24/05/2012 Daily Politics

Good afternoon, folks. Welcome to the Daily Politics. European

leaders and another summit in Brussels deciding they will

postpone any decisions until yet another summit next month. The line

is that they want Greece to stay in the eurozone but behind closed

doors they are making preparations for an exit and squabbling over

what they will do to get growth. Culture secretary Jeremy Hunt is

back in the spotlight at the Leveson Inquiry today, with

evidence being heard from his former special adviser over News

Corp's bid for BSkyB. Petrol prices are still sky-high.

Short George Osborne plan -- should George Osborne postpone any planned

increase in fuel duty? New Government plans to block porn

sites. Our parents or internet providers responsible for what we

see online? The alternative is that the Government decides what we all

see online, which is a very dangerous step to take.

That is coming up in the next hour. For the duration, part-time judge,

barrister, writer, Constance Briscoe is with us. Welcome back.

Before we get back to the latest from the Leveson Inquiry, let's

start on a story that was supposed to have happened today but has been

postponed until next week. Justice Secretary Ken Clarke was supposed

to publish the new security and justice bill today, which would

include plans to allow some civil court hearings and crucial inquests

to be held in secret, behind closed doors, where material considered

could be damaging to national security. But we are told there has

been some last-minute wrangling inside the coalition. Who would

have thought of that?! Where do you stand on this? Is there a case for

some things involving security services where secret information

is going to be presented to the court, that it should happen behind

closed doors? Well, I'm not quite sure what is being proposed at the

moment. Certainly in the criminal courts, we have a system whereby if

there is sensitive material, it can be heard with a judge. We have a

public interest immunity system, so if there is an issue that might

affect national security or compromise a criminal trial of the

investigation, the judge can here that material. What is proposed at

the moment is quite different. What is being proposed is that instead

of the judge saying that this material is sensitive and I am

going to look at it, in the comfort of his room or whatever, the

proposal at the moment is that it is the minister who will be closing

the doors of the court. We need to be very clear in relation to what

is going on. We have a public interest immunity system and it

works perfectly well. And I am not entirely sure whether what is

proposed is really a way of preventing embarrassment to the

Government or closing the doors when they don't like the material

that is available. And the responsibility really should remain

with judges, who are completely impartial and used to the procedure

that we have at the moment. I think some people are suspicious because

they said it would involve inquests, and it has been through inquests,

particularly coroner's inquests, that we found out things of

soldiers dying in Afghanistan, equipment not being right, things

that the establishment did not want us to know. Absolutely. This all

developed because the Government is absolutely clear that they do not

want MI5 or MI6 persons to be able to give evidence in court. And

there is pressure from the state that secret intelligence remains

secret. You can understand that. do. But I recall that it was the

information from the state, last week or the week before, about the

double agent, the English double agent with the special... In the

Yemen, yes, absolutely. I do think it is a fundamental principle in

this country that justice must be open, and we are entitled to know

who our accuses art and why it is, for example, that we are behind

bars. -- who accuses us. And the judge can take immunity into

account? It works perfectly well and we do not need what is now

proposed. Namely that the minister closes the door of the court, that

is unacceptable. Thank you. That is clear and we will see what happens

as they are still fighting. For a change! We will not fight about the

daily quiz. Who described the Prime Minister as quite volatile

yesterday? Ed Balls, Vince Cable, at Norman Lamont, or Nick Clegg? At

the end of the show, Constance Briscoe will give us the correct

answer, I hope. I heard him say it. From the horse's mouth? I heard it

live but I don't think you should call him a horse! The 18th Brussels

summit of European leaders in two years, excluding a separate ones

that they have just had with the eurozone leaders, 18 in two years.

Mr Cameron has gone to them but there is still no sign of a

concrete plan for sorting out the eurozone. Last night's meeting in

Brussels, six hours with dinner, of course, produced another bland

statement that Greece should stay in. But Germany and France cannot

agree on how to get the eurozone growing again. There were

skirmishes between David Cameron and Francois Hollande over attacks

on the City, which the French President wants to use to raise

extra funds to pay for his growth measures. Bring us up to speed, Jo,

if there was any speed. You cannot do the summer on an empty stomach!

The euro saga rolls on. The latest instalment was yesterday evening

when European leaders met during an informal summit to discuss the

crisis. The new French President Francois Hollande is trying to push

the leaders away from austerity measures and move towards spending

on infrastructure projects to try to kick-start growth. There is

disagreement on how to pay for it. Angela Merkel is under pressure to

agree to eurobonds, which were basically mean borrowing would be

collectively guaranteed by all the eurozone countries. This would

lower the cost for most countries, but increase it for Germany. Angela

Merkel is also worried it would let those that spent too much of the

hot, and stop them getting their finances in order. -- off the hook.

David Cameron says that he supports the idea of eurobonds but he is

under some pressure himself. There are reports that European leaders

tried to push the Prime Minister to implement a financial transactions

tax, and he has reacted angrily to the proposals, saying it will put

up the cost of insurance, pensions, and will cost many jobs. These

issues will be looked at further during a formal summit in June.

However, the prospect of Greece having to leave the euro is being

openly discussed by the leaders now. This afternoon, the Deputy Prime

Minister will give a speech in Germany. He will say that Greece

exiting the euro is something that no rational person would want. He

argues that as Europeans, our response to this growing crisis has

been woefully fragmented and we have failed on a number of fronts.

Thank you. We are joined by the shadow Europe minister, Emma

Reynolds. And from Strasbourg, the Conservative MEP, Martin Callanan,

who leads the Conservatives and the reformists group in the European

Parliament. Welcome to you both. David Cameron seems to support the

idea of eurobonds. Do? I think it is a matter for the eurozone

countries themselves to decide. What is your opinion? I don't think

they will ever agree to it. As yourself the question, can you see

the Germans agreeing to spend another �40 billion a year on

interest payments alone, having their credit rating downgraded, to

support Greece and Portugal? I certainly can't. I don't think they

will agree to it, having spoken to senior politicians. Anna Reynolds,

does Labour support the idea of eurobonds for the eurozone? -- Emma

Reynolds. We are in favour of eurobonds. It is clear that the

German economy has benefited from exchange rates, meaning that

exports have been cheaper and more successful. Germany has benefited

and at some stage I think they might change their position because

the Social Democrats in Germany, he was doing very well in regional

elections, are more favourable to the eurobonds. They are more

favourable but rather in favour of them? Well, they are, the

leadership is in favour of them. I heard another voice against, so

that is an open question. Saying that Germany would underwrite the

dead of Italy, Greece, Portugal, Ireland, Spain. How would that

work? Pooling of risk. Det neutralisation. Can you win an

election on that? We have to admit that it is difficult for any German

politician. But they have benefited from the single currency. The

German Government has to do more to recognise what Francois Hollande

has been saying since the got elected and before, that there has

to be an emphasis on growth. -- since he got elected. But people

are talking about growth in different terms. It is not likely

to happen. Do you support Nick Clegg's view that no rational

person would support Greece leaving the euro? In other words, if you

think Greece should leave the euro, you are bonkers! I did, actually, I

think he is wrong. I think he was wrong when he supported the UK

joining the euro in the first place, it so we cannot take his advice

right now. Across the European Parliament, an increasing number of

people are now accepting that Greece will leave the euro. They

cannot put up with another eight years of grinding austerity, and

even then they will only have a debt pile the same as Italy. There

has to be massive fiscal transfer, which will not happen, I don't

think. We have to get on with it. The uncertainty is damaging for

business, Britain, and the rest of Europe. I think the markets have

priced in a Greek exit. I think it is better for them in the long run.

In the short term it will be painful but in the long run it is

better for the European economy and we should get the difficult

decisions over with now. The council should be talking about how

this can be done in an orderly and progressive manner. Does Labour

support group staying in or leaving? We would prefer that

Greece stay in the euro. There are great risks. In Spain, borrowing

costs are already going up. And not at all certain that if Greece were

to leave, that there would not be a contagion effect. Spain is the 4th

largest eurozone economy. banking systems are in trouble.

So if they stay in, it should we do the deal with severe conditions for

the bail-out, which is the price of membership? Right fully, they are

conditions to a bail-out. We think there should have been more

influenza early on to help them get back to growth and cut down the

deficit. -- more influence. should Greece pay the price of that

membership, or do you agree with the left-wing politicians in Greece,

saying that they want to stay in but they will not pay that price?

think they do have to pay a price of membership of the euro. I think

that is clear. I think what the hard Left leader is doing, is

saying to Angela Merkel and others, if he wins and forms a Government,

that they want some renegotiation. It remains to be seen whether

Chancellor Merkel will go anywhere near that. It is not even clear

that Hollande is prepared to renegotiate with Greece. No, it is

not clear. And if they vote for this chap, then it is a vote to

leave, isn't it? That is what some Prime Ministers and politicians are

saying, including David Cameron. What do you say? I think it is up

to the Greek people to decide what Government they want. If the hard

left was to form a majority Government in coalition with others,

then there would have to be negotiation between the new Prime

Minister and the European leadership, and I don't think we

should try to dictate to the Greek people have to vote or otherwise.

But I certainly think it would be much more difficult if the hard

left wing. Speaking of how to vote, what do you make of the UK

Independence Party proposal for joint candidates at the next

election? How does that grab you? think we should stand as

Conservative candidates across the UK and I am sure people will want

to do that. The UK Independence Party will want to plough their own

furrow and use that own policies. If you had the staunch euro-sceptic

Conservative, like yourself, standing in a seat where without UK

Independence Party votes you might win, what would be wrong with that?

Given that you both agree on of the referendum and have an anti-

European attitude, why shouldn't you have a joint ticket? I think it

is very difficult to do in practice. They are different party

organisations. While we agree on some points, we disagree on others.

We need to demonstrate to their supporters, that voting for one of

their candidates, who might get five or 6% of the vote, that will

actually get Emma Reynolds into Government! They are opposed to EU

legislation, and that is the consequence of voting for the UK

Independence Party. Where do you disagree with the UK Independence

Party? I don't believe that we should leave the European Union. I

think there is hope in renegotiating our membership and we

benefit from the single market. We want to get rid of the excess

legislation, that I was talking about. But if you tried to

renegotiate and failed, would you want to leave? I think there are a

lot of hypothetical questions in that. Just one! It is just one. If

you failed to renegotiate, would you leave? If we renegotiated and

employment legislation, if we renegotiated our budgets level,

then there are lots of ifs. Let's see what we come out with and take

the view. I think that should be put to the British people, by the

way, taking a view on how successful the renegotiations have

been. Then we can see whether we want to bear the good things about

membership and the bad things, which is what we always have to

take into account. I think we will Where you stand? I'm even more

confused as to what has been proposed. I'm in flux and confusion.

You should do this show every day! I will give you the final word.

Conservative Party is all over the place on Europe. You have got

Martin saying there should be renegotiation... Do you want a

referendum? Our position hasn't changed. Are you in favour or

against? By came on your show in October the and said I think it's a

distraction. The British government needs to focus on jobs. You rule

out a referendum? And not forever, but at the moment the focus should

be on getting the economy growing. Maybe you could draw one up for the

next Labour Party manifesto. have no plans for that. You know

what happens with politicians. Michael Heseltine said he had no

plans to run against Margaret Thatcher. You are keeping the door

open. We think membership of the EU... Are I was talking about... Do

you rule out that the next Labour manifesto could promise the British

people a referendum? I'm not writing the next manifesto. I will

not write it on your show. won't answer the question? We are

not in favour of a referendum. you answer the question... We are

not in favour of a referendum. we don't really know. I thought

someone said they were! He is not on the front bench. They are all

all over the place. We have to thank you very much. The

What did Jeremy Hunt know and what did he say? That's the question

today as the Leveson Inquiry looks at the emails between the Culture

Secretary's team and Rupert Murdoch's media empire in the run-

up to the attempted takeover of BSkyB. Mr Smith, who resigned after

his emails were published by the inquiry, is due to give evidence

this afternoon. Mr Michel has been questioned this morning. In the

last hour, he was asked whether he thought Adam Smith spoke with

Jeremy Hunt's authority when they The day and for me, it is self-

evident. A special adviser is someone who

represents the Secretary of State, that is what they are there for.

When they interact across the policy community or with anyone. I

would have to assume that a special adviser, and there are not many

around the Secretary of State, two in this case can't always

represented the view of their boss. They were representing their boss,

that is absolutely true, and constitutionally it is self-evident,

but I suppose I'm asking you about the last part of it and after

having conferred with him. Is that just under Sumsion you are making

or do you have evidence? -- an assumption. It is a general

assumption by making. -- I am making. There are two of three

events where I probably had the impression that some of the

feedback I was being given had been discussed with the Secretary of

State before it was given to me. Mike Sergeant joins us. Doesn't

this go to the very heart of the allegations against Jeremy Hunt? As

he said, to walk free events, the impression he got was that that

Feedback had been discussed with the Secretary of State. Adam Smith

was operating with the knowledge of Jeremy Hunt. Yes, clearly that is

the question and that is what Fred Michel has been questioned at

length about today at the Leveson Inquiry. He was referring to two or

three instances where he felt Jeremy Hunt's views were being

relaid, but that is just two or three occasions within a whole

bunch of communications, 191 phone calls, 158 e-mails, 799 text

messages with Adam Smith. On each occasion, Fred Michel is under

pressure to describe to what extent were Jeremy Hunt's views accurately

be reflected and when Mr Michell was being asked directly what were

Mr Hunt's views on the BSkyB bid, he said he did not know whether

Jeremy Hunt was in favour, he said he thought Mr Hunt was keeping an

open mind on whether NewsCorp should take full control. That

slightly contradicts, when you look at the e-mails between Fred Michel

and Adam Smith, how he could have succumbed to that assumption when

they talked positively about the BSkyB bid. But Fred Michel denies

exaggerating his relationship with Jeremy Hunt and his special adviser.

Yes. He was asked repeatedly whether he was exaggerating his

level of influence, exactly what had been relayed to him and he said

there were one or two instances when he was talking things up, to

keep up morale within NewsCorp, but that was before the oversight for

the bid had been transferred to Jeremy Hunt. After that, he felt

there were no inappropriate contacts. He felt that when he was

talking about J H in those e-mails, he was in fact reflecting the wider

views of the Office of Jeremy Hunt, including his special adviser, and

he makes the point that he was contacted by it text message with

the Office of Jeremy Hunt that direct contact with him could not

continue and he said he understood that. From then on he was dealing

with a special adviser and he thought that was OK.

We've been joined by the Conservative MP John Whittingdale,

who chairs Parliament's Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee.

Let's pick up on that point. What impression did you get from that

evidence, particularly that peace we've just shown? He got the

impression that the special adviser, Adam Smith, had discussed the

information previously with Jeremy Hunt. From what I've seen this

morning, everything Fred Michel said bears out Jeremy Hunt's

account of what happened. That doesn't. Jeremy Hunt said that Adam

Smith had been authorised by the department to act as the channel of

communication. It is not that surprising that there was a lot of

contact between Fred Michel and Adam Smith. But what Adam Smith

said may not be precisely as reported by Fred Michel. We need to

wait and see what Adam Smith says. Fred Michel wants to impress his

boss, demonstrate what an effective lobbyist tears. For a channel of

communication, yes, granted, but it is the relationship between the

special adviser and the Secretary of State acting on Jeremy Hunt's

wishes. That is the impression you come away with. In that instance,

if Adam Smith has resigned and he was only doing his boss's bidding,

where does that leave Jeremy Hunt? We need to hear from the Adam Smith.

I would like to see the actual communications Adam Smith may have

centred Fred Michel and then compare them. I think you might

find that Fred Michel's account of what he was getting from Adam Smith

may be rather exaggerated or at least putting a slant on it. But he

has denied it. He said he contextualised some of it, but it

was not exaggerated, it was a fair reflection. We will hear from Adam

Smith this afternoon. What I hope we will see is not hear from Adam

Smith, I hope we will be able to see Adam Smith's Communications and

then it will be playing for anybody to judge. Is it appropriate have

come and I can't remember the exact words, at 799 text messages,

hundreds of e-mails and text messages, between a special adviser

and a lobbyist, a special adviser very close to Jeremy Hunt, who

could not possibly have missed that this amount of communication was

going on, when they were looking over the BSkyB bid? I want to see

the context and the content of those communications. You don't

think the number... Michel's job was to say to his boss, I am in

regular contact. I suspect a lot of those will have been Fred Mitchell

e-mails Darren Smith, possibly not even replied to. -- Adam Smith. I

have received a lot of e-mails from Fred Michel in the past.

permanent secretary told the minister it would be inappropriate

to have further contact because of his quasi-judicial role, but he

made his special adviser the point of contact, not even a civil

servant. The special adviser is then involved in 1,000 text

messages, 350 calls and e-mails having been told they should be no

contact. He should be told they should be no direct contact between

the Secretary of State and NewsCorp. He appointed a surrogate. It is

normal practice that there should be a channel of communication.

communication between Mr Hunt's office and those opposed to the

BSkyB takeover. I was told that Vince Cable's special adviser had a

similar role when Vince Cable was in charge of determined the

decision. Obviously there has to be some kind of channel of

communication. Whether it was right to appoint a special adviser is a

different question. There's no record of anything like 1,000 e-

mails and text messages to those opposed to it. Why was it a one-way

briefing? Fears a negotiation that takes place. There's a legal

requirement that a company which is examined by the regulator should

then have an opportunity to make representations on the basis of the

recommendations made by the regulator. That is standard

practice. What is interesting, and carrying on from what Andrew said,

is that Fred Michel admitted in the evidence that he did not have much

chance to make representations to Vince Cable, implying he therefore

stopped and switched his attentions to where he felt he was getting a

better hearing. Isn't it that that will land Jeremy Hunt in trouble?

Vince Cable, we know, was hostile to the bid, that is why it was

taken away from him. It may be at that time that Fred Michel wanted

to communicate with Jeremy Hunt's office and Jeremy Hunt at that

stage had no involvement. Once Jeremy Hunt was given the job, he

rightly said he can't communicate with them any longer, but there was

a channel of communication. We will content of that communication was.

Then we can reach a judgement. seems that Adam Smith has resigned

to protect his boss. He was carrying out the will of his boss

and he has resigned. At the moment, there's this huge circle as to did

he or didn't he know. Communication is a two-way thing. The ordinary

person in the Street might say that if Adam Smith has resigned, his

boss may be accountable. I think Adam Smith said when he resigned

that he accepted that on some occasions he had overstepped, he

had gone too far in what he said an maybe volume and frequency was too

great. He accepts that perhaps he went further than he was authorised

to do, but the fact that he was having those communications was

accepted and authorised by the Department and the Secretary of

State. Briefly, before we end this, we have also had news that Sir

Jeremy Heywood has now said that he expected David Cameron to seek his

advice after the Leveson appearance, there would be more questions to

answer. He was unaware of the nature of the apparent back channel

dealings between Adam Smith and the News Corporation executive Fred

Michel. We know that the permanent secretary in the DCMS was aware and

agreed with it. He was aware, he was not keen to say he agreed.

understand he would said he was made fully aware and was content.

Jeremy Heywood was not happy. It is one of these white all

weaselly words. Content is one of these words that can mean anything.

We will probably have an opportunity to ask Jonathan

Stephens when he next comes before the committee. He has said he

agrees with the Secretary of State's account, which is that he

was happy with the arrangement. That is the principle of collective

responsibility, does it apply to Adam Smith and his boss? If Adam

Smith was acting directly on the orders of his boss, obviously...

just what special advisers are supposed to do. He did go further

than he was authorised and there was why he decided to resign.

There's a bigger question about the job of special advisers. I was a

special adviser a long time ago in the Department of Trade and

Industry and the one area I did not get involved in was competition

policy because that was a political. But the role of special advisers

has changed over the last few years and perhaps we need to look at that

I am content to move on to another matter, but I have not necessarily

agree to it! I am also content to welcome viewers from Scotland,

watching First Minister's Questions at Holyrood, now joining us on

Daily Politics live from Westminster. Our first question is,

how do you get more women into top jobs? It is an age-old question and

when it comes to the legal profession, the Ministry of Justice

has been sharing its own ideas on how to create a more diverse

judiciary. But lawyers is not the only sector where women are less

They make up more than half the British population, but when it

comes to who is in the top jobs, women rarely come close to hitting

the 50% mark, apart from a few exceptions. When it comes to

Supreme Court Justices, the figures plummet. In 2011, just 9% of

justices at the highest court in the land for women, and at the

moment only one woman is employed to sit in that seat. Just as Ben

Ali has been outlining plans to get more women and ethnic minorities

into those seeds. -- Lord McNally. Government cuts to criminal and

family law where women tend to work, is having the opposite effect.

result of publicly-funded cuts over 15 years, at the bar, we have a

huge retention problem in relation to our women. It is rather sad.

When we look at the number of black and minority ethnic that of women

entering the profession taking the exams, we are almost equal and it

is much higher when it comes to a thing minorities. This is another

place where women and the senior ranks are low. Just 22% of MPs

positions are filled by women. There is a woman who did reach the

top of British politics. But David Cameron's Cabinet has just five

women at the table, which is a far cry from the new French President's

line-up. This gender equality campaigner tells me that the only

answer is to give women a leg-up. We have waited 100 years for

equality in Parliament and I think it is time that unless we accept

that we have to open the doors to let women come in, we are not going

to get the change that we need. What we have got women there, we

can allow that change to be more sustainable and it would just be a

short-term solution. Respect and deference are two different things,

sir. In the world of law, change has come to our TV scenes. -- TV

screens. The latest drama shows a woman rising above her male

counterparts. But if life is to imitate art, do women need to be

bushier? They do not have to be more pushy, they have to be more

forceful and determined, I think. I was the first female Asian Queen's

counsel appointed in the United Kingdom. I have two children.

Therefore I managed to do it but I had to make sacrifices in relation

to my children, such as when I was there when they grow up, and I was

not for most of the time. You have to be really determined about what

you want. So when in need to work harder if these numbers are to rise.

-- women need to work harder. But do men have to level the playing

field? When you go into the big legal

offices in London, the international offices, or in New

York, their role women everywhere in the top jobs. Yes. -- there are

women everywhere. I suspect they are solicitors rather than

barristers. But hasn't the legal profession done reasonably well on

the gender balance? I wouldn't say so. Because? In terms of gender

balance at the very bottom, at entry level, they are quite a lot

of women. As you go up the pyramid, they fall away, and I am afraid

that in the top jobs at the top of the pyramid, they are very few

women. By the top jobs, you mean the judges? The Supreme Court, the

judges. Top barristers? Very few women. Given that they are coming

out of university and going into the profession, but they don't make

it to the top, why is that? There are a number of reasons. The first

is, I suppose, that those that take the decisions do not select women.

It has often been suggested that we have a difficult task. We have

ovaries, therefore we are going to have children, and then we will

take time out. So it is men selecting men? Well, I think it is

men selecting men. I know this may be controversial, but when I first

came to the Bar in 1983, I was told in very clear terms, that there

would be a trickle-down of diversity and quality and all I had

to do was wait. I have been waiting for the best part of 30 years and

that trickle-down equality has not trickled down to me and people like

me and women. I very much regret to say that I doubt very much whether

it will trickle down. I think we pay too much lip-service to

equality and more women in top jobs. It simply does not happen. We are

probably in the same position that we were in 1987. Not much is done.

We talk it up and we have interesting debates about it. Do we

actually put women in top positions? Of course we don't. And

then we say, you know, it is the women. They don't want the top jobs.

We are happy to give it to them but they just will not take it.

parliamentary briefing paper that we looked at for this said that

women have registered some progress in the legal profession. 9%? Moving

from 37% in 2001-45% working as solicitors, lawyers, judges and

coroners in 2010. -- up to 45%. then when you get up the pyramid,

it is 9% of judges in the Supreme Court? It is. That is quite

interesting. It bears out the point you are making. But now we have a

profession in which 45%, almost equality, are working as solicitors,

lawyers, judges and coroners. Surely that 9% changes over time.

There is a much bigger base. much time does one need for it to

change? I came to the Bar in 1983. The change from 1983 to now was not

significant at all. If you look at the amount of women coming into the

profession, yes, that has increased. But as you go up to top judges,

there has been no progress. How many minorities are there? How many

women? How many minorities in the Court of Appeal? Very few. But they

are all ancient in the Supreme Court. In a Thwaite, they reflect

the legal profession the way it was 30 years ago. -- in a way. And the

way it is. 10% of barristers are now from ethnic minorities. That is

about the ratio in the country, isn't it? 10%? About that, yes.

lot more in London, but as an average of the country. Barristers

kind of reflect that. This barrister's kind of reflected. --

yes, barristers kind of reflect that. My son wanted to go to the

Bar as a barrister. We discussed it. He is not coming, thank goodness!

Are you not supporting your industry? No way will we tolerate

that. He is going straight to the City! My daughter wanted to be a

barrister and we had another discussion about that. She is not

coming, thank goodness. She is going to the City. There is a

better chance of progress and getting to the top than at the bar.

I have been working for 30 years and I do not want my children to

wait for 30 years. That is not going to happen. Take that!

City can welcome them with open arms. Online pornography, how to

stop your children accidentally stumbling across it and seeking it

out as they get older is a challenge for any parent with the

computer and internet connection. In an attempt to tackle this, the

Government is going to consider introducing new filters, which

would block adult material as a default. But Nick Pickles from Big

Brother Watch does not think this is a good idea.

Parents are always worried about what their children are up to, and

how to make sure that, when they are in their bedroom and out with

friends, they are safe. And the internet brings new challenges.

Parents need to make sure their children are not seeing something

appropriate and that they are safe online. I put forward a default

block on any content that is deemed inappropriate, from pornography to

gambling websites. I really do not Since 2008, there have been two

Major Government reviews into how we keep children safe online. Both

of these reviews rejected the idea of a default filter and actually

focused on the idea of parents being able to talk to their

children and making informed decisions themselves. In the USA,

the White House's chief technical expert rejected blocking because it

would introduce a new security risks to the internet and in

Holland, internet service providers introduced the system, only to

abandon it when it did not work. And Ofcom have concluded that

blocks are trivial to circumvent and not with implementing in the

first place. -- not worth implementing. Yes, more does need

to be done, but technology is not a substitute for parenting. When you

buy a new PC and have broadband installed, you should be given a

simple choice about whether you want to install controls. They

should be a straightforward helpline for parents. But this is

already happening. Ultimately it is for parents to decide what their

children look at online. The alternative is that the Government

decides what we can all see online, and that is a very, very dangerous

step to take. In the studio with me is Nick

Pickles and the Conservative MP Claire Perry, who chaired the

parliamentary inquiry into online child protection. Can I start with

you? As part of the research, how easy is it to access pornography?

From a child's perspective? The way we are supposed to protect our

families now is to download filters on to every internet enabled device.

You download protection on to everything, which the internet

service provider is keen for you to do, and they provide filters for

free. It is the parent's responsibility to keep their child

safe, and that extends to the internet world, absolutely. The

problem is that less than four out of 10 of parents by using those

filters. 50% of parents say that their children know more about the

internet than they do. We have got to the situation where millions of

children are accessing things, but not just pornography, anorexia

sides, suicide sides, self-harm. And it is easy to do. Is it

damaging and do people care? We asked that question, and 83% of

people are really worried about how easy it is to access online adult

material. How effective would filters actually be? You have said

it yourself, and I know from my experience, my children are very

computer-literate. They are going to find ways round it. Not if they

are looking for pornography, but they will find their way around

Fildes. Young children stumble across it when they are typing in

the innocent search term, and then the older children who are curious

about sexuality. It was ever thus. The problem with the current set-up,

is they have to go on every device, and in some houses that is up to 17.

And they are relatively easy to circumvent. And public Wi-Fi is

relatively free of filters. This idea of an opt-in, where you choose

to get the adult material, but the default setting is free from adult

material, that is a much safer option. What is wrong with that

plan? A before you get to the choice of opting in or out, someone

has to decide what is blocked. I agree fully with the Foreign

Secretary, that this is not something the Government should be

doing. Britain is leading the world in campaigning for a free and open

internet and the benefits that have brought. But at the same time, we

are having this debate. Is it any wonder that last year the Chinese

state media praise Britain for controlling the internet as a new

opportunity for the world? This is about censorship at the end of the

day. Do you not accept the damage that it does to children? That you

are putting an automatic block on pornography sites, so how is that

censorship? There are two points there. By now, mobile phone

operators are blocking the BNP's website as part of their child

protection. -- right now. Whatever we think of that, it is not

pornography, and do we want the Government making that same view?

If you buy a device, it should be prompted, and more effort should be

made by suppliers. Parents should have a simpler way of getting

support. But if you make those choices on your devices, it is up

to you. We reject that. If there was censorship, the watershed would

be censored. You have to opt in to get adult contact on your website.

And the BNP website! That is why you need to have human intelligence

around filters. And it is brilliant that we are talking about this

problem. Finally it is on the Daily Politics. 60 websites have been

blocked in the first quarter, and that was not right. Millions and

millions of websites, with arguably very degrading and damaging

pornographic material, because it is not borne as we knew it that we

are worried about, it is the degrading and extreme stuff. --

porn. We know that the current system is not working. Our children

are accessing stuff with these are known, social, long-term

consequences. -- unknown. We should bring this in, because we have six

out of 10 of people supporting it. There is a difference between

popular support for control and the Government mandated a list of

websites. Your report calls for Government consultation into a

network filter across the whole of the UK and the Government should

consider introducing VAT. That is a Government led website control.

me just continue. The current filtering technology is provided by

all of the internet service providers and is installed on every

lap top, that already has definitions of what is and is not

acceptable and we would use that You have got children. Would some

sort of block, adopting, would that be so wrong? Can I just say before

I answer that question that it must be of grave concern that a minister

is going to dictate to the British citizens what they can and can't

access on the internet. I don't think that is what we are proposing.

I don't think that a minister should be getting involved in this.

Where do we stop? Do we sense of violence? Do we sense or politics

or political views that are not conducive to the present

government? Can we watch sex in the City? That is the problem. It is

who is doing it. Forgive me, I absolutely agree that we should

have more protective measures when it comes to children. Perhaps we

ought to re-educate parents because we would save a lot more money

telling them how to fix their filters on. I do think when a

minister starts to dictate to us in this country what we should and

should not seek is unacceptable. one is suggesting that. We are

suggesting the eye S Ps work together on this. They already use

these filters. Why is the internet any different? We accept these

filters on every other form of media, whether it is television,

film ratings, mobile phone us. Why is the internet any different? It

isn't. Thank you. After I saw the second sex And The

City movie, I was convinced it should be banned it was so awful!

What can be done to help motorists with the cost of petrol? Yesterday,

MPs discussed ideas including cancelling the planned 3p rise in

fuel duty due in August. But could the Chancellor afford that? Here's

Said he really he of Tesco said that feeling that the family car

has gone up by 70% in two years, causing what was a steady recovery

to go sideways. Myself and others and most fair-minded people will

recognise the government have made significant progress, abolishing

the last government's fuel duty escalator, scrapping the planned

hikes in 2011 and a 1 p cut in duty last year and a partial fuel

stabiliser as well up as a freeze in the duty in January this year.

But we face considerable problems and that first is the planned tax

rise in August, which I'm asking the government to reconsider.

Second, we need a serious inquiry into the lack of competitiveness in

the oil market and possibly even a windfall tax on law firms to cut

prices. Third, there's a problem of banks speculating on the price of

oil. At a time when fuel costs are rising and it costs more to fill a

car and he jaw home than to buy groceries, is it not now time for a

windfall tax on oil companies? own belief is that in order to cut

prices at the pump, the government needs to seriously look at another

windfall tax on the oil companies. Calls for the August increase to be

scrapped do raise a very important question. We would need to consider

how to replace the �1.5 billion it would cost to do so. This money

would need to come from higher taxes or lower spending elsewhere.

We have recognised the impact of high oil -- higher oil prices. The

previous government had no credible plan to deal with the debts they

created, nor a credible plan to support motorists, however we have

listened and responded in our time in government. We cut fuel duty, we

scrapped their escalator, we have ensured there would be only one

thing crate -- inflation-linked increase this year. We will have

kept fuel duty frozen for 16 months and we will continue to support

motorists. We've been joined by one of the MPs

who spoke in that debate, Conservative backbencher Robert

Halfon, and by Sian Berry from the Campaign for Better Transport.

Welcome to the Daily Politics. Let's continue the debate.

Interpreting what the minister had to say, she basically said we have

done a lot of May -- already, we have no money, you are not on.

have to continue the campaign. We've asked the government to stop

Yorkist rise, we want an Office of Fair Trading investigation into the

UN competitiveness of the oil companies and we want them to look

seriously at the windfall tax of mail companies. Doesn't that

increase the pump at the price? your oil companies are already

behaving uncompetitive rate and the price of oil, when it is high, the

price at the pumps go up, but when the oil price falls, it takes much

longer to get passed on to motorists at the pump. When the

price of oil falls, as it has done recently, $95 a barrel at the

moment, should that be reflected in lower prices or a tax rise to keep

a constant? You asking me? That why you're here. We have a serious

long-term problem with the petrol market. There are short-term

problems with speculators making it more expensive. But petrol prices

will go up. We have to do more to reduce people's reliance on the car.

Chloe Smith was talking about not having money available. If there's

going to be money available, it has to go on improving public transport

before it goes into petrol. We have to live in the real world. My

constituents will get up at 5am, have to drive his lorry, and is

paying an extortionate amount on petrol. The average Harlow resident

is paying a 10th of their income every year on fuel. Motorists are

facing fuel poverty. If we stopped the August rise, we will put �1.8

million back into the economy and create jobs. We would not...

would not object to a freeze. Any kind of cut is going to be public

spending and it does need to go into things that are more

constructive, more about the future, more about reducing people's car

dependency long term. You will not be able to fight this rise in the

long term. In real terms, fuel duty is lower than it has been for quite

a while. If there's money available, it should go into something more

worthwhile. It hasn't gone up in real terms. If you look at the

figures and the former chairman of Tesco will confirm this, the price

of petrol and diesel and the last couple of years has gone up by 70%.

Oil prices have risen. Last year, or oil prices fell by 5.5% yet they

were only reduced by 1.5% at the pumps and took a long time to get

that decrease. Off the government has done a lot to cut petrol tax

last year, and stopping the January rise, but they need to go further.

It hasn't got any money. This is why I'm suggesting we have a

windfall tax on the oil companies which would raise the money and

that money would be passed directly to the motorist under-insured

millions of pounds were injected back into the economy. We will

leave it there. Now, sit back, chillax and have a

glass or two of wine. I have had! Better not suggest that

to David Cameron, though, as you might just get your head bitten off.

Using our hard-won credibility which we would not have if we

litter -- listened to the muttering idiot opposite Mai. It prevents the

bullies from hitting him, the Prime Minister. The honourable gentleman

has the right at any time to take his pension and I advise him to do

so. Calm down, dear. Listen to the doctor. Calm down and listen to the

doctor. It is good to see the honourable gentleman on such good

form, I often say to my children, no need to go to the National

History Museum to see a dinosaur, come to the House of Commons. I

know the honourable lady is extremely frustrated about... Maybe

I'm going to give up on this one. think that was the right decision.

We're joined now by the journalist Iain Martin. Does the Prime

Minister have a problem with his temper? It is a good thing that the

Prime Minister has a temper. It shows there's blood flowing through

his veins rather than iced water. People who don't have a tempers

tend to be saints or very boring. But he's clearly having a problem

controlling it and whilst it is good that he cares and he takes his

politics seriously, what happened yesterday looked very unlike a

prime minister. Was it more than that? Does he lose the argument if

he snaps back at Ed Balls, in this case, and says you are muttering

idiot. His benches fall about laughing, does it matter that much

or does it show that he has lost it? Be matters because at the

moment, look at the situation to government is in, the economic

crisis, everything else that is happening, you really need if you

are Prime Minister, one of the strongest cards you have is being

calm in a crisis. When he does what he did yesterday to Ed Balls, he

throws that away. Ed Miliband has picked up on this and has changed

his style over the last few months. He has definitely gone for

something much calmer and more deliberately statesmanlike, as

Cameron loses his temper, Ed Miliband finds his voice. What do

you think? One of the other incidents was where he made a

comment about Ed Balls, a gain. He is sitting right across and what

they will say is the microphones and cameras don't quite pick up a

lot of the provocation. Not that I'm saying it is justified, but

there's a lot of heckling. He also said Ed Ball was akin to having

something with to read syndrome sitting opposite. Is that

appropriate? It may not be. It probably isn't appropriate. But the

man in the Street will understand what it is like to lose one's

temper when one is being severely provoked. This is not a permanent

bad mark. He lost his temper. He might do with some anger management

courses. Oh no he wouldn't! I know of some very good ones if he wishes

to avail himself to that facility. He might wish to take Ed Balls with

him. Let's see how he was described. Do you remember the quiz at the

Stade? Let's listen to who said this about David Cameron. We have

got the quiz answer. My fault! Somebody said he was quite volatile.

Do we know the answer? Norman Lamont. He was his boss when he was

Chancellor of the Exchequer and David Cameron was special adviser.

The frustrated Merc -- remark about women, is that good politically?

To be fair to him, he did withdraw that immediately because he did

realise he was through the water! That's it. Special thanks to