01/05/2012 Daily Politics

We We find News Corporation covered up a cover-up of its law breaking.

Its most senior executives misled Parliament and the two men at the

top, Rupert Murdoch and James Murdoch who were in charge of the

Good afternoon. Welcome to the Daily Politics.

In a scathing report into the News of the World hacking scandal, MPs

accuse Rupert Murdoch of being not fit to run a major international

corporation. The Culture Media and Sport Committee says the Head of

News international acted in wilful blindness and criticised the

company of huge failings of corporate governance. We will have

the latest. I see a risk that City Hall will be recaptured by a bunch

of semi reformed trot skiists and car hating, newt fancying, tax

dodging banker dodging hypocrites. We will be talking to the man

himself. Dragged to the Commons yesterday to

defend Jeremy Hunt made Dave an angry. We will be asking if the

Culture Secretary is is safe or not? Was he good or bad? 15 years

after he came to power, your verdict on Tony Blair.

He started off well and with good intentions, but ended up not very

good at all. Well, all thea in the next -- that

in the next hour. With us is Charles Clarke, he was in charge of

the Department of Education. Welcome to the programme.

Let's look at the report from the Culture Media and Sport Committee.

Members of the committee read out a pre-prepared statement a few

minutes ago. Here is what the chairman had to say.

The committee went on to conclude, but only by a majority vote that

whilst there was no definitive evidence to prove whether or not

James Murdoch was aware of the For Neville e-mail or indeed other

evidence which indicated that phone hacking was more widespread, the

committee was astonished that he did not seek to see the evidence on

which the decision to pay the settlement to the Gordon Taylor

case was based. The committee also went on, again to conclude by a

majority vote that corporately the News of the World and News

International had misled the committee about the true extent and

nature of the investigations that they claimed to have carried out in

relation to phone hacking. And that they had failed to disclose

documents which would have revealed the truth. As a result of these

various attempts to mislead the committee, the report that we

published in 2010 was not based on a fully accurate picture. Well,

that was the Chairman of that committee and the BBC's deputy

political editor, James Landale is here. It is a devastating report,

particularly it seems having just seen the headlines for Rupert

Murdoch himself, where they state that he is not a fit person to

exercise the stewardship of an international company? The expect

expectation would be that the focus would be on James Murdoch and his

role in the whole affair and criticism of former News

International executives and that criticism is there. The bombshell

statement of opinion by the committee saying that Rupert

Murdoch himself is not fit to run a company is out of the blue. And the

political political significance of that is huge. Let me explain why -

the committee was not unanimous on this. It was partisan. The Labour

MPs voted for it. The Conservative MPs apart the chairman voted

against it. The Liberal Democrat swung it in the right way by voting

with the Labour MPs and in the statement that is the members of

the committee have just made, those partisan differences have been in

full show and I think the political risk and danger for the Government

now is that you will have images of Conservative MPs saying, "We did

not agree with the statement that Rupert Murdoch was not a fit and

proper person to run a company." And that's a darning for -- danger

for the Conservatives. This will go to a vote in the House of Commons

whether or not to endorse this report. The four Tory members of

this committee have not endorsed this this report.

What about in terms of the Murdochs and their global empire. How big of

a hit and how much of an impact will it have on that? Well, a huge

reputational impact, the mother of Parliament asserting this. This

will have headlines across the world. This will be hugely damaging

for them in terms of the reputation, but what does it mean in the short-

term? Ofcom are investigating whether or not Rupert Murdoch is a

fit and proper person to hold all the shares in BSkyB. Ofcom said

they have noted the report this morning. Let's wait and see what

their judgement is. And Harriet Harman was the person

who said that broadcasting licence should be taken away. Do you agree

with that now we have had that report in in terms of how the

committee felt? I agree with James about the political implications

and I have felt for a long time that Rupert Murdoch was not a fit

and proper person because of the way his papers were being run. But

the formal definition, "Fit and proper person is one that is a

legal definition and has to go through proper legal assessment. I

haven't studied the full report of the committee, but I think the

Ofcom process has to work its way through.

Briefly before you go, James, you know, the report concludes that

Rupert Murdoch turned a blind eye and exhibited wilful blindness

about what was going on in his companies. That That goes far in

saying, "They misled Parliament" but not quite in terms of the

individuals, corporate misleading, but not Rupert and James misleading

Parliament, is that right? There are definitions about how you

mislead Parliament and various former News International

executives have been accused of misleading Parliament over bits of

evidence they gave. What the committee found it harder to do is

pin it precisely on James Murdoch and say, "Did he actually mislead

Parliament?" But corporately they conclude that yes, Parliament was

not told everything that they knew as corporately was going on.

James Landale, thank you very much. It is time to look at another of

the candidates for London mayor and today, it is the turn of Boris

Johnson. Here are the things he is promising in his manifesto. He says

he will cut waste and City Hall. He pledges to create 200,000 jobs over

four years and promises to have 1,000 more police on the beat.

Boris Johnson claims he will reduce Tube delays by 30% by 2015 and says

he will invested �221 million into transforming local high streets and

supporting small businesses and Boris argues that his contacts will

allow him to secure a better deal for London from Number Ten. Mr

Johnson had an eventful campaign so Last night, we became the first TV

crew allowed into the inner sanctum of Boris HQ

Tonight, Boris Johnson is importing a campaigning technique from the

United States that effectively allows him to have a Town Hall

meeting by telephone with 50,000 Londoners all at the same time.

If you would like to ask a question, press star three and we have 1500

people queued up. Along with his campaign brain from Australia, he

took calls for an hour. I am actually a daily cyclist. I

love cycling. I am passionately believe in it. I want to see it

expanded. All done in a style we have grown

used to since he launched his bid for re-election.

I see a risk that City Hall will be reformed by car hating newt

fancying tax dodging banker bashing hypocrites and bendy bus fetishists.

A row that culminated after that debate on a London radio station

with Boris launching an ex- employeetive filled -- expleattive

tirade in a lift. You have got to get this on the air.

Stuff Donovan. (BLEEP) What has Boris got against us journalists?

How much is a loaf of bread? It depends what you are buying, but

I got one yesterday, �1.49. It sounds about right

right. How much is a pint of beer? Whether he is on the phone, on the

stump or on the TV, he has always Let's hope he gives me an easier

ride then. He is campaigning in Bexley Bexleyheath and and joins me

now. Can we get a reaction from you? We have had this devastating

report from the Select Committee of MPs, the most devastating bit is

saying that Rupert Murdoch is not a fit person to exercise the

stewardship of a major international company, do you

agree? Well, I I haven't had the benefit

of seeing that, report, Jo, but if I digested your report correctly,

it is a divided opinion. Let's study it.

You don't back the report, even though it is divided, you don't

back that headline that he is no longer a fit and proper person to

run that company? Well, don't forget, I'm here out in

Bexley where I'm running to be Mayor of London and getting my

message out to the people of the city about what I can offer and the

plans I have and it is not number one on the list of people's

concerns here today. I can see a queue developing behind

you. What about the queues at Heathrow. It seems there has been

an emergency meeting, and what are you doing about it because the

images look terrible? Well, as I've said to the Home Office and the UK

BA this is something that does affect Britain's international

image. We have got to make sure that we process passengers through

immigration more speedily and we've got the Olympics coming up. I know

that the Home Secretary takes this seriously and the UK BA will be

getting on top of it, but it is vital that we do so. It is

indispensable that we have the aviation capacity at Heathrow to

deal with the economic growth that we all want to see and one the

pitches I'm making to the people of London if I may try and move it on

to the mayoral election is that I believe I am best placed to get the

funding that we need for this city, to invest in creating 200,000 jobs

which are funded in housing, transport, regeneration and also to

keep that funding coming from Government. I'm here in Bexley

where we have been able, go on... That is your pitch. Let me return

because you said yourself what happens at Heathrow is very

important for London and the Olympics. What does the Home Office

need to do? They cut border staff, was that wrong?

Well, I don't know the details of the operational management of the

UK BA. Business over the last four years, the international business

community and people in the City made the point to me that they want

to see Heathrow putting on a better face to the world. I think Terminal

5 has been a great success, but more work needs to be done and

clearly, there is a problem that needs to be cracked at the moment.

But, you know, if I may humbly suggest to you, I have got two days

to go until a critical mayoral election and it is vital for this

city and what I was going to say is I do think that I'm the right

candidate to deliver the investment for the economic health of London.

Here in Bexley and what I was going to say crime is down by 19%. That's

an extraordinary thing to have done in tough times. We've got more

police out on the street, about 1,000 more than there were when I

was elected and what we're doing now, we're putting 2,000 into the

safer neighbourhood teams to drive down crime.

Let's talk about transport since we were talking about Heathrow. You

promised that you would negotiate a no strike deal with the unions, but

there have been more strikes. Why have you failed on that? Well,

actually if you look at what has happened, we have taken some

strikes though the numbers of union members taking part in the strikes

has fallen. But still more strikes under you? What we had to do was in

institute some quite difficult reforms of the Tube to take some

cost out and move the system forward and my pledge to Londoners

and therefore, there were strikes which I am afraid we had to tough

out and get on with and we did go ahead with the reforms and my

message to Londoners is we will continue with that programme of

reform and improvement and investment.

But no chance of a no deal strike? In the next four years, to

modernise and automate the Tube, I think that's what Londoners want to

see. I don't think they want to be left behind by Paris or Singapore

and we can go forward with that in a way that I don't think other

candidates could. Boris, do you accept that

introducing driverless trains is going to lead to more strikes and

strikes are not what Londoners want. You didn't get a no strike deal.

You haven't talked to union leaders. There were 20 Tube strikes during

your four years and 16 under Ken, do you think your problem is you

don't negotiate successfully in order nor does Transport for London

No, on the contrary. What we have had to do is institute some

difficult reforms that were necessary that I'm afraid Ken

Livingstone totally failed to grip. We have done that and we will go

forward. I think actually you say there will be industrial problems

as a result of this, I think that hard working members of London

Underground staff look at these plans, they see the potential for

investment in the Tube network and recognise that if you modernise,

you expand the network, you get trains moving faster through the

tunnels, you increase capacity and actually improve the service and

you are able to employ more people. All right, let's talk... Common-

sense people see the advantage of that. There may be some anti- union

barons who resist it but I think they need to recognise the

advantages of what we are proposing. What about the cost? What about the

buss? Ken Livingstone promised to take the price of a single oyster

bus journey back to 2010 prices. Are you worried about the costs?

Yes. That's why we have not only kept every concession that

currently exists, we are extending it now to apprentices, people

who're in our expanding apprenticeship schemes and also

maintaining the 24-hour freedom pass for everybody over 60. What

I'm doing is getting Londoners off the age escalator that Labour put

them on so that as soon as you turn 60, man or woman in this city, you

will get a 24-hour freedom pass. Further more, we'll now negotiate

with the Train Operating Companies so that the freedom pass, the 24-

hour freedom pass works on the trains as well.

Why have you introduced the most expensive bus in the world, the new

Routemaster, costing �11 million? Well, that's I'm afraid complete

nonsense. What is? The opposition know it's not true. Let me explain.

Is it not the most expensive bus in the world? No. Almost? No, none of

these new buses are, no. None of them cost any more than the current

hybrid bus. Once you factor in the fuel efficiency, it saves about

�8,000 a year, they come in cheaper. They are a wonderful machine. The

house for Londoners is simple - do they want to go forward with a new

bus that is incredibly fuel efficient that has far less

emissions, that is clean, green, that has cutting edge British

technology that's built in this country, delivers British jobs and

the hop-on hop-off platform that was wrongly taken away or do they

want a bendy bus blocking the traffic which lost every year

almost �8 million in fare evasion and was known as the free bus. If

they want to go back in that direction I would like to know. But

that's not what they are Delling me. The Sunday Telegraph claims a Lord

Ashcroft poll claims 4% of black voters identified were

Conservatives. What is your message to black voters?

My message is the same that I give to all Londoners. I believe there's

a difference between me and the former Mayor, Ken Livingstone, and

that is I'm a Mayor who unites or tries his absolute best to unite

this City and bring people together. I don't look at Londoners as

divided up into this or that section or group. I don't try to

play one group off against another. I'm here to unite the city. There's

a specific criticism that your manifesto fails to mention black

voters other than in the context of crime. Do you accept that?

No, that's not true. No. Jo, if you had taken the trouble... Well, I've

got it here. You haven't got the whole thing. Hang on.

Overrepresented both as perpetrators and victims of crime

with a disproportionate number of black people affected by serious

youth violence. 86% of gang members are of black Caribbean ethnic

minority. That is painting them in a negative light. Do you accept

that? No, there's plenty of other stuff in this manifesto, the full

version of which is here now, which discusses what we are going to do

for all communities in London. I really commend the whole document

to you. By the way, just back on policing, I'm very proud to say

that under me in this Mayorality, we have more black officers in the

Met, we are going to go on with that programme and make it possible

for people to enter later in their careers so that we have a police

force, Police Service that better reflects London and therefore

carries the trust of the overwhelming majority. Boris

Johnson, is David Cameron a vote winner for you or a vote loser?

I think people - I'm sure all sorts of people win me votes or lose me

votes but... What about the Prime Minister, the leader of the

Conservative Party, is he a vote winner or loser? Obviously a vote

winner. This is something that is... Is he? This is something that will

be decided on my programme for improving this City and taking

London forward. Not the Conservative... When they look at

what we've done and what we are offering in modernising our

transport network, to investing 200,000 jobs, in delivering a 10%

cut in council tax. Yes. But Boris... Council tax by the way

which went up by �96 4 for a band B under Ken Livingstone. I think

people at this election can see a very, very clear difference between

our programme, my programme, what we are offering for Londoners over

the next four years and the programme there. That is the choice,

between going forward or going backwards. All right, but has the

Conservative-led Government been a drag on your polling? The proof of

that particular pudding will be in the eating in less than two days'

time. I know that for everybody I talk to on the streets of London, I

hope that people are listening to what we've got to say about taking

our City forward, about building a great future for London through

transport investment, housing and regeneration. People say, am I

different from the Conservative Party, am I different from the

Government, you know, to get to the heart of your question, and the

answer is yes, in the sense that I will go into bat for London, I will

go in to fight for London budgets. I don't care if plaster comes off

the ceeling in the Treasury, provided we get the funding that we

need -- ceiling. Only in the last couple of weeks, we got �...

going to have to stop you... Another �90 million for policing

and I'm going to fight for London. Thank you very much.

Charles Clarke, there is this strange situation that Boris

Johnson, who wants to be the next Mayor, and carry on his reign in

London is more popular than the Conservative Party and Ken

Livingstone, Labour's candidate is less popular. Did you think that it

was the right decision to keep Ken Livingstone as the candidate?

I've never rated Ken and I wouldn't have done it in those circumstances.

You are right about the overall politics, Labour will do very well

in London on Thursday in the Greater London elections and I hope

will take control of the Greater London Assembly. No doubt Boris is

running ahead of the Conservatives and Ken running behind Labour. That

may narrow towards polling day, we'll see. It will be a close call.

You must have been watching the campaigning? Yes. What did you

think of Ken Livingstone's campaign? I'm not a fan of him...

No, but? I think that... The polls aren't that far away though, are

they? No, they are quite close. What Ken's great strength is and

has always been, is transporting London from the conJess bion charge

zones and the other issue, he's genuinely committed to improving

transport and he has a much stronger record than Boris Johnson

on that. On policing he's had a strong record when Mayor. I worked

with him as Home Secretary to bring the neighbourhood policing into

London. Boris Johnson has made it his business to smash up the

Metropolitan Police by getting rid of its leadership which is

scandalous. Unfortunately, the other things around Ken, other this

than the two pluses, transport and policing, take attention away from

his good points. Do you think another Labour candidate may have

had a better chance of winning? Depends who it was. Tessa Jowell?

Not talking about individual candidates and I don't have anybody

in mind. If you think Ken Livingstone is the best candidate

for Labour, no. Other people might have done better, but if you ask me

plashs you don't know, it depends how it will work out -- particulars.

If you don't know your unity authority from your county council,

or if your maths is a little Rusty and you are not up to speed on your

wholes or halves or thirds, fear not, fresh from following Boris

around London, we send Adam to the south coast.

Meet Colin, street cleaning is one of the services provided by Gosport

Borough Council. This year, half of their councillors are being elected.

But the exciting sounding discovery centre around the corn iris run by

a higher power, Hampshire County Council -- corner. Not until next

year. Across the fairly windy harbour is Portsmouth which is a

unitary authority which means there's only a single tier of local

government. This week, they are electing a third of their

councillors? Clear? It isn't on the Gosport ferry where hardly anyone

seems to know their thirds from their halves from their wholes. Do

you know how in councillors are being elected on this election?

haven't got a clue. Do you know what proportion? No. About half

probably. Correct answer! That's something thousand. The was that a

guess though? Yes. Is your council a unitary authority or a district

council? I believe it's a County Council. Not entirely 100% sure.

don't know what decisions have to be made at county level and which

are made at district council level and I guess some of those I would

guess right and some would be wrong and I guess most people are like

that. Why have we arrived at a system that's so complicated?

are different needs in rural and urban areas. Secondly, if an urban

and rural area changes, because things change and towns grow up.

Throw politics into that and the desire to reform a system in your

particular direction if you are in control nationally and you can see

there will be regular reorganisation for Local Government.

Next stop Portsmouth's famous Spinnaker tower, to find out which

parties are on the up and which might be heading down. There are a

number of ways of working that out. First, you could look at what

happened last time these seats were contested back in 2008. Then, the

Tories had a net gain of 194 councillors, Labour has a bad time

with a net loss of 210 while the Liberal Democrats had a net gain of

14. What about the number of councils the parties control

outright? The authorities up for grabs this week, the Tories have 52.

Labour have 38. The Liberal Democrats control seven. You could

look at what the party's share of the vote would have been in the

local elections had been national ones. In 2011, the Tories were on

38%, Labour were on 37%, the Liberal Democrats were on 16% fpltz

And, because there are so many facts and figures, it means the

parties can use results from one part of the country to give a

distorted view of how they've done overall in the elections across

England. It's going to be a busy night! With

us now is the Local Government expert Tony Travers from the London

School of Economics. Take us through first of all the different

types of council, you know, that people will be voting for,

councillors that they'll be voting for, because not many people

understand the differences? heard earlier about London where

there's the Mayor and Assembly. In Scotland and Wales, all the

authorities are up, all unitary authorities, and in the rest of

England, we have a third of people voting in the big cities and some

smaller towns and cities, then in some of the smaller districts,

either all out or a third voting, there are some parts of the the

country in England without elections and in Northern Ireland.

For the whole of Scotland and Wales, large pars of urban England, people

are voting. The last time the seats were up was in? 2008, except in

Scotland where it's 2007. Let's look at the state of the different

parties. How well do Labour need to do? There's been a lot of

expectation management and they talk about 356. That doesn't sound

like an awful lot to me in terms of gains? If you look at when the

elections were last fought in 2008, Labour was in terrible trouble.

They were the equivalent vote share of that day, it was 23-24%. One of

their lowest? They are now up to 40. If they don't do as well in the

votes as the polls, there's a swing against the Conservatives. The

Liberal Democrats will do worse than that. If you add it together,

Labour probably I think are going to do better than 300. They would

say a lower number. 600 or 700 gains for Labour is somewhere in

the range between an average and a good performance. A good

performance would need to be up between 60 and 700? On the basis of

the current polls and where we are starting from and the mess the

Government's been in, add that together and I think that they'd

want to be winning 60 or 700 seats. What about the Liberal Democrats?

Last year all right not the same seats, but last year they had a

very bad night in terms of local election results. Is it going to be

as bad or is the bar so low it's got to come up? Compared with last

year, it's almost certainly going to be better for the Liberal

Democrats. There are fewer seats that are vulnerable this year and

anyway, the Conservatives were in a rather weaker position this year

than last. The Liberal Democrats probably no worse. Relatively they

are a bit closer if not slightly better for the Liberal Democrats.

Of course, the Liberal Democrats are still like everybody else going

back to 2008 as a starting point, this is complicated, I'm sorry.

But attend of it, the Liberal Democrats will not do as badly as

they did last year even if they lose a few seats. Because the

Conservative also take a bigger hit because they did surprisingly well

last year? Yes, because of the dynamics of Conservative Liberal

Democrat marginal seats and when the Liberals fall back, it helps

the Conservatives do better. question that you are always asking

in local elections but particularly perhaps in this sort of stage, we

asked Boris Johnson the same question - how much do people vote

on local issues? Does it vary across the UK or will the

Conservatives on the doorstep find it difficult because of the hoo-hah

It works like that, not only in Britain. It is worth remembering in

a sense the further West you go and north you go in Britain, you get

more and more independence and politics that is removed from the

Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat struggle, but generally

Conservative problems at the national level with affect the

Conservatives in Plymouth o the Conservatives in Southampton.

How well do you think Labour will do in the local elections across

England? You said you think they will do well in the assembly

elections in London and we don't know any of the results, but the

mayoral contest is harder to predict? I don't put a

quantification on seats, but Labour will do well in England. I think we

will do well in Wales. What about Glasgow? I think we will

have a a difficulty hanging on. Alex Salmond and the SNP are in a

strong position in Scotland and we will be doing well to hold Glasgow.

It will come down to the coverage, won't it, London and Glasgow, they

could be the big headline stories and that will mitigate gains that

Labour might make? It reminds me when Ken Baker was chairman of the

Conservative Party, Labour did well during Mrs Thatcher's premiership.

I think that is what the Conservatives are going to do in

reverse, they will do badly and Labour will do well across the

country, but the London mayor and what happens in Glasgow will be the

big issues. Did you pay attention to council

elections? Of course. Local elections and opinion polls and by-

elections are generally speaking a referendum on the party in power as

to what is going on. I say generally speaking because there

are local factors and you have got to look at that in politics as

opposed a general election which is a choice between two parties to

form a Government. You have to look at it and you should look at it..

Tony Travers, thank you. David Cameron was meant to spend

yesterday afternoon in Milton Keynes campaigning for Thursday's

local elections. Instead, Speaker Bercow dragged the Prime Minister

to the Commons Chamber to answer questions about Jeremy Hunt, his

Culture Secretary. It was a stormy In every respect with regard to the

News Corporation bid, the Culture Secretary asked for independent

advice and acted on it. He was not required to ask or or to follow

such advice, but he did so. He acted fairly and impartially and in

line with the advice of his Permanent Secretary. The Prime

Minister is defending the indefensible and he knows it.

Protecting the Culture Secretary's job while up and down the country,

hundreds of thousands are losing theirs. And we all know why - the

special adviser had to go to protect the Culture Secretary. The

Culture Secretary has to stay to protect the Prime Minister. The

Prime Minister has shown today he is incapable of doing his duty. Too

close to a powerful few. Out-of- touch with everyone else. I'm not

belilg this issue. It is not as serious as the eurozone and the

debt that we have to focus on. Let me say this, endlessly questioning

the integrity of someone when you don't have the evidence is bad

judgement, rotten politics and plain wrong. We have learned

something about the Labour leader today and I think it is something

he will regret. Why is the Secretary of State for

culture getting better employment rights than the rest of the workers

in Britain? Is it it possiblely he knows

because he knows whenever the Culture Secretary is in the firing

line that it prevents the bullets hitting him, the Prime Minister?

Well, the honourable gentleman has the right at any time to take his

pension and I advice him to do so. Ooo, you might say.

You don't think he should have done... It is a trivial remark. He

is rude. I am not defending him. He can defend himself. But to deal

with Denis's point which was a serious point by that trivial

little remark, take the tablets or whatever, these remarks come out, I

think it was pathetic of the Prime Minister.

Not prime ministerial? Well, he was angry, of course.

There is no juchtion no justification at all.

Haven't you felt like losing it when you are standing up? A big

issue for Prime Ministers at Prime Minister's Questions, you get angry

for things that are said in the chamber, but you have got to

control yourself and if you don't, you're gone and David Cameron lost

control of himself there. You think he did.

Has in your mind, Jeremy Hunt, done wrong in terms of breaching the

Ministerial Code? I believe so on the basis of what I have seen. The

rule that I've always thought was essential, the special adviser

speaks on behalf of the principal and it is in this case too and

Jeremy Hunt should be taken responsibility rather thang asking

a -- than asking a special adviser to walk the plank. The Ministerial

Code is clear that the minister does take responsibility, are you

saying how much advice that advisers work wheel to joule --

cheek to joule with their advisers? Everybody who talks to a special

add virer -- adviser believes they are talking on behalf of the

minister. I am certain in the special adviser's communication,

with all the other people, just like Adam verity for Liam Fox. The

minister has to take responsibility. I don't understand why the Prime

Minister has not referred this to the person who is supposed judge

the Ministerial Code. Well, he said, in justification,

that he might do that once Jeremy Hunt has given evidence to the

Leveson Inquiry. Many people argued your point that he is not the

independent adviser on the Ministerial Code and said so

himself? What has the Leveson Inquiry got to do with any of this?

Justice Leveson appears to be doing a good job, but it has nothing to

do with the conduct of the minister and the conduct of the special add

vieer. Should the Prime Minister have been hauled to the House when

we have had a statement from Jeremy Hunt and the urgent question

arguably didn't ask anything new and did we learn anything new?

didn't learn much new. It used to be a convention if the Leader of

the Opposition put down a question to the Prime Minister, that the

Prime Minister would have to come. And that was an important

convention over many years. It It doesn't happen very often?

happens rarely and that's why why David Cameron said he thought Ed

Miliband got it wrong. David Cameron's decision not to refer the

case is something worthy of explaining to the House and Ed

Miliband was right to bring him to the House and I am glad the Speaker

agreed. So he was called to the House and

we heard his angry tone. It is clear David Cameron wants to hold

on to Jeremy Hunt and you will remember instances where Prime

Ministers want to hold on to their ministers. He is clearly defending

him. How risky do you think that Strategic Rail Authority Strategic

Rail Authority -- strategy is? That's the case of bringing an

independent adjudicator. I think it does want to -- he does want to

keep Jeremy Hunt. There is a Ministerial Code and it has to be

acknowledged and the Prime Minister isn't acknowledging that and that's

a risky course for the Prime Minister.

We have the local elections and Jeremy Hunt won't give evidence to

the Leveson Inquiry million mid-May, do you think the excitement might

have dampdnd down -- dampened down and the media maybe off the the

scent? The media may go off the scent, but the moment that Leveson

comes around again, the media will be on the scent and it will

continue the issue over a period of time than would be the case. It is

political misjudged, but it is ethically misjunld. The --

misjudged. The think about the Ministerial Code, it is supposed to

hold ministers to code. We have established an independent process

with a senior civil servant to adjudicate whether this is or is

not the case. By not taking the opportunity to refer it there,

David Cameron is bringing it all on his own shoulders and I think

that's a foolish thing, indeed to It will go on inevitably as many of

these stories do. As we have been discussing, MPs on the culture

committee have been holding a press conference. At heart of the inquiry

has been the question of what executives at Rupert Murdoch's News

International knew about hacking and when the committee said that

the newspaper and its parent company had shown huge failings of

corporate governance. They said there was no definitive evidence

that James Murdoch, who ran the UK newspaper division, had misled

Parliament over what he knew and when, but the report said it was

simply astonishing that he and father, Rupert Murdoch, had not

realised the extent of hacking take place. James Murdoch was described

as showing, "Wilful ignorance about the wrongdoing." The most most

damning judgement was reserved for Rupert Murdoch in a series of

decisions which split the committee along along party lines in comments

disowned by the Conservative members, the report said that

Rupert Murdoch was not a fit person to run a company like the

broadcaster BSkyB. Some of the of the findings divided the committee.

Let's hear the differing views Everybody in the world knows is who

responsible for the wrongdoing at News Corp, Rupert Murdoch. More

than any individual alive, he is to blame. Morally, the deeds are are

his. Paid the piper and he called the tune. It is his company, his

culture, his people, his business, his failures, his lies, his crimes,

the price of profits and his power. No Conservative member on this

committee with a vote was able to recommend the report itself to the

House and and every one of us, while we shared different views

about the culpability of News Corporation and the degree of

culpability of James Murdoch in particular, none of us were able to

support the report and we all voted against it. That will mean it will

be correctly seen as a partisan report and we've lost a very great

deal of its credibility which is an enormous shame. The issue on which

no Conservative member felt they could support the report itself was

the line put in the middle of the report that said that Mr Rupert

Murdoch is not a fit person to run an international company.

The Conservative member talking about the report.

We are joined by Steve Hewlett and we maybe joined by committee

members as soon as they come out of their press conference, but it is

going on and it is taking longer than compted and it is -- expected

and it is unlikely any of them will come out before it finishes because

the report proved to be more devastating and scathing than

journalists like myself predicted. Were you surprised? I was surprised

how far it has gone. The focus is on corporate governance. What they

said about Tom Crone and Colin Myler, effectively that they have

lied. They said one thing in 2009... The opposite of that is true, as

much as a year before that. Interestingly, they point the

finger at Les Hinton. He is the person of whom Rupert Murdoch said,

"I would trust him with my life. I worked with him for 52 years." He

goes back to the to the to the Adelaide paper that Rupert Murdoch

started. Remember, he was taken out of News International which is why

James Murdoch took over and went to run the Wall Street Journal. The

evidence that, the suggestion there was a cover-up goes higher than it

was before. It goes to the top if you are

talking about the corporate governance and the words are

damning. We will come to the fact that not all members of the

parts of that report. But what happens now to the Murdoch global

empire because however damning this report is, it is a Parliamentary

Committee report and it is very important and devastating, but what

impact will will it have on the Leave aside whatever action

Parliament may decide to take ultimately about being misled and

figged to. There'll be a vote in Parliament and whether or not

people are called back -- fibbed to. The thing that is ticking in the

background is a decision whether BSkyB is a fit company to hold a

broadcasting licence. The reason BSkyB is controlled by News Corp

who own 39% of it, if this was a question about an individual

director sitting on the board who it transpired had lied or something,

then the easiest answer to that is take that person off and put

someone else on. If however what you are dealing with is a corporate

culture company, it's not that easily fixed. Step back from the

line that's divided them about whether Rupert Murdoch is a fit and

proper person, the committee say it isn't, that's split on party

political lines and the Tories said that the reason they didn't vote

for the whole report was because of that one line. Step back from that

line and there is plenty of stuff about wilful blindness, a cultural

ignorance and the rest of it. it's unbelievable that they

couldn't have known? essentially you have a company that

when confronted with trouble the first instinct was to cover it up

and that cover-up or that approach went on in the face of mounting

evidence for a very long time. They say that rather than having an

epiphany moment, they decided the game was up when they couldn't face

the evidence. Why is that significant? Because if you are

Ofcom and considering whether it's possible to regulate this company

at all, if anything were to happen that was untoward, no suggestion

there is by the way at Sky, a very well-run company, but if something

were to come up, how can you regular gate a company when the

starting point about the people you are talking to would be to lie,

deceive and dissemble. Do you think they may be more minded, bearing in

mind they are already investigating whether they are fit to hold a

licence which the Deputy Leader said they are not? Where Ofcom were

at I don't know, but if you take the report at face value and

discount the line about Rupert Murdoch that's divided them, it's

devastating. I think Steve's got it spot on, but I think there's an

additional point. It's very clear that there was a culture of conduct

in the News International papers was disassembly bling and dishonest,

I've testified to that myself when I was involved in politics it was

the case. The issue will be whether there has been a change over the

last recent period as people have understood what's going on and

whether that's a change. individuals involved have gone,

haven't they? If you are talking about Tom Crone Les Hinton and

Colin Myler. James Murdoch has been moved. In a sense would that be it?

James Murdoch sits on the board of Sky and is responsible for the

company's pay TV global strategy. What does it do to the reputation

or reputations of Rupert and James Murdoch? Well, it's not great is

it? To be accused by a committee - I mean some individuals have

different views and some are well- known, but there's a lots of them.

For the things they've agreed on to have happened in your company is

devastating. Rupert Murdoch said last week of News Corp we are an

ethical company only exist to do good. Hold that up against this.

That's why I wonder whether it was wise to divide the committee by

putting in a sentence that led to the tuition because the strength of

what Steve's said is a unanimous Select Committee which would be in

a stronger position. So are you saying that now actually this

report, although scathing in its content is weaker politically

because of that split, because of the four Conservatives are not

going to agree to those key bits where Rupert Murdoch is not a fit

person to exercise the stewardship of a company and in a way will then

have less bite, if you like? 100%. It's always the case that the

divided Select Committees are always weaker than individual ones.

The whole of the debate will be about the question about whether

Rupert Murdoch is a proper and fit person. Ofcom will have to make its

view. I think that could slide attention away from the big body of

issues that Steve's described which are in the agreed part of the

report. It makes it possible to spint, doesn't it? Yes, and what do

you think about that, how do you think they will present it -- spin

it. They've got to be careful. They've issued a statement saying

we are considering the report but apologies for anyone who's had

their privacy invaded, deep apologies for wrongdoing which we

acknowledge went on in the News of the World. So mea culpa again. If

they come out really hard and attack it as politically motivated,

even if you take that at face value, you are talking about someone like

Tom Watson, who has an extreme view on this, but hang on a second, they

put him under surveillance and followed him around. They went to

war on this. There's another thing here which says the integrity and

effectively of the Select Committee relies on the oral and written

evidence. They demonstrated contempt in the most play tant

fashion. This is like the old News International, -- blatant. These

are the people walking the walk, you know. So they haven't left that

culture behind in that sense? fairness they've done an awful lot

to change... They closed the paper and moved people? They have

compliance officers coming out of every available office now. So they

have gone to town an trying to change this. To say that they are

right on the edge here of a judgment being made about them by

Ofcom which could be very damaging and here is another question to ask

- is it conceivable that a News Corporation bid for the rest of

BSkyB could be contemplated in any circumstances in the forthcoming

period? Just very briefly before we move on and to look at Leveson. You

could say we have heard the evidence, the Government in cahoots

with sex abuse international and the Murdoch empire all the way

through the last few decades, the music stopped, bad luck for the

coalition? I think there's a degree of truth in that. There's a lot to

be said about 24/7 media, the relative power of News

International in relation to Labour and other Governments. I'm

personally delighted that the music has stopped in this case. But then

you need to say, what are you going to do about it and that's the point

Steve raise and he's quite right. Thank you very much.

Can you remember when this Well, it happened 15 years ago

today. Doesn't time fly in the fun world

of politics?! Mr Blair went on to become the most

successful Prime Minister in Labour history, but he was a controversial

figure who still divides opinion. Is the moodbox.

-- here is the moodbox. When Tony Blair was elected in 1997,

the sight that greeted him here at Downing Street were crowds of

supporters waving flags. He went on to win another two elections but he

was a man who divided opinion, not least on the issue of Iraq. Now,

today, I don't have any flags but I have some balls and our very own

moodbox. The question I'm asking is simple - Tony Blair, good or bad?

I think he's good because he keeps to his policies and does it well.

He's very firm on what he says and no-one can change his opinion once

it's said. OK so where do you want to put it? Go on. He started off as

a very truthful man and somehow became corrupted. Why was he

horrible? He ran away from the country, didn't want to be an MP

any more, did he? You put it in bad and I'll put it in good. We are off

Like all the rest of us, a bit good, a bit bad. Can I put two in?

Fantastic. I think he should stand accountable for what he made our

country do without our consent. Bad!

Afghanistan, going to war, I thought it was great, I thought

it's what he should have done. Iraq? Yeah. He was right to go to

Iraq? I do, yes. Hedging your bets? Pretty much even Stevens here,

although the bads seem to be just about winning. They're clearly the

man who won three elections in a row and divided the nation back

then is still dividing the nation now.

Tony Blair's speech writer now Times Columnist Phil Colins is with

us now. How do you think history will judge Tony Blair?

Very hard to say. In the classic clich, it's too early to tell.

is it too early to tell? Yes, on the big things like Iraq, it's

early to tell. There's an initial verdict entered which is not

favourable, but then you need time to end see. On domestic politics, I

think it's clearer. I think the Labour Government inherited a

public realm that was very poorly invested in and they did a lot to

change that. There was some improvements in the Public Services,

not nearly as much as there should have been given the money that went

in. There was a gradual improvement in those things, but I think in the

fullness of time we'll see whether in the grand sweep of history what

kind of a Government it was. much has been written about him,

not least by himself in fact. In terms of legacy which Prime

Ministers are always obsessed about, and Iraq is always the issue that

stands out as how Tony Blair will be measured, but you mentioned the

domestic scene. What is his legacy? If you count Northern Ireland as

domestic politics, you would have to say Northern Ireland is the most

shining example of that. That was a sore that festered for a long time

and is immesurably better now as a result of the work of Tony Blair

and successive Secretary of States. I think there's also, it's

instructive that in the last election campaign there wasn't a

single question in the TV debates about the National Health Service.

That's testament to a huge improvement over 13 years so you

would I v to say that there was improvements there and in education

too. One of the least heralded things which Charles will know a

great deal about, the falling crime of 35% over the period which is not

all attributable to a Government but some of that is. What about, as

a person, as a personality, because he's held up very often by those

that study political history and politicians and their success in

terms of his personality which for you as a speech writer arguably

made your job a bit easier because he was seen as a good orator and

has the charisma when speaking? made a lot easier. Partly the

personality but also knowing what you want to say. Those are the two

crucial components if you are trying to write for somebody. Hard

to write a clear speech for somebody who doesn't know what they

want to say in tend. Who could that be? All sorts of people. Not

picking on anyone in particular, in fact it's very comon, because to be

crystal clear on what you are trying to do is a rare thing, even

in politics -- common. I have said that before about David Cameron but

I wouldn't single him out, there are lots of people of whom that's

true. Tony Blair was absolutely had a clear sense of where he was doing,

which made writing the speech clearer. You could say 1997-2001

high watermark for Labour. Is that right? Slightly strong until 2005

when we were not sure what the future was. I agree with Phil about

the core services, crime, education and health and so on. But what we

desperately needed and previous Governments that have lasted a long

time also need is a sense of where we are going after that. Do you

think there is now? Has Ed Miliband got that? He's working on it. I

don't think it's there yet. I'm a fan of Tony's and history will

judge him well in many respects but one of my major criticisms would be

that from about 2004-2005, I don't think there was that vision about

where we were going to go. Gordon made it worse but he inherited the

position that Tony set up. We ended up in 2010 with the main reason for

voting Labour being we want the Conservatives and that simply is

not enough, we have to say where we are going. That's the challenge for

Labour in opposition now, Ed is working on it, I don't think it's

there by a long way but we'll see. Tony Blair's best speech?

The best speech the final one in 2006. The one with the great joke

about not running off with the bloke next door? The great Les

Dawson joke? Was that you who wrote that or Alastair Campbell?

Dawson. It was a collective thing. It was very funny! That's all for

today. Thanks to our guests, particularly to you, Charles Clarke,

for the whole hour. The One o'clock news is starting on BBC One now and