11/07/2011 Daily Politics

Afternoon, folks, welcome to the Daily Politics, on the day when the

prospects of Rupert Murdoch taking over the whole of BSkyB are getting

slimmer and slimmer. Labour is threatening a Parliamentary vote on

the matter on Wednesday, and Culture Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, has

this morning written to Ofcom and the Office of Fair Trading to ask

for further advice on allowing the takeover. Almost everybody thinks

the Government is looking for a way to stop the takeover. What will Mr

Murdoch's next move be? After months of wrangling, the Government

is finally about to release its public services white paper,

promising power to the people. We'll examine the details.

And we'll bring you tales of drunkeness and debauchery from the

Why don't we get invited to those parties?

I have never seen that! All that in the next half hour. With us for the

duration, journalist Simon Jenkins, welcome to the show. Rupert Murdoch

has flown into the country to give his support to Rebekah Brooks, who

is likely this week to be interviewed by the police.

Meanwhile, it has emerged this morning that Culture Secretary,

Jeremy Hunt, is writing to Ofcom and the Office of Fair Trading to

ask for further advice on whether there should be an inquiry. I also

heard yesterday that they've just commissioned a new series of Dallas.

I don't know why they bothered. There's much more intrigue, double-

dealing and corporate bad behavious at Wapping.

-- bad behaviour. Here's Adam Fleming with a round up of the

story so far. Here are the comings and goings

since your last tuned into The Daily Politics. Gone, the News of

the World, 5 million copies were printed of the last ever edition.

Coming, Rupert Murdoch touched down in the UK for a show of support for

his top executive and former News of the World editor, Rebekah Brooks,

and to see what effect his -- the scandal is having on his bid for

the trunk of the satellite broadcaster BSkyB, which he doesn't

already own -- the truck. Walking into Nick Clegg's office, the

family of Milly Dowler, whose firm was allegedly hacked. The Deputy

Prime Minister had this message for Mr Murdoch. I would say, look how

people feel at honest. Look out the country has acted with revulsion to

the revelations. So do the decent and sensible thing, and reconsider,

think again about your bid for BSkyB.

Arriving in the Commons on Wednesday, a motion to that effect

from Labour, which is getting support from many Lib Dem MPs and

some Tories. But potentially tromping that is a letter winging

his way to the communications regulator of Comp, from the Culture

Secretary, Jeremy Hunt -- Ofcom. Asking for fresh advice which could

put the kibosh on that takeover. The advice I already have is that I

should allow this deal to go ahead. But obviously in the last week, we

have had some horrific revelations which I think have shocked everyone.

I am writing back to them and saying, do you still stand behind

the advice you gave me before, that this deal should be allowed to go

ahead, or are there some new facts which have emerged that will cause

you to change that advice? knows what the next headline will

be in a story that's changing by the minute.

It is indeed. Simon Jenkins has worked for News International, he

knows the media scene back to front. It is pretty clear that if the

government can find any possible way of stopping or delaying this

together, they will do it. Yeah. ain't going out and if they can

stop it. The politics is all over it now. They will do that and there

are ways of doing it. Whether it matters is a different matter. It

has become so toxic politically that they have got to do it.

Labour Force did to a vote, it probably won't go to that, I would

suggest Mr Cameron would have difficulty whipping his own side --

forced it to a vote. He would lose This is increasing his shareholding

in a company he already runs. A bigger story than famine in East

Anglia -- East Africa? It is leading every news channel in

Britain. You don't think we should? This is a commercial rival. The

media are not dispassionate in this story, it is a masher -- matter of

commercial rivalry. It is a watershed. Since Harold wasn't,

prime ministers, or those who have wanted to be Prime Minister, have

paid abeyance to Mr Murdoch -- since Harold Wilson. That ain't

going to happen again. Yes, it will. Insofar as papers have power, media

groups have power. They will do it again. Nothing will change.

don't think that Mr Murdoch has become such a toxic figure that a

politician would be better to try to get elected by saying he has got

nothing to do with him? We can remember when he was a toxic vigour

before, he has been all his life. He has never been a toxic figure in

the way that it is because of the phone hacking. This week, yeah. And

last week. We will see. I am not sure you are right on that. Tessa

Jowell, good to see you. At what point did you and Labour decide

that Mr Murdoch's ownership of so much media was maligned? I think it

has been a continuing preoccupation, and when I was Culture Secretary, I

made sure that the Communications Act had a provision in it to

safeguard plurality, in the light of convergence, and to address

precisely the kind of situation that we are in today, with News

International wanting to acquire BSkyB. As Culture Secretary, you

relaxed the rules on media ownership in this country. No, I

made it easier for local newspapers to own up local radio stations.

relaxed the laws, you made it easier for mergers and cross

ownership of different kinds of media to happen. That was one of

the purposes of the bill. I remember covering it at the time, a

lot of people didn't like it. we safeguarded the fact of

convergence, that people would read newspapers online. The threat to

local newspapers. With the plurality provisions, to ensure

that the number of voices and the range of views still predominated.

An interesting rewriting of history. I don't think so. You were

presented by the Information Commissioner with a report that

showed the illegal gathering of information was rife in British

newspapers, it was endemic, and the News of the World was not anywhere

near the worst. Why did the last Labour government do nothing about

that? We certainly should have done. Why didn't you? I don't think there

is any good reason to explain why we didn't do anything about it. We

certainly should have done. Because you were in bed with Rupert

Murdoch? No. I think this is overstated. The focus now is on a

news organisation which appears to have committed, in a pretty

systematic way, a number of criminal acts. I think you have got

to create a bit of sense of proportion about the inevitability

that politicians like me and Bonn will have relationships, with

newspaper editors. But will continue. It should be motivated by

the public interest and not other interests. The relationships that

New Labour had with Rupert Murdoch and his people were on a different

level to relationships I have with various governments. Let me bring

in Don Foster. You have got clean hands because Rupert Murdoch never

thought you mattered and didn't want to waste his time dealing with

the Lib Dems, who he thought were useless. You now have a free hand

to do what you want. Am I right in saying, in so far as I can divine

it, it is your party's policy that this takeover must not happen?

don't want it to go ahead, that is certainly true. I am concerned

about this rewriting of history about the Labour Party. 1996, John

Major tried to control ownership of the media, when in opposition, the

Labour Party opposed that, and Tony Blair flew over to America, to see

Murdoch. We then had... Tessa says in 2003, they wanted to put

plurality rules in. You didn't, it was only your backbenchers in the

House of Lords who forced that upon you. You have done some rewriting

of history as a, it was Australia he flew to, but never mind. --

history yourself. I think events may make the vote below --

irrelevant, but if it is a vote, will the Lib Dems vote against it

one last? The real problems we all face is we all know what we want to

achieve, the question is how you can do that. The issues to do with

the competition arrangements in relation to the takeover are dealt

with by the European Commission. The issues to do with fit and

proper persons are dealt with an independent regulator, Ofcom. The

issues to do with plurality, the range of voices, is in the hands of

one person in a quasi judicial role, the Secretary of State. The

question is, what can Parliament do that will achieve the end that we

and the public want. I understand all that. Just be clear from the

Lib Dems, you will split from your coalition partners, if need be, on

this issue. We will do what we can, to prevent this merger going ahead,

and to all of the inquiries have taken place, if we can do it

legally. We can't go round and say other people have been acting

illegally... I understand that. If it need be, you will vote with

Labour? If the motion is one that delivers what we want and provides

a legal route of doing it, that is likely to be... I haven't talked to

my parliamentary colleagues yet, we have got to have those discussions,

but I imagined that is what we are likely to do. All right. Your

leader, Mr Miliband, has taken quite a lead in this and set the

pace. Is he not running a huge risk, having Tom Baldwin as his press

secretary? Of News International. He was recruited from The Times, as

Bob Roberts was recruited from The Mirror. It is a good thing to have

as your head of communications, somebody with frontline media

experience. The mayor has also been up to quite a few dodgy ways of

getting information -- The Mirror has also been. Is it sensible for

someone who would like to be Prime Minister to surround themselves

with red-top tabloid journalists? Tom Baldwin was not a red-top

tabloid journalist. The chap from The Mirror was a. He was a

journalist of repeat from The Times. Who has been accused of using

someone to break into Lord Ashcroft's bank account.

allegation which he has emphatically and categorically

denied. So did Andy Coulson. think that this is a very

dangerous... If I can say, improper line of questioning. An allegation

was made in the newspaper yesterday. Tom Baldwin has flatly denied it,

he has denied it to me and to the leader of the Labour Party. We put

the same 0.2 the Tories about the employment of Andy Coulson. -- the

same point to the Tories. Where does this line of questioning take

us? When the truth comes out... are saying that in denying this

allegation, Tom Baldwin is not telling the truth. I am saying that

Mr Coulson denied many allegations And journalists shouldn't work for

government. I have always thought that. It always ends in tears. It

ended in tears with Alastair Campbell. The people who should

work for government are civil servants. Bernard Ingham was a good

press officer. He was a civil servant. We are on one side of the

fence, they are on another side. And we should not jump over the

fence. It always leads to this kind of mess. I think the whole thing

has blown way out of proportion. The Andy Coulson affair was clearly

sad, a lot of people are advised Cameron, including myself, don't

get a red top editor in your office. I am afraid, I just think they have

all got mud on their hands. We are going to have to leave it there. We

have run out of time. We asked for someone from the government to talk

about this, including from the Department of Culture, Media and

Sport, but surprise, surprise, nobody wanted to come on. I don't

know why. This afternoon, David Cameron will

unveil his long-awaited plan to reform public services. I say long-

awaited - in fact, this white paper has been delayed for months because

of furious rows within government about the plans. Despite all this,

the Prime Minister says he remains committed to transforming the way

public services are delivered and ending the "top-downm "take what

you're given" culture. So, Anita, will he get his way?

Citizen Cameron wants to give "power to the people" with his new

public services white paper. In a speech this afternoon, he will say,

"The old dogma that Whitehall knows best - it's gone. There will be

more freedom, more choice and more local control." The white paper

will mean that the state is no longer the default provider for

public services. Instead, outside organisations, like charities,

community groups and private companies, will be able to bid to

run things like local health services, parks and libraries. The

plans will also allow personal budgets so individuals can buy

their own services. And there will be more payment by results, to

encourage markets to develop across the public sector. The white paper

was supposed to have been published in February, but the initial plan

provoked a huge backlash from the unions, who accused Cameron of

driving a Thatcherite-style privatisation agenda. The initial

plans also sparked rows within government, between Cameron's

policy guru, Steve Hilton, and some senior Conservatives and Lib Dems

who had doubts. Andrew. Tessa Jowell, the Shadow Cabinet

Office Minister, is still with us and I'm also joined by the

Given the difficult birth of this White Paper, will it be stillborn?

I do not think so. This creates a blueprint for the way we want

public services to work in the future, to create an opportunity

for diversity of provision and the people to take responsibility for

running their own services. There are two nurses in my constituency

who set up a community health partnership and are running a lot

of community services in Mid Surrey better than was the case previously.

That kind of model offers a blueprint for the way we can

continue to deliver public services. But we entrust the poet --

professionals to do it for us. can you assure us that your Lib Dem

colleagues in the coalition are 100% behind these plans? Absolutely.

We are bringing forward the white paper together this afternoon. It

has the endorsement of both coalition partners. So the Lib Dems

have not been kicking back in the formation of this White Paper?

Lib Dem philosophy has always been about decentralisation. They have

always been about local control and devolution. That did not work with

health reform. I know what they stand for, but are you telling our

viewers today that this comes with the wholehearted endorsement of

your Lib Dem coalition partners? Yes, if you look at the things we

are doing with the free schools policy and the work programme, the

devolution of responsibility of welfare to work to third-party

organisations, saying to them, you deliver what works, and we will pay

you. Why did it take so long to see the light of day? It is a

complicated policy. You want to make sure you get it right. There

has been plenty of discussion on that. The two parties have one

thing in common, which is a desire to devolve and decentralise, and a

belief that the old adage of government knowing best is not

quite. Tessa Jowell, your party in government was in favour of

competition. Mr Blair used to complain that he was not allowed to

do enough devolution. Why have you changed your mind? We have not

changed our mind. However, I have not seen the white paper yet. There

are three things that concern us about this. Firstly, there may be a

lot in the rhetoric on which we can agree. But the test will be in the

detail of how this is applied, specifically, perhaps Chris can

give us assurances on this, that competition by price will not

feature in the White Paper. Not at all? That it will not feature as

the defining criteria for decentralising services to third

sector organisations. Price is a factor, but so is quality. We look

to both the quality of provision, not dictating what it should be,

but seeing what people's ideas are, and then looking at price. But the

reason the health service reform had to be knocked back was the

insistence on competition by price being the driving force for

commissioning healthcare. In the health service, you want both

quality and price. Within the health service now, some hospitals

operate more efficiently and can offer a comparable service at a

lower price. We do not want to see a third party commercial

organisations coming in and exploiting the health service for

profit. And similarly community services? But within the health

service, if you have a group of nurses who can take over the

community service they operate and deliver it at a lower price, that

is a good thing. I had a second question. You have already had two!

Let's see what Simon says. It is probably the same thing. I am a

fanatical localist and I have read the same document from both parties

for year after year. Hazel Blears' White Paper was identical. The nub

of it is privatisation, not localisation, and there you have

problems. PFI has been a mess. Some of it has worked. Serco do good

work running the congestion charge and so on. But other services are

not benefited by privatisation. There are two different concepts.

In focusing on the cliche power to the people, what does it mean? It

does not mean power to local government. It does not mean

devolving power to raise taxes locally. It is a vague concept of

the community and neighbourhood, which hazel Blears had the concept

of, and Tony Blair and Gordon Brown liked it. Let the localist - it

does not mean anything. And your third question? My third question

is about the stuff that was briefed yesterday, that schools and

hospitals, under this new set of proposals, would be allowed to fail.

Can you assure us that schools and hospitals will not be allowed to

fail because of their commercialisation? Simon is asking

what is different. Free schools are something we have already started.

That is a radical new departure, saying to parents, if you believe

you can run a school better than the school down the road, you can

do that. I expect that the free schools to take pupils away from

the failing schools if they are good. And will the other school

therefore close? I am confident that we will see improvements in

standards across the board. But logically, if a failing school

comes under pressure from a school that is doing well, that may happen.

You have run out of questions. will have my chance later. Both of

you should come back again. All this arguing is enough to drive

you to drink. That seems to be the case for MPs and their researchers.

In the bowels of Parliament, there is a place, a bar called the Sports

and Social, where they do not play sports. And sometimes things are

anti-social. It is a place where the hard working parliamentary

staff can let off a bit of steam. But it seems they might have been

overdoing it a bit, and in a bid to stop raucous behaviour, Black Rod,

no less, has limited the number of guests allowed in.

In the Palace of Westminster, that icon of sober democracy, trouble

has been brewing. In Parliament's Central lobby, you get what he

expect, the guilt, the grandeur, the statues of past politicians.

But right under my feet is a part of hidden Parliament, the Sports

and Social bar. And down there, things have been going a little

awry. # But all I found was cigarettes

and alcohol. The Sports and Social baris in the bowels of the building,

behind the trash compared to, to give you an idea of what it is like.

It is like an old working man's club. It smells of booze. It has a

trophy cabinet and boards telling you who is the darts champion.

There are MPs' researchers, about 3000 of them. The rest are staff of

the house, maintenance workers, cleaners, catering staff. They make

up the largest client base. It is a place where the researchers can go

and bring their friends. What went wrong? They became a bit too

enthusiastic about bringing their friends in. In the last Parliament,

there was a bar where the Tory researchers used to drink. And the

Sports and Social was whether Labour researchers would drink.

of the staff bars was closed down recently, so it was an issue of too

many groups of people using the same bar. There was a problem with

the researchers having a bit too much to drink, forgetting that

their guests were only guests, and they were leaving people without

passes to wander around full of drink. Blackwood has ruled only two

guests per member of staff on certain nights. There is an urban

myth that it is a subsidised bar. It is not. They have lower

overheads, but prices are set at market rates. It is important for

both researchers and MPs that they have places they can go and relax

with colleagues without the public listening over their shoulder.

her Black Rod's rules observed, that allows insiders to continue to

drink for Britain. As Chris Grayling was leaving, he

said, I do not even know where it is. Two people who do know where it

is are two Westminster veterans known to have the odd swift half in

the parliamentary bars, Labour's Austin Mitchell and Kevin Maguire

from the Mirror. Austin Mitchell, what kind of bad behaviour has

there been? Very occasional fights. In my time, two MPs fell down the

steps going home. One suffered brain damage, and that was

noticeable -- not noticeable, of course, in the Commons. One of the

Tory whips was something of an alcoholic. We used to get a

uproariously drunk. But drinking happens far less now. We do not

have all-night sittings any more. And there are more women. Some have

died of alcoholism. Allegedly! Kevin, it begs the question, why is

there a drinking club in the bowels of Westminster? You are meant to be

working. They are supposed to be off duty when they are there.

Whether they are is another matter. It is to keep them on site. Do you

think pubs want these parliamentary researchers? You get the sense that

there is a lot of pressure and they need a place to let off steam. Was

it a mistake to close down one of the bars? De new Tory lot are very

thirsty. One of them collapsed and could not vote. Allegedly. He was

poured into a taxi. I know he did admit it. But it is nothing like it

used to be. I do not know why they do not ban drinking altogether.

They have banned smoking. A male guest collapsed recently. His wife

came to pick him up, and she collapsed. There was a lot of

drunkenness. There was less drinking when I arrived at the

House of Commons, a long time ago, than there was at the BBC. Nobody

drinks now. We have no hospitality here. We did not even give you

water today. The main drinking used to be where the journalists went.

Tony Blair used to have a whisky and half a bottle of wine, and

thought he was becoming an alcoholic. They are sadly out of

time. I say thanks to all our guests.