secretary Jim Murphy and the Euro- sceptic Tory backbenchers. I'm in

Brussels awaiting the opening of a multimillion euro exhibition

explaining what the European Parliament and EU is for. Amidst

this awful crisis, could the UK's relationship with Europe be about

to change radically? We'll debate the issue with UKIP leader, Nigel

Farage. In London this week, how easy is it to sell stolen copper in

the capital? Give me �400 for half a ton and to give him a call back.

It was a done deal. Why the police want a new law to bring dodgy scrap

Joining me throughout the programme journalist and author Eve Pollard

and Times columnist, Phil Collins. First, let's get the latest news

with Maxine Mawhinney. Good morning. The international

protests against what demonstrators see as greed and mismanagement in

the World Banking system are continuing. In several cities

across the world, hundreds of people are camped out on the

streets N London, protesters spent the night outside St Paul's

Cathedral. The vicinity around St Paul's halls

new residents today. And there's a notable police presence.

financial industry is not acting in the interests of the general

population. That's why I'm here. It's a lot calmer in London than it

was in Rome last night. The Italian capital saw the most violent and

destructive protests, as black hooded youths appeared to hijack

otherwise peaceful demonstrations. New York's Times square was also

occupied by protesters, describing themselves as representatives of

the 99% of the population, which they say, has been forced to bear

the brunt of the mistakes carried out by the wealthy 1%. The backdrop

to these protests is the ever fraught situation in the eurozone,

which threatens to turn an already weak global economy into an even

worse recession. And that could increase dramatically the number of

people demanding change, Democratically or otherwise.

The Foreign Secretary, William Hague, has said legitimate

questions have been raised about political lobbying. In the light of

the resignation of the former Defence Secretary Liam Fox. Dr Fox

allowed his friend, Adam Werritty, to organise meetings away from

officials. Mr Hague said a report would be out in a few days and he

dismissed allegations Dr Fox was able to pursue an independent

foreign policy. The idea that it's possible to run a completely

separate policy by one minister is a fanciful idea. The foreign policy

of this country is said by me and the Prime Minister, working through

the national Security Council, pursued by 140 ambassadors in 260

embassies and kopbs lats. It's a huge operation. One advisor or non-

advisor, whatever he may have been, to one minister, isn't able to run

a totally different policy from the rest of the Government.

Wiltshire town of Wootton Bassett will formally receive a royal title

in a ceremony this morning. It's being recognised for its dedication

to honouring Britain's war dead. Princess Anne will represent the

Queen. Our correspondent Jon Kay, is there now. This is an important

recognition for the town. How is it being received? With enormous pride

today. The letters of patent signed by the Queen, which officially make

it Royal Wootton Bassett, will be unveiled by the Princess Royal.

That will be unveiled at lunch time. People started waiting here behind

the barriers, queuing up for a place in the crowds. Look at them,

that was 7am this morning. Many of them have union flags, with special

new heraldic cests created for the town. They are waiting the length

of the High Street there. It's a huge turn out. They've turned out

so many times over the last few years for repatriations through the

town. People say those fallen servicemen and women, those

families are still very much in their minds today. They say this

isn't a celebration, but they say, it is a chance to show some pride

in themselves, as well, and finally a chance here to smile.

New Zealand are through to the Rugby World Cup final. The

tournament hosts beat Australia in this morning's semi-finals in

Auckland. They won by 20-6, to set up a meeting with France, who beat

Wales yesterday. Despite nearly always being the favourites, the

All Blacks haven't won the World Cup since the very first tournament

in 1987. That final, next Sunday. That's it for the moment. Back to

you. In the beginning the story was a

bit weird, a 33-year-old man travelling the world with the

Defence Secretary and visiting Liam Fox regularly at the MoD. The

special advisor who wasn't. Where it became more tricky for Liam Fox

was when people started chasing the money. That led to strange and

exotic locations. Phil Collins, in a sentence, could you say why Liam

Fox has resigned? He's resigned because of the money. It was weird

and peculiar up until the point where the Times story about the

money landed. At that point, if you find 10p of a money trail, Liam Fox

is in big trouble. What we've got now is we still don't understand it

by any means. There's all sorts of money flying around and peculiar

influences and all sorts of people involved, but to have someone with

defence interests, who appears to be paid by someone other than the

taxpayer, offering advice to a minister, as for as we know, it

goes over the line in impropriety. Is this washing over the public's

head a bit? I think it sort of is because the financial situation is

so bad. But I think people are aware, there is this charmed circle

up there somewhere, where this man could travel round with the Defence

Secretary and nobody put their hand up and said, "Isn't this weird?

Isn't this strange?" This morning there are stories of having drinks

and costing �28 each in Dubai. When you have a nation worried about

spending money on yoghurt at the supermarket, which is where we are

now, they do think "do we care? "do we want another report to cost us a

lot of money. How damaging has it been for David Cameron? It's really

interesting for Cameron. It tells you something about the pace of

modern politics. The Alastair Campbell rule has been cited a lot.

If something goes for ten days you're in trouble. David Cameron

has just sat back and allowed it to unfold. You might say that's very

calm, athoritative leadership. The Labour Party has been onto him

saying no it's slow, you have to get onto it. He's come out of it

rather well. Liam Fox has gone, which is the right decision. But he

hasn't sacked him. Fox resigned himself. The right of the party

cannot have any recriminations because Cameron has allowed Fox to

take his time. He hasn't sacked him. He's given him every chance to

prove that the relationship isn't a wrong one, which he's been labelled

to do. So not particularly damaging. I think it damaged Blair when he

cast people out so quickly, partly because of Alastair. He looks like

a nice guy. That's a perfect cue. We can speak to the Shadow Defence

Secretary, Jim Murphy, who joins us now from Glasgow. Very good

afternoon to you, good morning, sorry. We're on earlier today.

Thank you very much - We're still in the morning here in Scotland.

Picking up on that, what they were saying, that David Cameron has

played this absolutely right. not sure that's correct. David

Cameron had Liam Fox into the office at Number Ten I think early

in the week. We need to know what that conversation was. Did Liam Fox

tell David Cameron the full truth? Or did he hide some of the truth?

He told him the full truth about money, influence and the breaching

of the ministerial code, then David Cameron should have acted. That's

what the inquiry's about. inquiry is about Liam Fox and Adam

Werritty an the points of the code. It's clear there are wider issues

at stake, access to money, access to influence, money off the books,

money undeclared, influence. We need to follow the money trail and

see where it leads us. What are you proposing? I think that once Sir

Gus O'Donnell has concluded his work, there's a case for a wider

inquiry. Let's look at the issue of the Atlantic bridge. A charity

which has been wound up. Liam Fox was a patron of. Four other Cabinet

ministers were on the advisory Council of the flick Bridge. That's

an organisation we know little about, yet five Cabinet ministers

were involved in it. It seems, in its politics, it seems to be a

second cousin to the American Tea Party. Aren't you just asking for a

wider inquiry because it keeps bad headlines at the forefront for the

Conservative Party and isn't this what induces cynicism about British

politics? There is a lot of cynicism about British politics,

particularly about money. It's not the existence of money that cupts

politics. It's the hiding of the money, the secret slush funds and

money off the books. We have no evidence that Atlantic Bridge has

done anything wrong, and yet you're suggesting by implying there needs

to be a wider -- inquiry there's something murky going on. Atlantic

bridge itself was closed down not by the Cabinet ministers involved

but by those who receive the rules on charity. I've said throughout I

would rather discuss the Government's defence policy than

the Defence Minister or former Defence Minister. But this is a

self-inflicted crisis. Liam Fox brought it upon himself. David

Cameron act quickly enough and the investigation is too narrow. We

still don't even know the terms of reference of Sir Gus O'Donnell's

inquiry. But you say last week that the Government has shown how out of

touch it is by spending the last week worrying about how to save

Liam Fox's job. The Prime Minister has set up an inquiry, which you

called for. He's giving it time. Marked contrast to the way things

were happening as we were just hearing there, you know, under the

Tony Blair regime, where you had two days of bad headlines and

people were kind of taken out and shot and then to Tony Blair's

regret afterwards. I don't think that's a fair comparison. The fact

is - Why not? Why is it unfair? This saga has draggened ond --

dragged on and on. The initial inquiry that Sir Gus O'Donnell will

carry out professionally is a narrow one. You believe in summary

justice? There are issues much wider than that now about who else

knew what was going on. No-one really has any sense really that

no-one had any idea what Liam Fox and Mr Werritty were up to on a

professional basis. Five Cabinet ministers on that Atlantic Bridge

organisation, is Liam Fox the only one who knew what was going on and

the purpose of that money and what it was used for? I don't think

anyone believes that. In terms of summary justice, I was criticised

during the week for not demanding Liam Fox's head on a plate. He saw

the facts. He knew the facts and decided he had to go. Was your

attack bluntsed because, I no it's all declared in the register of

members interest, you took money from Cellcrypt to play for a trip

to Washington. What is the Shadow Defence Secretary taking money to

go to America from a commercial organisation? I personally didn't

take any money, the Shadow defence team as part of our policy review,

we travelled to the United States to meet senior American politicians

on the left and right of American politics and many others. That trip

was sponsored by a variety of people, including one of these

companies. It's publicly declared F Liam Fox had been open and

transparent in the way we have been, perhaps he wouldn't have been in so

much trouble after all. Don't the public see whether it's declared or

undeclared, you taking money and thinking "What on earth are defence

contractors doing paying for the Shadow defence team to go off to

America?" I think in Opposition you don't have access to that vast

source of public money to carry out your work. As I said earlier, it's

not the existence of money in politics that corrupts it. It's

money off the books, it's pretending and hiding the facts. We

did an entirely proper way, that's the right thing to do. There we

must leave it. Jim Murphy thank you. Liam Fox's resignation rounds off a

tough couple of weeks for the Conservatives, with the party

lurching from one PR disaster to another. Tory spin doctors must be

wondering "Where is it going to end?"

A fortnight ago Britain was Basqueing in an Indian summer and

the Tories were gathering for the annual conference in Manchester, in

confident mood. But the 14 days since have been among David

Cameron's worst, since moving into Downing Street. First, the Home

Secretary Theresa May's conference speech on the Human Rights Act

sparked an almighty row. May's Cabinet colleague Ken Clarke

ridiculed her claim about a cat as "nonsense". Then David Cameron had

to rewrite his own speech, after the original draft suggested that

people should pay off their credit card debts, not a message designed

to boost economic growth. Another Cabinet minister, Oliver

Letwin had to apologise after being caught disposing of constituents

letters in a park bin. I do apologise because I do understand

that constituents may feel that I shouldn't have allowed their papers

to be in that bin. Worst of all was the Liam Fox affair. The Defence

Secretary ordered an investigation after questions were raised about

his relationship with Adam Werritty. Then, on Monday, he appeared before

MPs to apologise. I accept that it was a mistake to allow distinctions

to be blurred between my professional responsibilities and

my personal loyalties to a friend and Mr Speaker, I am sorry for this.

I have apologised to the Prime Minister, to the public and at the

first opportunity available, to the He is the first Conservative

minister to leave the Cabinet. The easy days of summer are a distant

memory. With us in the studio is the housing minister, Grant Shapps.

It has been a torrid couple of weeks. Have you become accident-

prone as a government? I do not think so. Government is not always

plain sailing. Clearly things happen that are often outside your

immediate control. You have to respond to them. These things come

and go and I suspect by the next election we will not be speaking

about them. But it is showing something about the Government not

having a very sure touch. This thing with Liam Fox and the Oliver

Letwin thing as well, extraordinary. At conference, one weekend a half

ago, we were not speaking about it. You cannot plan every single

activity in government. If we did, you would say that we were media

managing government in the same way that Tony Blair used to be. Could

you have done with more media management over the past couple of

weeks? I think the Liam Fox situation has been quite

interesting. Newspapers have tried, or have run stories every single

day. A process was put in place by the Prime Minister, quite correctly,

and he said, let's let Gus O'Donnell, the Cabinet Secretary,

carry this out. We will make a decision from there. Liam Fox said

he recognised the lines were blurred and he decided to leave. It

has been a straightforward process, there has been movement and I think

that Philip Hammond will do a great job in defence. I wonder if the

accident-prone nature of this is perhaps damaging to the

Conservative brand? It seems to have reinforced two stereotypes.

Oliver Letwin, the amiable toff who goes around absent-mindedly

discarding constituents' letters in a rubbish bin in St James's Park.

Then you have Liam Fox, consorting with strange billionaires,

soliciting funds. I do not agree at all. If you look at the really big

things that are going on, and this week there have been far bigger

issues to do with the Eurozone, the dangers there, and the fact that

the Chancellor has been meeting with the European Finance Minister.

Even in defence, and I notice that Jim Murphy is keen to speak about

that, you have got to remember there was a �38 billion black hole

in defence spending going forward. Those are the things that Liam Fox

was sorting out. How will people feel when the read about what Liam

Fox was doing? Can you explain it? Liam Fox is said that he allowed

the lines to blah. The fact that he wrote to the Prime Minister and

resigned, he accepted that it did not look can feel right. We will

have the Cabinet Secretary's report earlier this week. That is true,

but it does not change the reality of day today, there is a lot of

work which goes on that will not stop. Take me through what it is

like being a minister? Can you understand how it was possible that

he had his seemingly separate private office? It is important for

ministers to try in separate parts of their life, but it is not always

easy to do. You have very restricted time. The temptation to

say, I have a busy day, but I would like to see my family, they will

see me at lunch time if they happen to be around, that sort of thing,

weight is the cut-off point? I suspect things became blurred in

this case. Do you think it would be possible in your department to have

an operation running like Liam Fox's? This can be over exaggerated.

Today there is an extraordinary story saying that there was an

alternative foreign policy brief going on with the self-styled

adviser. This is silly. There is a Foreign Office with 160 diplomats

and the Foreign Secretary. There is no way that one individual could

have that great an influence, no matter how good friends they are

what one minister. He was clearly operating a separate office, that

is what was going on. He was on the same page as Liam Fox. Is that

acceptable when you have got an independent civil service there to

offer advice? We have seen a variety of different stories in the

newspapers, so you cannot say clearly. THEY ALL TALK AT ONCE We

understand enough of what has gone on to make a pretty clear a guest

of what has gone on. Liam Fox is said that the lines got

blurred and he stepped down. He has not said there was an alternative

foreign policy our defence policy. I was interested in Jim Murphy's

comments that in opposition he needed to formulate any defence

policy. He went off to the States and it was paid for by one of these

private companies. This Atlantic Bridge thing was in opposition. Jim

Murphy made it sound like it happened in the last week. It did

not. The idea that there is a separate policy running is probably

untrue. We should not judge it on the basis of newspaper headlines,

but through the Cabinet Office report. Do you think you officials

would have known? I think it is a strong case and that the Cabinet

Secretary will want to do this, say, what was the private office saying

at the time? I am sure he will look into that. Could you imagine having

something like that with your private affairs? Everyone's

relationship with their own private officers, the people who look after

your interests in Parliament, the relationship is a very one to one

thing. Everyone's relationship is slightly different. I can imagine

my private office having a range of conversations with me about all

sorts of topics. We have heard David Cameron saying that you need

to set up a register of lobbyists? Should that happen more quickly?

11,000 people were registered for the Tory party conference, but only

4,000 were Tory delegates? Ministers have a great

responsibility. When I get a letter from a lobbyist on behalf of a firm,

I ask why the company is not contacting me directly. With in any

sector, ministers are there to be contacted if you want to get a

point across. Do not use lobbyists, do it yourself. Do you think you

need to bring forward the time when you introduce this register?

need complete transparency. As soon as you have transparency, it all

becomes much clearer. And in light of all this, the sooner the better?

My view is that the path towards complete transparency is

unstoppable. It is happening anyway. Before next May? In the Prime

Minister will look at what Sir Gus O'Donnell says and makes his

decision based on that. Would you like this to happen sooner? I think

that everything you do in government, you should be

transparent. I do not think that using lobbyists is a good way for

organisations to lobby government. They should be done as soon as

possible. Surely someone would have liked Adam Werritty's constant

attendance is faster. I do not understand why the private office

did not say. Why did they not say, we are worried about this, what is

going on? There is a feeling that everything is not joined up. We do

not know what was said and what wasn't said which is why the

Cabinet Secretary is looking into it. We need to wait until after

that report is produced. We cannot let Liam Fox get away with the idea

that he was not cultivating links with other regimes. He clearly was.

The people he worktop -- BP plus he was talking to in the Sri Lankan

regime were quite a aid of the mainstream foreign policy. He was

stupid and unrealistic as well as wrong. Some of the other things

were ridiculous. The idea that he was fostering relationships with

Republicans in the US, Atlantic Bridge stuff, you would expect him

to have good relationships with people in the US. What do you make

of that? Referring back to the earlier... THEY ALL TALK AT ONCE

All the politicians want to stop newspapers.

After one week of newspapers doing the dirty work if everyone, they

are very important. Of course, but let me caution in this way, we do

not want the newspapers making decisions about what actually did

happen. They can make accusations, but the stories in newspapers this

morning in my policy area, absolutely wrong end completely

incorrect. If I only took a conclusion based on newspapers you

would always come to do wrong conclusion which is why any the

cabinet secretary. Later in the programme, what made Europe and our

relationship with it look like once the dust settles on the Eurozone

crisis? Nigel Farage and one of Dr Fox's Euro-sceptic friends on the

Tory backbenches will join us then. First of all, The Politics Show

where you are. Good morning. This week, later on,

we are looking at the phenomenon of copper been stolen in and around

the capital. Is tighter regulation of scrap metal dealers on the

cards? First, the level of knife crime in London is heading in the

wrong direction. The latest figures show that in the four months to

August this year, the number of incidents was up 17 % on the same

period last year. How mum -- how much of this is happening in

London's schools, not much, probably, but it is difficult to

tell? Carrying a knife on our streets is inexcusable in a

civilised society. We're proposing that anyone convicted of knife

crime should expect to go to jail. Strong words from the Prime

Minister in 2008, but three years later, the tragic consequences of

young people carrying knives can be seen clearly.

A teenager has been repeatedly stabbed... At 15-year-old boy

stabbed to death... The Politics Show asked all 33

London boroughs how many weapons had been seized in their schools.

Only three could give us any information for the past five years,

including Richmond, who have had 59 weapons seized in their schools

There were a total of 470 exclusions for incidents involving

weapons in the last five years. The Department of Education told us

this... Schools are under no obligation to provide figures for

the number of weapons confiscations. We need a combination of things. I

think that laws need to be more stringent for crimes were knives

have been used. When someone is caught using a knife or a gun, the

punishment needs to be severe and swift. The question remains, if the

government or local authorities do not have any figures relating to

weapons in schools, how can they formulate an effective policy to

tackle the problem? Joining used to raise appears, the

Labour MP for Erith and Thamesmead, and Danny Kruger, chief executive

of a charity which works with sex offenders.

Are you surprised, do you think that schools should be collecting

data, for weapons discovered on their premises, and giving it to

local authorities? I think they should be doing that, because the

first step to finding a solution is accepting there is a problem. Until

you know the size of the problem you cannot take steps to make the

problem go away. It is really important to have information. My

constituency is Bexley council which is one of the safest boroughs

in London according to statistics, yet a young boy was murdered there

on his way home from school a couple of months ago. For that

family it does not matter it is the safest bar. Do you know how many

weapons or do you hear of many instances of weapons being found on

school premises? No, that information is not readily

available. They recently put metal arches up in the Broadway, the

congregation point for secondary schools in Bexley. It can be quite

lively there when you have three or four schools all coming out at the

same time. They have tried staggering the timetable, but they

now have metal arches. But they have not found any knives on

anybody. But not from the most recent figures I have seen. It was

a Labour strategy, to give schools more power to search pupils when

they were coming into school? They introduced that and some schools

did introduce knife Archie's? Do I think schools should do it if

they want to. If a young person can't feel safe in school, that's a

terrible failure on the part of the system, which is looking after them

for the hours that they're there. Actually, most crime happens

outside school. Most violent crime certainly happens outside school.

While I think it's right for schools to prevent children

carrying weapons, all that happens when you do that and the reason

there probably aren't knives going into those schools is the young

people who otherwise would would carry them is hiding them. They did

a sweep in Camden, the local area, the parbgdz, and they found dozens

of weapons hidden in bushes because, not because of schools, but because

the police recommend powered to stop and search anybody who might

be carrying a weapon. Clamping down on carrying a knife is important,

and I'm all for it. But we must find out why they feel they need to

in the first place. I know head teachers resent the implication or

suggestion that there are weapons or knives in schools. Is it

exaggerated? Is it the case that most pupils know that it would be a

stupid thing to take it into, but they keep them close by? I think

that happens. I think quite a lot of teachers are in denial about the

extent of crime among students. They might behave well in school.

Thank God for that. A lot of teachers are trying to preserve the

reputation of their school and denying the existence of real

serious gang involvement, drug dealing going on by the students on

the streets. Would you want to see, what are you saying, that young

people need to know if caught with a weapon what should happen

automatically? I'm all for mandatory sentences and tough

across-the-board rules clamp down on carrying knives. Fine with us

being tougher than we are about carrying knives. We must not think

we can arrest our way out of the problem of serious youth violence.

Yes, young people need clear signals. If all we do is lock them

up, all we're doing is turning a generation into criminals. We can't

do that. That was the message from your leader of course. Two things

have to be said at once, and it's difficult because there's only room

for one headline. Can you say both things. The first thing you have to

say if you're in charge of the Government and a public figure is

to say we're going to clamp down on violence. After the riots, this is

criminal behaviour, we have to stop it. There has to be the second half

of the message that these people need help as well. And we can't

arrest our way out of the crime problems. Where do you stand, David

Cameron indicated or said that there -- he wanted to see this

offence aggravated knife carrying and said before the election there

should be a mandatory prison sentence if found in possession of

it. Some MPs, including Enfield Conservative MP, want to see that

extended to 15 to 18-year-olds. If you were found with a knife it's

mandatory that you receive a custodial sentence, what do you say

to that? I think when both David Cameron and Boris Johnson made that

pledge I was angry because I thought this is just political

posturing. They're talking to an audience who want to hear that. But

it's not that simple. It's, what I want is, as it currently stands now,

if you commit an offence with a knife, you get a longer sentence.

But I don't want people carrying them in the first place. It's to go

back to the longer term and do exactly what's been said here. You

need to look at what are the problems that cause these children

to be stabbing other children. I've spoke ton lots of secondary school

children who come into school on educational visits, the boys in

particular, when you say "What's the thing you like least about

school?" They don't say the home work, uniform or the teachers, they

say getting to and from school. They fear that. Because they don't

know who has a knife. It certainly looks, Danny Kruger, that David

Cameron has resisted. He doesn't want to give Nick de Bois and David

Burrowes their way on that. He doesn't want to commit himself to

jailing everyone. So do you think he understands the messages or the

important thing here is to deal with the underlying, trying to stop

them carrying in the first place? It's inindividualious to

distinguish between a clear deterrent about carrying a knife

and addressing that. My feeling about the carrying is that the

mandatory sentences, I think 15 is probably too young. You have a lot

of silly kids who think they need to carry knives because others are

carrying them. They don't need to and they're not going to use them.

However, a clear signal about this is a very serious offence,

certainly anyone threatening or using a knife in an intimidating

manner needs to be punished. There shouldn't be this mandatory effect

then because someone may well be, they're possessing that knife and

in possession of that knife because of fear, for defensive purposes.

It's counterproductive to think about putting them... I don't want

15-year-olds in a detention centre because they have a knife on them

because they're terrified of the bus journey. We have to solve the

problem of that 15-year-old being terrified in the first place. It's

a much bigger problem. There's no quick fix. It will take a long time.

Thanks very much for coming in. Now, it's the new gold, copper, and

it's rapidly rising -- its rising value is making it attractive to

criminals. The railways are particularly vulnerable. Most of it

is flogged to dodgy scrap metal dealers, there needs to be tougher

regulation of the said trade. Is that feasible?

The price of copper has increased five fold in the last decade and

this is the result. Thieves stealing cable from railway tracks.

Incidents like this are increasingly common in London and

can cause hours of delay and commuter misery. The Politics Show

has learned that it's not just the railways. Public services all over

are affected. Air traffic control at Stansted were hit and two

hospitals St George's and St Thomass. Entire bus stops have been

taken and even police communication system have been affected. These

incidents can impact things like the police radio. There are fall-

back FA sits. We can bring those into -- facilities. We can bring

those into operation. Once the fall-back facilities are in place,

you think, what's the fall back to the fall back? How easy is it to

sell? We decided to find out. With the help of British Telecom we set

out with telecommunications cables. This is the older type cable. Our

colour codes are unique to us. Thieves are so good at stealing

this cable, we've heard a story about people in uniforms having the

road dug up, taking it out of the ground. It was only when a proper

BT engineer drove past and realised that no-one should be digging up

the road that they clocked no-one should -- that they were nicking it.

Much of it is clearly marked, BT only dispose of cables through an

authorised supplier and not just a random bloke with a bag full of

wire. The bloke in question is Howard. He's a member of the

Politics Show team who is going to see if he can get anyone to agree

to buy it. I wanted to sell some copper cable. Would you be

interested at all? The first attempt was unsuccessful. I'm back,

and the guy clearly said that he couldn't accept the copper piping.

It clearly had BT labelled on it. The second dealer said the first at

first, but changed his tune when Howard rang back. If I strip it

down and bring it back, would I be able to sell it to you. Give me a

sec, mate. Is this (BLEEP)? I just got given your number from a guy

(BLEEP), I was speaking to him. He passed on your number. He looked it

over and he said it was fine. He realise today was not legit. He

asked me where I got it from. He said it was important to know where

I got it from so he wouldn't sell it in the same area. He said he

would give me �800 Perton. So it would be �400 for the half ton and

give him a call back and it was a done deal. Senior police want to

see tougher regulation and powers to close dodgy dealers. We visit

scrap metal dealers day after day. Some are clearly operating outside

the law. They're not registered with the local authority as they

should be. We would like to be able to close them down and ask them to

apply it a magistrate or something like that to give them the

authority to trade. The Government say they're looking at whether they

need to tighten the law, but as yet, have made no promises about what

they might do. Joining me Dyan Crowther, director

of operational services from network rail and Ian Hetherington

director of the British Metals Recycling. What do you want to see

happen, more licensing, regulation, how would it work? First, it's a

big problem. It affects thousands of passengers on a weekly, daily,

monthly basis. It's a growing problem. We want to make life

tougher for the thieves and to get the illegal scrap dealers, the

rogue dealers, put out of business. We need to remember there's a lot

of honest scrap dealers out there. What we don't want is regulation

that affects their business std. We need to focus on the illegal ones

and not make it tougher for the people who want to earn an honest

living. Before we start debating that, you said it is a growing

problem, suddenly, perhaps it's just that we've started to read

about it a lot, but it seems to be happening an awful lot now,

suddenly, is that true? It's suddenly hit London. So clearly

when it hits London it becomes bigger news. It's been a phenomena

across the rail network and in other industries for the last five,

six years. We have a of experience in terms of responding to it. We've

done a lot of initiatives. We've put a lot of investment, time and

resource, but it's not had the impact that we've wanted. It's not

going away. We need some help. want more licensing and more

regulation. We've heard Dyan say doesn't want to tarnish the

reputation of the good dealers but need to identify the bad ones.

Would you accept that the industry needs greater regulation? I accept

that it needs to be reformed, the existing regulations are outmoded

and out of date. The trouble with regulation is that if we don't have

effective enforcement of existing regulation, then, frankly, the

enforcement of new regulation, new law will be no better. Is the

present liepsepbsing system good enough? What changes do you want to

see? The current licensing system isn't good enough. We can see that

in terms of the increase of the number of cable thefts is ais cot

network. Why isn't it good enough? Because it's not obligatory for you

to be licensed or there aren't enough people working for local

authorities or the police checking for legitimate dealers, what's

wrong there? Resources is clearly an issue. Certainly, it's also

around the sentence inside of things. We've worked very hard with

Magistrates' Courts around the country to make sure that

Magistrates' Courts understand it's not just about cable theft, it's

about the chaos that this actually occurs. And not just on the rail

network but the impact on the economy. In effect, you think it

might be outmoded, but the powers are there, people aren't doing.

Correct. We would join Network Rail in asking for tougher sentencing,

without doubt. Yes, we want existing regulations enforced. We

want to see illegal traders closed down. We want to see those that are

unregulated and where the existing regulation isn't being enforced

closed down. They provide unfair competition and they provide an

outlet for stolen materials, such as the cables stolen from Network

Rail. You don't actually see change to the licensing, just people

taking the existing set up more seriously. There needs to be a

change to licensing and regulation, but ahead of that, we need to see

the enforcement. Because our members are faced with losing

substantial volumes of legitimate business by tougher rules, which

they will inevitably abide by, without there being effective

enforcement. What would you like police to be able to do now?

like it see police able to go into scrap yards and have the power to

close the scrapyard down. They don't necessarily have that at the

moment. They do in some circumstances. Do they need prima-

facie evidence of a crime? police have the power to enter any

licenses scrap metal dealer. They don't have the power to enter an

unlicensed scrap metal dealer, which is a nonsense. We would agree

totally. They need the powers to enter any of these and yes, if

they're in breach of regulation, in breach of the law they should be

closed down. One suction being made is that you should end -- cashless

transactions, no end cash transabgsz, there should be a

cheque. Do you agree? That's one of the options that we've looked at

and put forward. Is that practical? We would ebb gauge krb engage with

a discussion around cashless trading. Would your members agree

to no cash, agree to bank transfers or whatever? Today they would lose

probably 50% of their legitimate cash business. It is a very

substantial amount of business. This is a �5 billion a year

business. You wouldn't want to go for cashless transactions?

industry will engage, if the enforcement precedes the regulation.

Otherwise, then the business will drift out to the existing illegal

operators, who will continue to trade in cash. Have you, are you

making the case to Government and at what level and are there any

signs that anyone's listening? we are making the case. But it's

not just Network Rail making the case, because it's not just our

industry affected. So we're working with other victims of cable theft

to put a case to Government. signals coming from people? Yes,

signals definitely. Railway signals. Very good! Yes, we are getting

positive signals. We are getting some engagement. Clearly, it's a

big area. There's a lot to take into consideration. But we are

engaging. Do you feel you're getting any sense that there is

We would anticipate moves on enforcement, before regulation.

Welcome back. Maybe, just maybe, the Eurozone crisis is heading

towards its endgame with next week's EU summit being trailed as a

decisive moment. Another one! But how profound is the crisis and what

will the repercussions be for the EU and our relationship with it? We

sent Giles Dilnot to Brussels to find out.

On a bright day in Brussels, the European Parliament opens the doors

of its all-singing, all-dancing 21 million euro new visitor experience,

explaining what the EU is about and what it's for.

Amidst the appalling crisis that is engulfing the Eurozone, the message

in Brussels seems to be, let them eat cake. This is a massive crisis

on a scale that the European Union has not seen before just because

there are hundreds of billions, if not trillions of Euros at stake.

Potentially it is every bit as bad as the Post Lehman situation. But

worse. It is the most serious crisis the EU has faced in its 50

year history. It is possible that the euro will break-up and that the

EU itself will not survive the break-up of the euro.

generations to come, people will say, thank God, Britain did not

join the euro. So now the narrative is not whether

we join a currency, but how, amidst this crisis, the UK still gets the

economic benefits of what remains a vast and valuable single European

market without a Euro collapse handing us our own Greek tragedy.

Here, the message is of an established union of 27 member

states "united in diversity", but when the dust final settles on the

current Eurozone crisis, might the Eurozone and indeed the EU itself

look rather different? My own guess is that in the long run Greece may

well prefer to leave the euro. There is a good chance that no one

else will want or need to leave, but that requires two things to

happen. Firstly the Germans and the other rich countries have to come

up with lots of money for a bail out fund to convince the markets

that they are serious about keeping Italy and Greece in the euro.

Secondly, countries such as Greece and Italy need to adopt sensible

policies that will improve the performance of their economies. The

Spanish government has adopted such policies, but the Italian

government is still playing games. It may be better for a few

countries to excited rather than trying to keep the whole thing

together with all this pathetic contradictions, trying to keep it

on its feet until the whole thing comes crashing down.

But rather than fragmentation what seems oddly more likely is even

closer financial integration of the tax rates, spending, and debt

levels of 17 core Euro economies, a plan voiced by a UK government

happy to keep well out. What these very impressive

multimedia, multilingual information guides won't tell you

in any language is that some see the current crisis as an

opportunity for Britain to redefine its relationship with Europe.

Whether the coalition does that as a spectator or a full participant

is the source of a great deal of disagreement. I have never accepted

that you cannot renegotiate the region relationship with the

European Union. People should stop being so defeatist about this. If

we have a government that is clear about what it wants, it just takes

a government that puts its fate down until it gets it. This is a

golden opportunity for the Government to think through what it

is we want the European Union to be doing in the 21st century, what we

wanted not to do and how we should order it.

Coalition partners, however, are not so sure. I think they are

trying to offer something that does not exist, you are either in or out,

you cannot renegotiate things that have been negotiated. It is things

-- it is like free beer and longer cigarettes, it does not exist.

But for one party sitting in the real European Parliament, rather

than this virtual reality, the choice between the UK as sideline

spectator or full participant is a false one. We should just get out.

A move the Conservatives haven't made, claims one new defector to

Nigel Farage's UKIP because Europe is hard-wired into the system.

establishment in Whitehall believes that Europe is here forever.

Therefore the advice that comes in to the Department, the Secretaries

of State and the ministers, and into the Prime Minister's private

office and everything else, is essentially, in my opinion, pretty

heavily tainted. I wasn't Whitehall for quite a long time. -- I was in.

But time is short for politicians. They have a week to argue over how

this might end, a closer hug or a messy goodbye. Merci au revoir.

Very quickly afterwards, whatever those in Brussels hope for, the

markets will deliver their verdict. So is it now time for Britain to

re-examine its relationship with Europe? With me in the studio is

the Conservative MP Nadhim Zahawi, who is a member of a new Tory group

that wants what they call a "clear plan" to take back powers from the

EU, and UKIP leader Nigel Farage, who is head of the UK Independence

Party. Do you see this as a golden

opportunity to renegotiate power as? I think we all agree there will

be a paradigm shift in the structures of Europe. The Eurozone

countries will have to integrate fiscally further. I think we can

use it as an opportunity to say that we will support you, but in

return, we want to repatriate powers around social and employment

legislation. William Hague kicked it into the long grass this morning

when he was interviewed by Andrew Marr. The repatriation of powers to

this country is not an immediate prospect, I am in favour of it.

said he is in favour of it. What he is really saying is that the

priority today is to deal with the imminent crisis around the Eurozone

countries. By the way, we also passed a piece of legislation that

says any treaties that require more power to go the other way have to

be put to a referendum. He made that point this morning. He's

saying that we should deal with the crisis first. What do you make of

that? This is a pro EU government. Since they have been in power, many

powers, the control of the City of London, the setting up of a new

external action service for the Union, all of these things have

happened. This is a government led by David Cameron who promised a

referendum on this question. We want to have a say on this, the

public. On Friday and met with 400 businessmen and not one of them

said to me we want a referendum today is to be out if you're it.

They said that they need to be in there to export to that market, 40

% of their exports go there. What would you say on a referendum?

question is simple, do we want to trade deal our membership of a

political union? Two-thirds of this country want a trade deal and

nothing more. We have been saying this for three decades. Before we

get bogged down, do you think that there will, no opportunity to

repatriate powers, and do you believe that the EU will say, of

course, have them back? Off course that, but there will be an

opportunity. There will be a paradigm shift in the structures of

Europe. To get through the crisis they will have to fiscally

integrate. Do you believe the David Cameron and William Hague are

pushing for that? They are looking to help with the current crisis,

but when the time comes I will want to repatriate powers around

employment and social legislation. I think we can do that. When people

get the chance to vote in the Commons, do you believe there will

be a vote in the Commons on there being a referendum in Britain being

in or I it? I think if you go through the logic of the debate I

will be saying, this is the wrong time to have a referendum. So you

will be voting no? Absolutely. What are you going to say to the public?

We want to make sure the single market works. 400 businessman said

to me on Friday we do not want to be out. It will harm our economy.

To have a referendum to pull-out if you it would be political suicide.

Euro-sceptic viewers listening to that will be thinking, you have

made the case for me, I will vote for UKIP? Not at all. People in

this country, businessmen and women, understand the importance of

exporting. To rebalance the economy we have got to export. These are

hopelessly out of date arguments. Norway and Switzerland trade with

Europe without being members of the Union. You must be terrified that

they achieve this? They are not going to do it! Cameron and Hege

committed to the European Union. They are true believers. They made

the odd Euro-sceptic nice to try and stop people voting UKIP. If you

are a Euro-sceptic thought to, if you want a referendum, UKIP is the

party, not the Conservatives. did you make about the departure of

Liam Fox, not the rights and wrongs of it, but in terms of the balance

of the Cabinet? He will be missed, but Justine Greening was a Liam Fox

supporter. John Redwood sounded very down in the mouth about it

yesterday. Having read what he said about it, all I would say is that

what David Cameron has done is that he has got all parts of the party

in the Cabinet. Andrew Mitchell ran David Davis' campaign. Is the cat

made Euro-sceptical enough? Look at William Hague. -- is the catmint.

William Hague is the most respected and sound on Europe. He is now

promoting closer integration for the Eurozone. It is the most pro EU

Tory leadership since Edward Heath. That is a UKIP panic attack. No, I

think it is correct. Time for me to stepping. Thank you, gentlemen, for

being with this. -- with us. And that's it for this week.

Yesterday morning, the St David's flag flew over Downing Street, and