23/10/2012 Daily Politics

Good afternoon. Welcome to the Daily Politics.

REPORTER: Do you think you might have to consider your position by

the end of the day? MPs quiz BBC Director-General, WHISTLE which is,

about what he knew and when about the Jimmy Savile sex abuse

allegations. The Government's controversial

badger cull is expected to be delayed by a year. -- George

Entwistle. The Environment Minister is about

to make a statement. The Government says it won't

subsidise new nuclear power stations but with energy firms

reluctant to invest rthey about to change their minds? Prison works.

It ensures that we are protected from murders, muggers and rapists.

And why do politicians like to talk tough on crime?

All that in the next hour. With me for the whole programme today is

the former Home Secretary, Foreign Secretary, and Justice Secretary,

to name just a few of his former roles. What a busy man he has been,

Jack Straw. Before we move on to that smorgasbord of political news

that we have prepared, let's talk about a political story emanating

from the other side of the Atlantic. Last night was the last of the

Presidental debates before next month's election the theme this

time: foreign affairs. Something Jack Straw knows a bit about.

Before we talk let's get a change of the exchanges. I'm glad you

recognise Al-Qaeda is a threat. A few months ago when you were asked

the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said rushia,

not alguidia. In the 1980s, they were calling to ask for their

policy back. The Cold War has been over for 20 years. But governor,

when it comes it our foreign policy you seem to want to import the

foreign policies of the 1980, just like the social policies of the

1950s and the economic policies of the 1920s. You say you are not

interested in duplicating what happened in Iraq, but just a few

weeks ago you said - you think we should have more troops in Iraq

right now. And the challenge we have - I know you haven't been in a

position to actually execute foreign policy - but, every time

you have offered an opinion, you've been wrong. Attacking me is not an

agenda. Attacking me is not talking about how we are going to deal with

the challenges in the Middle East and take advantage of the

opportunity there and stem the tide of this violence. But I'll respond

to a couple of the things you mentioned. Russia, I indicated is a

geopolitical foe. It is a geopolitical foe. I said in the

same paragraph, "Iran is the greatest national security threat

we face." Russia continues to battle us in the UN time and time

again. I have clear eyes on this. I'm not going to wear rose coloured

glasses when it comes to Russia or Mr Putin and I'll not say it him -

I'll give you more flexibility after the election. Why wasn't

Barack Obama sewn this up? Well, I think because he was very

complacent at the beginning. I think that first debate showed that

complacency. He also made a very predictable error - which is he

allowed himself to get too tired. Elections are knackering.

Especially Presidental ones. any leader. I saw that with Tony

and Gordon and with Neil Kinnock before that. Absolutely knackering.

He needed to have left himself two or teledays to prepare for that

first crucial contest debate. -- two or three days.

He didn't do so and he has been on the backfoot frying to regain lost

ground. He did well on the second one. -- trying to regain. Looking

at the clips I have seen of last night's debate. I think at best for

Obama it is even Stevens. I wouldn't have advised him to go on

the attack in that way against Romney. It does suggest that he,

Obama felt a bit defensive about these things. As you say, it's

given Mitt Romney an opening to almost reinvent himself through the

Presidental debates because the polls had indicated he was behind

in most of the important swing states. So, now, it's going to go

to the wire, isn't it? I guess so. As with British elections, which

depend crucially on marginal seats, which is not what happens elsewhere,

this is down to handful of the so- called swing states and it'll go to

the wire. Ohio, Florida, states like that. You just never know. It

looks as though Obama may still be slightly ahead in more of the swing

states than he is behind, but I think it's going to be a very

exciting night. Have you been disappointed by President Obama's

first term? I have not been disappointed. I suppose my

expectations on world lead remembers fairly lo. I know how

damned difficult it is to be in office. -- fairly low. An

electorate expects you to go on high-blown rhetoric and then they

are disappointed. Expectations were huge on Obama. They were. He has

managed to achieve reform in the health service and health care

which in the context of American politics, completely different from

anything here in terms of health care, that is a major achievement

and one I think which will last. you think, though, it is still

inconceivable, to use that word, that America would try to bomb Iran,

especially under President Romney? When I answered that question in

2004, it was about what the UK would do, in respect of the then

more moderate regime in Iran. It is not inconceivable that a US

administration under Mitt Romney would seek it take military action

against Iran. Under present circumstances, I think it would be

highly ill-advised. The case for military action simply isn't there.

The Iranians are extraordinaryly frustrating to negotiate with. In

many ways they are their own worst enemy. But the best evidence which

comes from the IAEA, the atomic energy authority, was they stopped

developing a nuclear weapon system in 2003, partly of the work of the

French, German and British administration. Do you think that

Mitt Romney, after that final debate on foreign affairs, where he

hasn't had any experience, did he look more Presidental? Did he achef

his name as trying to sound as though he could be Commander-in-

Chief. The makeover of Mitt Romney in the last month has been

extraordinary. He certainly did look more Presidental. If you think

about the kind of right-wing position he was adopting in the

primaries, he's moved from there to here has been reMoroccoable. -- his

move. You could see him in the job for sure. Personally no, surprise

about this, I would rather have President Obama reflected.

No big surprise. Time for the daily quiz. The Education Secretary,

Michael Gove has written to his old teacher to apologise for his

behaviour. The question today was, At the end of the show, Jack will

give us the correct answer. You will be pleased to know you have

time to think about it. The BBC Director-General, George Entwistle,

began giving he have to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee a little

over 90 minutes ago. He is still being questioned by MPs anxious to

find out what and when he found out about allegations of child sex

abuse by Jimmy Savile. He has been Director-General for only a month

but before that was a senior executive at the corporation in

charge of its television output. He was asked about the detail of

allegations about the Conservative MP, Philip Davis. Who in the BBC

decided to bus in young, vulnerable girls from institutions to be in

the audience of programmes being presented by Jimmy Savile.

genuinely don't know the answer to that yet. We are trying to pull

together all the documentation we can about who, which managers and

so on were in positions of authority at the time Jimmy

Savile's programmes were being made and we are supplying that

information to the police so that they know how to take their

investigations forward. Who in the BBC allowed these children to be

taken backstage to Jimmy Savile's dressing room after the shows?

Davis, we are trying to answer those questions in the same way.

Dame Janet Smith's review has been set up to ask and answer all these

questions and we will give every support we can to enable her to do

that. With respect, you don't need to set up a review it ask questions

like that, do you? Surely you are more than capable of asking that.

Surely you don't need somebody else to ask those questions for you.

set up an independent review for the precise are en, we want the

outside world to be assured we asked those questions properly. We

set up the few within two weeks of the scale of this crisis being

known. I'm convinced that the right way to get to the bottom of this is

to give all the support now to Dame Janet Smith so she can answer the

questions you are asking. Have you set up a review to allow you to

aindividual answering these questions, farm it off to somebody

else -- to avoid. Palm it off to somebody else. We see politicians

doing this, set up a review and kick it into the long grass. Is

that not exactly what the BBC is doing I don't think there is

anything about the way we have structured the two independent

reviews, that is designed to aindividual answering questions.

The way they have been set up and the support they are given will

enable them to ask any question they want, to go anywhere they want.

It is the opposite of an attempt to hide things and cover things up.

This is an attempt to make things wide open. Mr Entwistle, do you now

accept, in the light of last night's Panorama, that the decision

to drop the Newsnight investigation was a catastrophic mistake? I came

away from the Panorama firmly of the view that that investigation,

even if in the judgment of the editor it wasn't ready for

transmission at the point he was looking at it, should be allowed to

continue. Why did it take three weeks for the BBC to realise the

account given by Mr Rippon was inaccurate and incomplete? When you

want to find out why a programme has done an investigation, in my

long experience of the BBC is the person you go to is the

commissioning editor or the editor of the programme. They should know

why they commissioned the police and they should have the most

complete picture. What became clear to us after the blog was published

was that there were, that what had happened on Newsnight, was that

there was a significant, it seemed, difference of opinion, between the

people working on the investigation and the editor Peter Rippon, who

commissioned the investigation and that difference of opinion was made

clear to me relatively soon after the blog was published the

following week. And at that point I thought - well, although I would

normally absolutely expect to be able it get from the editor of a

programme a -- to get from the editor of a programme, a complete

and full picture of what had been going on, I thought I needed to get

to the pot bottom of why there was a difference of opinion and there

seemed to be a difference of opinion. Were you angry when you

found out about this? I was very disappointed that the blog turned

out to be as inrack at as it was. maybe have expected a rawer emotion

than very disappointed. You have been let down and exposed by a

senior colleague. What I have relied upon is that something in my

BBC career I have always been able to rely upon, is the editor of a

programme having a full grip and understanding of an investigation

they were in charge of. On this occasion that doesn't seem to have

been the case and that was disappointed. With us is the media

commentator and former Panorama editor Steve homosexuality. How do

you think he is doing? No killer blow was struck by anyone on the

committee. On the other hand, he is sounding under-informed. I think

think he doesn't know enough. Even the questions at the beginning by

Phillips... Philip Davis asking about the culture in the BBC and

you know what happened. He didn't have statistics. He didn't know, he

didn't know. Would you have expected him to have had the exact

statistics. If you don't know, you should say - I don't know. You

shouldn't say, er, er, and after five minutes of being pushed around

reveal you don't know. On most points he sounds under-informed I

have to say. In so far as what he needed to do here, was to convince

people that someone has a grip. Ben Bradshaw said it - tell us you have

a grip. He appears as a man trapped in process, not actually with his

hands on the thing itself. He hasn't given a convincing

performance in your view, in terms of how he has handle of what is

going on? Not kwhret. One has sympathy. -- not yet. Due process

is important. These are people's careers, a national treasure.

he has only been in the job should have been a gift for a new

Director-General. A new broom sweep. Lead the organisation through

trauma which is what Savile would constitute but because he was at

the scene of the crime in his previous role's bit stuck. He has

been on the backfoot from the start and the BBC unfortunately continues

to show signs of that. Even now, when would you expect him to be

able it get on the front-foot and say - right. He is held back by

what has happened which is really not great. It's been pulled out of

him bit by bit by bit. Let's go through the stages. Let's talk

about the Newsnight investigation. He said clearly - it should have

continued. Look, I think that's a key question in a sense for Peter

Rippon. I was a BBC editor. You know - he is has allowed things to

go by which is barmy. I understand why one is saying it's e-mail from

Peter Rippon says "We have just the women.", that's an editor saying

"Hang on, are we sure we've go the enough to go on.", I don't think it

means he has a downer on the women or he doesn't believe them, I think

he is saying - is that enough? He allowed that to go by and engaged

with it as a discussion about the BBC's attitude towards wi. I don't

think it exhibits anything of the sort. The BBC may well have issues

with women but that is the editor is saying is the evidence there?

What has become clear is that they did not take on the accounts of the

journalist and producer who were making that investigation. Editors

have to make difficult decisions. It is not uncommon to have a

journalist pursued to do a story and you have to say, I don't quite

by it. Disputes between editors and journalists are commonplace. That

is not a surprise. But whereas Peter Rippon's reasoning, if you

discount the conspiracy theory, which I do, his reasoning for not

going ahead with the programme, you could argue about, but they were

his reasons. But what they have said about it does not amount to a

convincing explanation. We had to wait for Panorama to tell us that

the editor had doubts about the evidence. They said up to that

point, he had not gone ahead with the programme because the Crown

Prosecution Service had not proceeded on one aspect. It didn't

make sense. Jack Straw, we have not watched every bit of the

questioning, but from what you have heard, do you think there was

outside interference in dropping that Newsnight investigation?

don't know. I worked for World in Action, Granada's investigative

programme, for two years, before I came into the house. We as young

Turks would want to convince our editor of a programme to put it on,

for sure. And the editors would say, hang on a second, we haven't got

the evidence. As Steve has said, I doubt there is a conspiracy. The

bigger issue is, why did Peter Rippon come out with what seemed to

be excuses? There is nothing illegitimate about an editor saying,

I took a judgment. It may have been the wrong judgment, but I made a

judgment that this was not properly cooked. I have spent 13 years as a

minister, having to make judgments every day, sometimes on the basis

of half a phone call or half a conversation. He problem with life

it is that when you look at it backwards, you have to live it

affords. Sometimes you get things wrong, but if you do, you need to

put your hands up. We have had at the ITV broadcast and we have seen

the Panorama broadcast. The question is, is George Entwistle

saying that Peter Rippon made a mistake and that it is his fault?

He has dumped on Peter Rippon prodigiously this morning. He has

said various things which amount to the end of Peter Rippon, certainly

in his career at the BBC. In fact, I think Peter Rippon's decision may

have been wrong, but it is understandable. The bigger question

is, if you had known what you had got, you may not have felt

confident enough to broadcast it at the time, but you can't just stop.

The woman who appeared on Panorama, when she said, it took me such a

lot to get to the point where I was prepared to say this, and then you

are left on the cutting-room floor, that is not right. You wonder

whether the editor of Newsnight new what he had got. That comes down to

questions being asked about George Entwistle's news managers. Were

they not telling him everything that was known, that there was a

disagreement between the journalists making the film and the

editor? Is it their fault, too? There is nothing wrong with

management pressure. It is the job of news managers to say to their

editors, just as editors sector and the journalists, come up with the

proof, it is quite appropriate venues managers to say, hold on,

are you sure this is true? That is not inappropriate. It would be

inappropriate if pressure were being exercised for other purposes,

like to say the corporation embarrassment. There are some

implications from what we have heard George Entwistle say so far.

He is not sure that his news managers have briefed him

effectively, but he has not gone that far yet. We are going to go

back to some of the questioning. We will hear the chair of the select

committee asking a question about the conversation between Helen

Boaden and George Entwistle. This was when he was in his previous

role, ahead of the Christmas programme. This was when she said

to him, Savile investigation, Newsnight, and he says he did not

ask anything about it. When it was said you that Newsnight was looking

into Jimmy Savile, what did you think they were investigating?

don't remember reflecting on it. This was a busy lunch. You are told

that one of the flagship investigative programmes on the BBC

is looking into one of the most iconic figures, who you are about

to commission she attributes to, and you don't want to know? It was

not that I didn't want to know. What was in my mind was a

determination not to show an undue interest. But just saying thanks,

Helen, what are you looking at? Why did she tell you if you were

determined not to ask what it was about? She presumably thought you

should know, and therefore would have expected you to say, what is

it about? Are assumed she was preparing me for the possibility

that I would need to think about changing the schedule. That could

be potentially very difficult. George's problem with this is that

he has said this before and has gone on to say that at no point did

he become aware of any of the details of the investigation. He

did not know it was about child abuse. He has claimed to know

nothing. He has been absolutely definite. He said it on the Today

programme. If anything emerges now or subsequently that shows that

that is not 100% correct, he is in real trouble, because he has been

so definite about it. It confounds common sense. Would you have asked

what it was about? If you are the head honcho in any organisation, it

is something I worked out quickly as a rookie Home Secretary, when

somebody passes you half a piece of information, you have to think, why

are they telling me that? Father a covering their backsides? What is

the rest of the story? If I survived for the time I did, it was

partly because I got some finely tuned and 10 I, when the bell

weather went off in my head. He is only defence is to say, and he has

said this on occasion, as director of BBC vision, had he got involved,,

which was not his role, he can argue that there are Chinese walls

and that he should not ask. But in this case, how can one disbelieve

him? He has said it and said it again. It remains hard to believe

that he either didn't ask or didn't know. If you say that to someone

who is the former editor of BBC Newsnight who has been around for

40 years, you will not think it is about Jimmy Savile's curtains.

will be listening to the select committee questions throughout the

programme. Now, Jack Straw has had an action-

packed career - Justice Secretary, Home Secretary, Commons Leader and

most importantly, Foreign Secretary before, during and after the war in

Iraq. It was the most high-profile of his many Cabinet posts, and

between 2002 and 2003, he seems to be almost permanently on the

airwaves, doggedly defending the hugely controversial decision to

deploy British troops against the Saddam Hussein regime. But what did

he really think about the war? I will ask him in a moment.

In a moment, I will be asking the Foreign Secretary how much longer...

We are joined now by Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary. I have just

been talking to Jack Straw. Jack Straw. Foreign Secretary and,

during the build-up to the war in Iraq, Minister for the Today

programme. His job, to explain the case for military action, ideally

with a second UN resolution, if not, without one. But was his heart

really in it? We interviewed him dozens of times during the run-up

to the war. He was always putting a strong case, but I got the sense

that it was a strong case for what became known as the second

resolution. My reading of Jack Straw at the time was that he

believed that and containment and inspection was a genuine option.

But when it came to it, was he actually in the loop? It emerged

after the war in the various inquiries that some of the most

important telegrams passing between Downing Street and the White House,

where the real decisions were being made for, never went anywhere near

Jack Straw. After the war, those around Jack Straw described how

they felt. The but Jack Straw's critics say that interpretation is

That is why some think Jack Straw's claimed that he could have stopped

the war by resigning if the second So how will history judge Jack

Straw's roar in the build-up to the You know what, we got it wrong. I

apologised. I made a mistake. I regret what I did. Yet there are

those who believe Jack Straw went further than most in questioning

the wisdom of the war. It is interesting when you look become in

the record, that there is one voice that continuously asks - why are we

focusing on Iraq and why are we focusing on something we are doing

now. There the problem has been going on for a decade. The one

voice you heard asking, why Iraq, why now, is Straw's? Jack Straw is

still with us. You open the chapter in Iran in your book by saying "You

could have prevented the UK's involvement in the process."?

Yfrpblgts yes because if I resigned, as a matter of arithmetic, there

wouldn't have been a majority. I don't say it in a self-serving way.

It was a matter of fact. I was aware of the murder of

responsibilities on me at that time. Does that trouble you? Of course it

does. Anybody with that degree of responsibility is going to be

troubled by the decision they make. But do I think that I made the

wrong decision at the time on the basis of the information that we

had, no I don't. That's something I have to live with. Although,

throughout, on the bits I have seen, Kevin March, the former editor of

the Today programme at the time is correct to say my whole efforts and

I may also say Colin Powell's were corrected towards getting that

You expect the Foreign Secretary to be in full possession of their

faculties and to know what they are doing. I was responsible as anybody

else for the decision to go to wr. I deeply regret it and I regret it

more, to find out that the whole basis to go to war was based on

the... That is with hindsight. were working towards a second

resolution and events conspired and bf all, Roman Shirokov's decision

to say he would veto a second resolution -- President Chirac's

decision. I don't understand why Chirac did that. If he had come on

board we would have resolved it peacefully. He didn't. And did you

then at any point feel - I should resign? Not at that stage. Earlier

on, before we got a UN resolution, much earlier, I'd thought about it.

But anyway we got the first resolution, a critical one, 1441.

And then - I mean one of the reasons I became so sceptical about

military action in respect of Iran, however, is you have to learn from

these experiences and if you have a strategy of diplomacy, backed by

the threat or possibly the use of force, you have to be alive to the

fact that as you go down these tracks, the gate-marked piece gets

narrower and the gate-marked wall gets wider. That's the lesson from

history. What about when Robin Cooke resigned? Did it make you

reconsider? By that time, in a sense, it was too late. It is never

too late to resign. I personally was committed. I was sceptical of

Robin's reasons. He had been belligerent about Saddam's threat

when he had been Foreign Secretary. He then came to a view that the

intelligence didn't suggest the level of threat that we thought.

What swung me, actually, was a report that Hans Blix did, 170-odd

pages, saying it was suggested that Saddam still had all sorts of

weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical weapons and

that was presented at the last crucial Security Council meeting on

7th March. It was that that - I swung one way, whilst Robin, my

good friend, swung the other way. Obviously domestically, I remember

it so well, at the time, it was so difficult and tense as people were

deciding what they were going to do. You say in your book that if the

handling of Iraq went wrong, you know some are licking their lips at

the possibility of ray gem change closer to home. I said it to Tony

in early March. Who was licking his lips? Various people inside...

Gordon Brown? Indeed. People in the Labour Cabinet as well as outside,

of course. I had warned Tony about that prospect the previous July as

well. Do you think Gordon Brown ever considered not supporting the

war as a way of unseating Tony Blair? No, I don't. I think he was

alive to the fact that if it went badly wrong, he would be the

beneficiary. I had no evidence whatsoever to suggest he actively

thought that he would move then - indeed he was party to many of the

Cabinet decisions leading up to the war. At this time, at that point,

when it came to changover here, you were convinced of Gordon Brown's

suitibility? I was. I men there was a history - because Tony and I

Frankly fell out, we fell out principally over foreign policies

in the Middle East. I had no reason to think that Gordon could not do

as good a job as Prime Minister as he had done as Chancellor. I'm

afraid a lot of us were proved wrong on in a, including me. Right,

you were his campaign manager. was, I was. I mean, we have seen a

lot of Gordon, there is one side of him utterly charming, intelligent,

bright, engaged. The problem was, it turned out, that he wasn't able

to be a leader and make those crucial decisions. You never, in

the end know about that sort of thing until people are tested. Both

ways. You have people who are unlikely to be leaders like clement

Attlee. He turned out to be really good. The reverse is true. Thank

you investment sometimes political debate generates more heat than

light but one of the most important current debates is how we can

ensure generating both. Britain is running dangerously low on power.

It was the conclusion of the energy regulator's report which warned of

unprecedented challenges with a risk of a short fall in electricity

supply by 2015. Nuclear power is supposed to be playing a key role

in keeping the lights on in future but the proportion of electricity

we generate from nuclear energy has fallen from one-quarter to 16%.

Another seven nuclear power stations are due to close by 2023.

Why not build more nuclear power stations to replace them? New clear

power might be low carbon and reliable but is expensive and takes

a long time to deliver. Guaranteed price for nuclear-generated

activity has not been enough to ensure investment from the private

sector. German companies E.ON and RWE pulled out of nuclear rebuilds

earlier this year. The Coalition Government has promised not to

subsidise new new clear power plants but now there's pecklation

they might be willing to underwrite construction costs overruns. That

could cost meltdown in the coalition. The Liberal Democrats'

Ed Davey says unless they can be priced competitively, they will not

proceed. This morning the head of EDF planning to build new nuclear

power stations, told MPs he would go ahead if the price was right and

clear. Without clarity we will not invest. It is pretty simple. We

have to trust ourselves. It is not an negotiation between us and the

Government. It's not us trying to twist the arm of the Government.

It's just the opcy. It's about building together the solutions.

Win-win solutions. As investors it is a big investment, a long-term

investment. It's a major investment. We need clarity about the returns.

It has to be fair for the investors. And with me now are the

Conservative MP, David more is and the leader Green Party Natalie bent.

Welcome. -- David Morris. What is the risk of an energy crisis?

think it is real risk. I said two years ago. If we don't go into

nuclear power now, there will be power cuts in the next ten years.

What do you say to that? It seems fairly immediate and urge snepbt

There is the need for rgeebt action which is one of the reasons that

nuclear is not answer. The kind of nuclear plant we are talking bthe

last two built have taken 14 and 17 to come online, double the original

budget and the current two being built are delayed and going much

over budget. Nuclear is not the answer to energy needs. What this

Government is failing to do is energy conservation and looking at

the renewable reliable energy sources we need. What percentage of

energy do we need to generate from nuclear? At least another 10% in

the mix. Natalie bent has said we'll not have any online. If you

are saying there is an energy crisis come down the track in the

next few years, what is going to happen in between This is why the

Government is intimating underwriting builds. We have eight

sites around the country. There will be a nuclear power station

built on each one of those sites, that is all it has been foot-

printed foor. I think we should start sooner rather than later.

That way we know we'll meet the gap. You are going to offer a subsidy to

private companies to build nuclear plants? My understand something

there will be an underwriting. As you heard on the footage from the

Select Committee, it is not a done deal but they want it build power

stations, we need the energy. Let's get on with it. You will break the

coalition agreement. It said firmly there will not be any Government

subsidy of new nuclear power stations. I would love to see that

coalition agreement broken on that point because we need the energy.

You are saying it is going to be broken, that's what you have heard,

they are going to do a U-turn? looks to me as if there will be an

underwriting policy going on. That's for the Secretary of State

to answer, not myself. You would have to ask him. But that's my

understanding. Underwriting construction costs is a subsidy,

isn't it? It can be. Personally I would go for it. The economics of

nuclear power generation are different from those of hydrocarbon

generation which is the capital costs are much higher but the

running costs are much lower than conventional hydrocarbon generation.

I think we need it. With great respect to the Green Party, floss

way in which, inhefrpbtly unreliable wind turbines and other

forms can do anything but supplement. -- inherently

unreliable. But not replace hydrocarbons. We need to go to the

underwriting point. What does it mean? It means writing an open

cheque for the nuclear industry. It is what it would mean doing for

foreign murlt national companies, to say - whatever the costs we will

pay it. -- multinational. Isn't that true?. If you underwrite the

costs looking at the two stations being built they have overrun

already to a tune of a couple of billion pounds. In this case, if we

underwrite them, it'll be the taxpayer. The sit zevens our

country need power. The only way is by building nuclear power stations.

-- the citizens of our country. It is the way we'll make the angments

for shortages to come together. -- arrangements. So it is worth it.

my opinion it is. We need power and energy conservation. If you look at

the House of Lords report, it says the Government's Energy Bill is

failing it tackle demand. Let's get back it Jack Straw's point. Are you

saying that renewable energies can replace what nuclear would in the

future in terms of keeping the lights on? Xctsly. These are as

reliable as a set of renewable sources. These are reliable. --

exactly. There is nonsense about wind power. It has been looked at.

Wind power is reliable. It has been said it is reliable. They are

solvable through renewable sources. But with all due respect, can it

supply the amount of energy we need? Nowhere near it. There are

two new clear power stations in my constituentcy. When they are both

going at full pelt, it is 6% of our National Grid. Feverry wind turbine

on and off shore blew at the same time, you are talking about 10% of

of our energy at the moment. If you invest in renewables, instead of

nuclear, you can raise it vastly. Do you believe, if the investment

is there, if we threw the money at renewables and took a GM bell, it

would be a gamble, wouldn't it? don't accept that. Germany has

decided to abandon nuclear power generation. It is facing an energy

crisis. It is facing huge transmission costs from where the

energy is being generated, which is on the Baltic coast, down to its

industrial heartlines. And the energy is a higher cost. Don't

forget for all that we label wind power as environmentally friendly,

there are huge environmental issues and planning arguments, just as

many in aggregate about wind turbines as there are about nuclear

four pants. But could it place? Germany is plavening to go entirely

renew ab. I trust the German engineers to work it out. -- the

Jeremy is planning to go entirely renewable. They are facing higher

and higher energy costs and they'll see a flight of manufacturing to

Eastern Europe or elsewhere in the world. Watch this spai, I promise

you and look at the debates taking place in Germany. -- watch this

space. It is true what Jack is saying and the Germans are looking

at buying energy off EDF. That says it all. We have seen big rises in

energy costs in the UK because we are dependent on hydrocarbons, gas

particularly and prices are rising. Wind solar tidal. We know exactly

what the fuel is going to cost forever, zero. And that, of course

is a big concern to viewers, the rising cost of energy? I'm in the

against having some wind power and tidal power if you can harness it,

but it is easier said and than done on a major scale, but nuclear is a

very important part... Why didn't Labour sign up to it properly teted.

I seem it remember they didn't exactly commit themselves --

properly at the time. We should have done. There were too many

arguments. And Ed Miliband should take responsibility. I don't know

about Ed. In my view we should have been much more clear-sighted about

it. This Government is doing the same. Not particularly clear. Do

you blame the coalition? If it had been a Conservative Government I'm

sure we would have had nuclear power programmes rolled out and I'm

certain if there is a Conservative Government at the next election

that is what happened. What do you say to Ed Davey? Get them built

Why do politicians like to talk tough on crime? David Cameron tried

to break that mould with his so- called "hug a hoodie" speech,

although he never used those words. Yesterday, the Prime Minister tried

to chart a change of direction. It opened another chapter in recent

political rhetoric on a crime. need to be tough on crime, tough on

the causes of crime. The old choice between social and individual

responsibility is no longer valid. We need an approach that both meets

the need to protect the public and recognises the link between the

conditions in which the young people are brought up and the

propensity to turn to crime. opponents say there are too many

people in prison. I agree. Too many people imprisoned in their own

homes, afraid to go out in case they are attacked or their homes

are burgled. Those are the people I want to set free. Let's be clear.

Prison works. When you see a child walking down a street, hoody up,

head down, moody, swaggering, dominating the pavement, think what

has brought that child to that moment. Lock them up, or let them

out. Blend the criminal or blame society. Be tough or act soft. I

have been trying to break out of this sterile debate and show a new

way forward, tough, but intelligent. The former Home Secretary Jack

Straw is still here, and we are joined by a former Cameron

speechwriter Danny Krueger, who wrote the speech associated with

the "hug a hoodie" mantra, although those words were never uttered by

David Cameron. Times have changed. The difference between those

speeches is stark. Are you disappointed? It is not, actually.

On Sunday, it looked like he would be coming down very hard. In isn't

that what he wanted? Actually, the speech he gave yesterday was a much

more nuanced message, which reflects a lot of the messages he

has been giving out since he became party leader. When young people

cross the line, it is important that the law is upheld. He makes no

bones about that. But they also has to be an understanding of how

people commit a crime, and that it is not simply enough to have a

deterrent to prevent them. But is it not as a result of pressure from

the backbenches saying, you don't sound tough enough on crime, and he

is responding to that? He will always be sensitive to that, as he

should be. The public care deeply about crime levels. Crime has

fallen in the last year. It is a long-term trend. And he has work to

do on that, but he believes in a tough law and order approach. But

he also understands that rehabilitation has to be part of

the picture. It seems to be less about crime policy and more about

part positioning. The Conservatives felt at that time that they need to

appear more compassionate, and law and order was the prism through

which they would achieve that. Labour did the same when they

wanted to appear tougher on crime. You were the conduit. It is less

about the policies themselves. Would you agree? It is difficult to

get two ideas in a headline? yet you do need both things,

discipline and understanding. Sometimes the new ones goes one way

and sometimes the other. Often, the media decide which way the story is

spun. In the case of "hug a hoodie", there was no intention to appear

soft on crime. But they did want to appear compassionate. He still does.

Tough and intelligent, how different is that from tough on

crime, tough on the causes of crime? In it is not different. The

Conservatives traditionally had a reputation for being bone Headley

hard on crime. Labour are traditionally seen as too soft on

crime. So of course, Labour leaders will try and deal with a

harbourside and conservative leaders will be softer. Except when

times get tough, and then everybody wants to look tough. But don't

underestimate the concern of the British public. People really worry

about crime. It is great that since 1995, and I am happy to concede

this, the decline in crime started under Michael Howard and

accelerated under successive Labour Home Secretaries. Crime levels are

now about half where they were. In terms of the soft side, far fewer

young people are going into crime now, and that is due to the success

partly of schools' policies, part but partly of our youth justice

policies. You don't see this in the papers, but they have been very

good. At the same time, yes, we have got a lot of people locked up

in prison, but a fifth per head of population what they have in the US.

But if you are calling for longer sentences, which was part of the

speech, you will need more prison places. That is the Achilles heel

of this government, because they have cut the number of police

officers. Kenneth Clarke, in a moment of pure adoration, as

Justice Secretary, handed over a large chunk of the Ministry of

Justice's budget back to the Treasury. It was a crazy thing to

do, and we are now reaping the whirlwind from budget cuts which

were unsustainable. There will be problems in the prisons. Prison

numbers will not fall by cutting sentences or sending less people to

prison, they will fall if we prevent people going back to prison.

The real scandal is the reoffending rates. Two-thirds of prisoners who

reoffend once they come out. That was talked about by David Cameron.

This rehabilitation revolution, no party has ever committed itself to

it. I come back to this idea that when the going gets tough, that is

shelved. It needn't be. This Government is uniquely committed to

rehabilitation. It understands that it is not just about the criminal

justice system or making twixt the sentencing, it is about involving

charities and working with ex- offenders. There is a genuine

commitment to make sure there is greater emphasis on that. Dear

Annie point on which I disagree with you is the suggestion that the

Conservatives have a monopoly on this. They don't. Everybody is

searching for the Holy Grail on rehabilitation because if you can

divert people from crime, it is better for society. It requires a

lot of effort. Now, bovine TB is issued problem

for farmers. There has been completely evidence over the years

about whether badgers are responsible for spreading the

disease. Last year, the government announced a cull of thousands of

badgers in pilot areas. That cull was supposed to begin imminently,

but the Environment Secretary Owen Patterson just told the Commons

that it will now be delayed until next summer. I know this will be

disappointing for many, particularly those farmers in the

two pilot areas. But I support the decision of the NFU to delay the

start of the coming operations. -- the come in operations. There is no

change to the government's policy. We remain committed to it, but we

must ensure that we work with the NFU to get the delivery right.

are joined now by the chief executive of the RSPCA. Your

reaction? I am delighted that we are not killing the badgers, but I

am disappointed that we are still seeing the Government committed to

a policy which lacks compassion. How do you deal with this?

vaccinate the badgers, as the Welsh Government are doing, and you press

forward urgently in Brussels to get the vaccination of cattle approved.

I was there with Brian May a week ago. There is a lack of effort by

the Government to get this done. Will the vaccination work? That is

the way we have tackled every disease in animals or human beings.

It will work for the badgers and for the cows. But while we wait for

the go-ahead for that, what happens in the meantime? Farmers still have

the worry of their livestock being affected. The number of cows being

affected has fallen for the last three years, because by a security

has been improved. If you don't stress the cattle, they are less

susceptible to the disease. Is your objection to culling badgers on the

basis of the animals themselves, or because you don't think the cull

will stop the spread of bovine TB? The RSPCA is a science led,

evidence based charity. The scientists say that the review

under the last government spent ten years looking at this. It is the

only peer reviewed piece of science, and it said the badgers are

marginal in bovine TB. So the RSPCA and bobs that position. We care as

much about the cows as we do the badgers. I also care about the

dairy farmers. They are being led up a blind alley here. But it is

still a factor, even if it is marginal. Until vaccination comes

on board, the reports we hear from the Government say that the number

of badgers is greater than we thought. Wouldn't a cull be

sensible? No, because the badgers are not the prime cause of the

transmission of the disease. We need better by a security, and

let's vaccinate the badgers. some extent, farmers have been led

to the top of the hill. Now there is a delay. I understand that the

reason is that there is not enough time to carry out the cull before

the breeding season starts for badgers. In terms of decision-

making, it does seem incompetent. It is a very difficult policy issue.

I chaired the Cabinet committee that discussed the issue of coal

versus vaccination in the closing years of the last government under

Labour. It was an electrifying debate. It was interesting talking

to lots of farmers who have got couple, hard-boiled farmers who are

not bothered about badgers, their opinions have shifted from wanting

to shoot them dead to a much more nuanced position of saying actually,

I am not sure that shooting them will work. For and that is for all

sorts of complicated, but well- established reasons. Vaccination is

probably the answer. It a lot of farmers have rejected the coal and

vaccinated their badgers. There is a massive groundswell of opinion

here. The key test which differentiates between the cow that

has been vaccinated or infected is moving forward. Let's get that done

and vaccinate the creatures. Save life, don't take it. Will you

persuade the government to drop it? I think the Government will listen

to public opinion. So, back to the media select

committee, where George Entwistle has now finished giving evidence.

Towards the end of that session, he was pressed again on what he knew

about the investigation. She surely you can see that even though you

might not have enough to stand up a programme legally, it may still

apply that it would not be appropriate to start showing

tribute programmes about someone? As I said, I recognise that our

systems need to be more carefully calibrated for dealing with the

outcome of investigations that don't proceed to broadcast.

thing was in my mind that if they had serious allegations, it would

end up being broadcast and I would be told about it and act

accordingly. I recognise that we need to reflect on making sure that

we have a culture that does not run the risk of what happened happening.

Let's talk to our political correspondent. I understand he has

finished giving evidence. Can you give us the latest? George

Entwistle came out of here a short time ago. He was met by a barrage

of questions along the lines of, is your job on the line? It was a very

difficult session for Mr Entwistle, for the BBC and in particular for

Newsnight and their editor, Peter Rippon. Listening to the tone of

the questioning, MPs were incredulous at the lack of

knowledge about details of why the Newsnight investigation was dropped,

why they didn't pursue the matter further, about the whole Saville

saga, about why young girls were apparently bussed in to Top Of The

Pops, about the number of people that were abused. And again and

again, Mr Entwistle said, I have no recollection. Particularly

difficult for the editor of Newsnight, Peter Rippon, because

George Entwistle said he would not have dropped the programme. He was

surprised that no decision was taken to continue with it, and said

he could not comment on Peter Rippon's "state of mind" when he

chose not to press ahead with the programme, and said the BBC would

get Nick Pollard's report and then look at whether there should be any

disciplinary proceedings. For all the blame that may or may be may

not be attached to Peter Rippon, the buck will stop with the

director general. He himself said at one point, "I take full

responsibility for all BBC journalism". So if MPs are not

impressed, his head will be on the block. The says the buck stops with

him. What about the conversation between himself and Helen Boaden

when he was head of vision, the ten-second conversation when he did

not ask what that Jimmy Savile investigation by Newsnight was

about? His defence was that he did not want to interfere in another

programme's business. He wanted there to be an editorial buffer

between the two programmes. He said to Helen Boaden briefly at this

charity lunch, keep me updated, and that was it. MPs spoke about the

amazing lack of curiosity that here he was, about a book out two

tribute programmes to Jimmy Savile, and along comes the director of

news and says, this could affect your Christmas schedule, and he did

not take it further. If that was part of the disbelief on the part

of MPs. They could not understand why on earth he did not pursue it

further. What strikes me is, it just has so many echoes of the

James Murdoch appearance before exactly the same select committee a

few months ago, when again and again, Mr Murdoch said, I don't

remember, I don't know. You felt that George Entwistle was being

pushed into the same box. We will be reflecting on this throughout

programmes today. There is just time before we go to find out the

answer to our quiz. The question will was, what has the Education

Secretary written to his old head teacher to apologise for? Who said

he was an unpleasant brat. Go to the top of the class. That is all

for today. Thank you for being our guest of the day and thanks to our

other guests. The One O'clock News is starting on BBC One. I will be