08/01/2013 Daily Politics

Good Afternoon and welcome to the Daily Politics.

MPs vote on limiting increases in benefits to 1% for three years. So

who is it going to hit - the shirkers or the strivers?

They promised an end to the big brother state and introduced a

Freedom Bill. So what's all this talk of a snooper's charter and

secret courts? We assess the government's record

on civil liberties. The man who built the Olympics

takes up a new job at the treasury. Can he kick-start infrastructure

spending across the UK and deliver a boost to the economy?

And we've our own Olympic star. Shami Chakrabarti, the founder of

liberty. We salute her integrity. Half How do you reach those dizzy

heights of adulation? Yes, we're Daily and we do Politics

- in fact we do exactly what we say on the tin. And in that tin for the

next hour is Shami Chakrabarti, the Director of Liberty. Welcome to the

programme. Let's start with Northern Ireland,

where hundreds of Loyalists have taken to the streets of east

Belfast for the fifth consecutive night to stage violent protests

against the city council's decision to restrict the number of days when

the Union flag flies over City Hall. Let's get the latest from our

Northern Ireland Political Editor, Mark Devenport. Her why have

Community nations collapsed in such a dramatic way?

It came as a bit of a surprise to the politicians at Stormont. They

knew there would be significant community disquiet over this

decision to restrict the flying of the Union flag to a certain number

of designated days over Belfast City Hall, when for many a year it

had flown there all year round. Even though they thought it might

be the one might or one-week wonder, nobody predicted, prior to the

controversial decision last month, the protests would have been

sustained in the wake they have been, and as violent as they have

been. Last night we saw the police coming under attack from

sledgehammers, axes, and industrial laser was used to try and blind the

police. I was surprised only three police officers were injured, given

the level of violence and the fact that police had to fire plastic

bullets and water cannon in response. We are seeing some of the

pictures now and the emergency vehicles, obviously being brought

in night after night. It is difficult to see how you can defuse

the situation? It is difficult. The protesters want to have the Union

flag put back on Belfast City Hall. But I was attending the regular

monthly meeting of Belfast council last night, and there was no sense

the councillors were going to do an about face. The nationalists feel

they have struck a blow for equality by taking down this flag,

which they say does not represent them. The Alliance Party, which is

the cross-community party, stuck in the middle, still believes it voted

for a principled compromise in flying the flag on only a certain

number of designated days, and we have one of those coming up

tomorrow, which is the birthday of the Duchess of Cambridge. The union

is heard about this, but are scrabbling to try and reconnect

with their community, those people who have been on the streets, who

don't feel they have been represented by their politicians.

It does demonstrate that symbols are still extremely important to

people in the communities in Northern Ireland, at a time when we

thought peace had broken out? Absolutely and progress in Northern

Ireland has been one of the most wonderful things of my lifetime, my

adult hood. No matter the importance of symbols to politics

and communities, it is no justification for sending children

out to throwing missiles. Reports of ten-year-olds going out? Yes, I

have a ten-year-old, and I don't take him on peaceful demonstrations,

let alone to put them at risk and cause violence. We have had people

win the Nobel Peace Prize from both sides of the community in Northern

Ireland. Let's have these senior political voices coming out and

speaking to the community. It does show how fragile things must be,

but these tensions still so much close to the surface? Apparently so.

I don't know whether it is affected in part by the economic situation

or other factors. As with the riots in England a couple of summers ago.

You just staff to cope saner counsel prevailed. What about the

potential solution of flying the flag again? Is this a challenge to

democracy? City Hall made a decision and it has provoked this

violence. You cannot reverse a Democratic decision because people

are rioting. I do hope it will be senior voices in the Unionist

community, peaceful people, from that side of the argument who come

out and urge peace and show some leadership. We have heard people in

the Unionist community who say they feel like strangers in their own

land, they obviously feel very strongly that they are not being

able to show their feelings in the way they would like? It is a

Democratic debate that they can lead whilst urging peace.

We will be coming to the benefits caps story soon.

When the coalition came to power, it promised to strike the civil

liberties. Some of the plans have raised questions about the

coalition record on civil liberties. We seem to have a problem with the

film, but we will try and play it in a moment. We will be joined by

the Home Office minister who is responsible.

Shami Chakrabarti, what do you think of the record from his

coalition Government in terms of civil liberties? It is mixed. They

started well. The coalition was almost glued together by their

opposition to various authoritarian measures went they were both

opposition parties. ID cards, a symbolic act of the coalition

Government, abolishing those and some of the other measures you

spoke of. The fingerprinting and so on. However, there has been a shift

and I have real concerns about secret courts. It is a

contradiction in terms, to kick out the victims of Government abuse and

their lawyers and let the Government have a private chat with

the judge. Do we need more secrecy in the lands of Hillsborough and

the Jimmy Savile scandal? It is about scooping up the private, on-

line information of everybody in the country. Not criminal suspects,

we all support those being put under surveillance, but everybody.

It is the equivalent of saying because crime happens in people's

homes, we should have the legal power to plans a camera and

microphone in everybody's bedroom and living room just in case they

are up to no good. James, and so that response, that you will be

basically so veiling everybody's house and their conversations?

it was as Shami's characterised it, I would be joining her in her views.

But it is updating legislation regarding telephones, and

reflecting the fact we communicate on the internet and different ways.

Updating legislation to enable the police to Prosser Kate -- prosecute

offenders, put safeguards in to ensure the police can do the job

they do now. This will be affecting innocent citizens. We do accept

that? It is not a targeted warrant. At the moment, the police can

access information that is retained by the phone companies, internet

companies, to be able to use that in court. What we are seeking to do

is update the legislation. Of course, we hear a number of the

concerns raised by Shami and others. We had a joint committee of both

Houses of Parliament which is looking into this. Which shares my

concerns. We accept on principle the recommendations made by that.

We want to bring the public with us on that but recognise there are

clear public protection issues. Let's remind ourselves of some of

the issues we are talking about. ID cars scrapped, innocent people

taken off the DNA database, more CCTV regulations. All part of the

Government's roll-back of state intrusion. But what about this? A

snoopers charter to some, the draft communications data built has

caused tension within the coalition. The Lib Dems want to rewrite.

whole thing is written to give carte blanche to the Home Secretary

to collect information on who you message, who you talk to our mind,

do anything with. A huge amount of information. That could

accidentally get out into the public. We know there has been data

loss before. The list of every website you go to, if you go to a

depression website, and abortion website, that could reveal a lot of

information about use. The idea is to give police and community

services the power to monitor communications. Internet service

providers will have to give the record for a year, of details like

which websites you have been a visiting, how long you have spent

on an internet voice call and who you have been tweeting. We don't

want to be able to arrest criminals to use old fashion criminals, but

let them off if they use a more modern form of communication. We

have to keep up with technology. Maintaining civil liberties is one

of the reasons the Government replaced control orders on terror

suspects who cannot be tried, with these. They focus more on

surveillance. But Labour has criticised the Government's

decision to scrap control orders after this terror suspect, who had

been previously subject to a control order, disappeared. Well

control orders were in force, several individuals or went missing,

six of them have not been heard from again. This individual has

gone missing, the police are doing everything they can to find him.

These Terrorism prevention measures are very important. They are

designed to help secure the British public from threat. A another

controversial idea, which is winding its way through the Commons,

could lead to civil hearings being heard behind closed doors. Secret

courts to it its critics, the justice and security bill would

allow Secrets Of spies and other sensitive information would be

heard in front of a judge in cases of national security. Ministers

have already backtracked, after it was defeated in the House of Lords.

Judges will decide. Inquest coroner's hearings won't be heard

in his wake, restricting it to things that are our greatest

national security. I'm still not wild about where we are commonly

have to find a balance so information isn't just excluded

under the current system. They are measures that divide, but will the

reverse of the coalition criticised as an erosion of civil liberties

when the lights go out on this Government?

The Home Office minister is with us. Which major crimes for terrorist

plots would have been foiled have the Government had access to

people's Facebook accounts? A 95% of organised crime, where they are

brought before the courts relied on his communications data, which is

the context, not the content of people's communications between

each other. What we're talking about, for example, if you have a

phone Record, the information on who has communicated with whom, and

when and work. We understand the sensitivity is attached with this,

which is why the draft legislation was put before the joint committee

for scrutiny. It is to make sure those inputs are provided. There

are clear public protection issues on child protection, where there

was a clear case which brought it to me, on a young person who had

contacted a child protection line. They had used a computer rather

than phoning up. And being able to do with that child and save their

life, literally. What you want to see taken out? For the biggest

problem with the thinking in the Home Office, it has been going on

for years. The snoopers charter was born under the last Government. It

is blanket surveillance of the whole population, rather than

attempting to target particular suspects for this kind of

surveillance. Why is it blanket surveillance? Explain to me, how is

it you will target people who you know to be suspects without going

on massive fishing expeditions? Exactly. What we are seeking to do

is bring this up to date. But the police have information on a crime,

they might have an identified suspect and the use that

information on people who they have been communicating with, it is

potential evidence. We can see how this is defined in a proportion of

weight on save karting... Updating is an innocuous phrase. We are

forcing providers to collect more data... Which they already do at

the moment. If that was the case, you wouldn't need it your bill. The

minister, is a nice man and he has been speeding up the civil

liberties for years, and now he is in the Home Office. There is

something in the water. The second problem is, he said it is

communications data, not the content. When you go online, which

are website you visit is content. You had the mental health problems

and you weren't looking for advice, and if you went on an abortion

website. That picture of your activity... Are you prepared to

risk potential terror suspects or potential paedophiles getting away

because you want to protect people's liberties to such an

Don't build up the private data of the population. Use your ingenuity

and legislation to target suspects, do not turn us all into suspect.

you are a clever criminal, you will bypass the structures you are

talking about. That is what the industry says! Bee industry

recognises, and all sides, and Shami recognises the legislation

does need updating to reflect the changing way we use technology. But

if we do not take steps at the moment because of the different way

we are communicating, the ability of the police to solve crimes as

they do, that will be eroded. We cannot allow that to happen and

that is the real talent. Nick Clegg said this is wrong on cost and

balances, can you satisfy his concerns? He has underlined the

need for the legislation. What are you going to change? One up on be -

- one of the issues was this issue of future proofing in terms of the

scope of the legislation and taking account of how we use technology,

we need to make sure we have clarity on the type of a

information we will retain her to give assurances we will not grab

everything, as Shami is suggesting we would do, to give that clarity

on the safeguards. I believe you are going to answer an urgent

question about a man on the film who has absconded and he had

earlier been on a control order, where is he? By at is the question

the police and security services are working hard to work out --

that is. Way was he able to abscond? -- why was he able? The

best place you want a suspect is behind bars and prosecuted but with

some individuals can make you cannot do that, to prosecute or to

deport them. This is the argument... This is the argument you and your

colleagues in both of the coalition parties fought tooth and nail, when

control orders were introduced under the last government. These

are control orders under a different name, with loads of

people escaped from a control order. The authority should be arresting

people and if necessary putting them under bail, then they need to

be charged or released. That is why we have committed additional

resources which are robust and are dealing with offenders who cannot

be prosecutors -- prosecuted. is nothing in the legislation that

says people should be dealt with in the criminal justice system. I have

to finish it, but as we would like to hear more on that subject. --

much as. Now, it's the first big

parliamentary vote of 2013 this afternoon. MPs will vote on

government plans to put a 1% cap on annual rises in working-age

benefits and some tax credits. Historically, benefits have risen

in line with the rate of inflation, increasing by more than 5% in 2012-

2013. The government argues the 1% cap is necessary to limit the costs

of benefits to tax payers. The Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan

Smith says, it's very simple, today is about fairness. Why should the

taxpayer pay more to sustain welfare payments, while at the same

time earning less? And a new Conservative poster today reads,

"Today, Labour are voting to increase benefits by more than

workers' wages." Labour, in contrast, is referring to today's

legislation as the "Strivers' Tax Bill," as they claim that 60% of

those hit will be in work. They cite figures from the Institute for

Fiscal Studies, which show 7.1 million out of 14 million working

households will lose �165 a year in real terms by 2015-2016. And the

Citizens Advice Bureau so -- say a couple with two children earning

�13,000 a year will lose �13 a week by 2015. The Deputy Chief Executive

of the Citizens Advice Bureau, Mike Dixon, joins us now.

Give us a flavour of the impact of this will have on the people you

speak to. It will have a huge impact, �700 is a large amount of

money but if you are a family on �13,000, that is eating your house,

buying food for your children and going on holiday, so what is a big

change. But there is a narrative from the government supported by

many that says the Welfare Bill is too high and something needs to be

done. For the Welfare Bill is high but a blanket cut is not a

sophisticated approach. People are not earning enough on lower-paid

jobs -- in lower-paid jobs and we are not getting enough back into

work so this distinction between benefit recipients and people in

work is very false. As the Institute for Fiscal Studies said

today, more people will be affected in work and out of work by this

today. Put on an issue of fairness, if you are earning around �40,000

or �45,000 and have taken working - - working tax credits, has that

created an element of dependency? This is not about dependency, this

is, can people afford to leave -- lead a decent live at the moment?

People on lower incomes, at the things they are spending money on

have gone up, energy bills and travel, at they spend money on that

disproportionately and they are going up fast. Cutting benefits at

the same time will make it much harder for those people to love and

much harder for them to get back into the labour market and get the

market growing again -- to live up. -- live.

We're joined now by the Work and Pensions Minister Steve Webb and

the Shadow Work and Pensions Minister Stephen Timms. There has

been a lot of talk about shirkers and strivers, how many people are

on benefits in your constituency? Shirkers and strivers is not

languid I have used for Iain Duncan Smith have used. The Prime Minister

has used that language, we have heard him talk about people being

workshy also. And I have not heard that, we are trying to make a small

contribution to a massive hole. Labour were borrowing over �3

billion every week. This bill does not save �3 billion is easier and

that gives a sense of the massive scale of the whole we are trying to

fill and social security spending is a small part of the court that

has to be made. A is it wrong for political leaders to use and

characterise the debate in the way I described in the opening remarks?

Dividing people is not the right way to go. For me, the bill is

about the necessary savings and protecting the most reliable, so

disabilities are protected -- disability benefits and pensions

are protectors. Without the bill, and Labour are going to vote down

the whole bill, that is another �3.5 billion that has to come from

somewhere else on we do not know where that is going to be. You are

talking about savings so you see it if it litre Iain Duncan Smith who

is talking about fairness. I see at the same, what we are saying is,

where can we find savings in the budget at a time when people in

work have often had a 1% pay rise or a pay freeze, how do we look at

benefit of greed and at the same time? It is if fairness between the

groups on benefit and had worked. So there is a difference between

shirkers and strivers? Iain Duncan Smith is saying he is standing up

for hard-working families. Taking people out of income tax is about

people in work so they can keep more of what they are winning.

need people with you would be hitting a hard-working families

because 60% of those on benefits are in work! That is why you have

to look at the whole package, not just there tax-free allowance, the

10 pence off petrol, the whole package is helping people in low-

paid work when �3.5 billion has to be found and Labour will not tell

us where it has to come from. Welfare to hide? He it is and it is

going up and the whole he is trying to fill is about the increase in

unemployment forecast for next year. Unemployment has been falling.

has gone down a bit but the official forecast is for it to go

up next year. So you agree the Welfare Bill is too high and you

say that is because of unemployment levels so you feel everybody that

gets benefit get it and deserves it? The great majority of people

out of work are certainly very anxious to get work and one of the

things that worries me about this proposal is getting back to the

toxic combination of policies he has talked about in the 1980s when

we had the court in the top rate of income tax that is being proposed

now -- a court. That led to the explosion of child poverty in the

1980s and will do the same today. The crucial point is that the

majority of people affected by this are in work so if you take a second

lieutenant in the army... Supporting his wife and three

children, they will lose out by a �552 a year. Exactly the people

struggling for most at the moment. Why are you were posing a whole

bill? It is deeply -- why are you opposing the whole bill. It is

deeply opposing. You have said it is too high and you need to deal

with the economic situation, polls show that the public is generally

in favour of dealing with the burgeoning Welfare Bill, what would

Labour do to bring it down? A get people back to work. It is very

difficult for up a government to say, we would improve growth

figures, what would you do with the Welfare Bill? We would not just

improve growth figures, we would also introduce a jobs guarantee

which we set out the details of that last week, paid for by a

restriction on pensioners' tax relief for people earning over

�150,000 a year, so we could make sure people got back into work and

we got momentum back into the economy and the future hold this

bill is designed to fill would not open up. Are you not falling into

the trap that has been laid? You are saying you do not support a cap

but to do so put a freeze on workers' wages? We do support the

overall 1% cap on public sector pay and it needs to be implemented in a

fair way, and less than 1% rise for public-sector workers on higher

wages to protect those on low wages. This hits us with a double whammy

of people who have their incomes get down and their tax credits cut

for also and that is not fair. If the goes ahead, which you reverse

it? -- if it goes ahead. Wait until you see our manifesto. This is the

wrong approach and not fair for people struggling to make ends meet

at the moment. When you hear this characterisations and listen to the

Citizens Advice Bureau and job a Liberal Democrat colleagues who say

they are anxious about the policy and fear many that would be hit are

already on the breadline! They are anxious about a language of

shirkers and strivers which we do not support. You have to look at a

package of measures, crucially the Universal Credit specifically for

the low-paid and hard-working families we need to support.

concern is this nasty political language and demonising of people

on benefits, and it went on under the last government, it is warping

public opinion here because public perception of the benefits system

is warped. The average perception is that 41% of the welfare budget

is going on the unemployed but just 3% is spent on the unemployment, so

the rest is people who are working but on low wages would low incomes.

The perception was that 27% of the welfare budget is going on

fraudulent claims, and the reality, according to the government's

figures, is that less than 1% of the welfare budget is going towards

fraud. This is the shirkers, strivers language, this is more

open and the reality and public opinion. What do you say about

that? You could say your Conservative colleagues have done

that and most liberal Democrats have said they do not recognise him

-- they do not recognise and they do not like that language. There is

a false perception of what is going on and welfare is going up, a lot

of that is pensions and benefits for disabled people we are

protecting and that is what people want the money spent on. It is not

just a single bill. We have not heard this will be reversed, they

would just voted against it, but where will this come from and the

context of �80 billion of deficit over the next few years? The answer

is, we vote against every cut but I am going to have to finish its

first. The Olympics was sporting glory.

The Government has now put the creator in the Government. The

Government has high hopes that a new wave of roads, rail and other

public works will get the economy moving.

We have a national infrastructure plan which has a pipeline with

about just over �300 billion of projects that comprises I think of

about 550 separate projects. As I pointed out already, we have

identified the 40 top projects we think are important for modernising

the economy and focusing resources on. So I will start with those

projects. I was interested in the little ones that was started by the

previous Government, as I am in starting new ones. Those 40, are

they 40 that have not begun yet? terms of shovels in the ground, no.

How many of those 40 will begin before 20th May 15? I do not know

the answer to that yet. What is the Government's targets? I don't know.

These are the questions I need to do my own work on to get a good

sense of what we need to do, where we are now, and what is

realistically possible. I will be speaking to the business

minister, Matthew Hancock, but let's be to the Director General of

the British commerce of chambers. He was struggling to answer the

question on how quickly these infrastructure projects are getting

built. Will he have much luck on blocking the pipeline? It is not

looking good so far. The Government has indicated a lot of things in

the right direction. The biggest challenge for the Government is

delivering. Infrastructure is hugely important, along with

business finance, access to finance. In the structure is the biggest

answer to the growth question in the UK economy. It will also

stimulate growth. It needs to be funded largely by the private

sector. The Government needs to reduce the political risk for the

private sector. There needs to be a freeing up of planning. How do you

rate the UK's infrastructure? Generally poor. Aviation causes the

bellwether, and that can is being kicked down the road. There is lots

of infrastructure that needs to develop in certain areas. The sea

ports, airports, rail and road, Lee Mead and energy policy in the UK,

and energy security policy. It needs to be on a different basis.

We also include skills in our infrastructure. This the Government

doing enough? They're not doing enough urgency, scale and delivery.

Le Sport that to Matthew Hancock. Poor infrastructure and you are not

delivering the scale or the urgency of infrastructure? I agreed with a

lot. Of course the UK infrastructure is poor, we know

that. There has been an historic underspend. Fortunately we will be

spending more on our transport infrastructure over this Parliament,

van over the average 13 years that preceded it. And there is two

problems. The first is, we need to make it faster to get from an

infrastructure project proposal, to digging in the ground and then it

openings. That is opening. And then the second thing is getting the

money spent. Let me give you a couple of examples. In terms of

road projects, there were announcements two years ago about

the importance of some projects. Where are they? The M4, the M5 and

the M6, those projects have started. Preliminary works are happening.

The service roads you need. And there is others where the money is

being spent in order to get the planning approvals, get the

ownership straight. You need to own every bit of land. The said to

agree, you accept you are not delivering? You have talked about a

lot about in the structure, but apart from those examples you have

given on roads, you have not delivered. The urgency isn't there.

Do you accept that now? No, not at all. That is what business is

saying, the urgency is not there. will explain about aviation. I

don't except there isn't an urgency, because there is an urgency. We got

into a position as a country, that it took too long to get projects

from ideas and even when the financing was behind them, to

actually getting them completed. We have got to improve the process,

and then get the diggers in the grounds. We are having the biggest

investment in rail since Victorian times. There will be more he spends

on the railways over this Parliament than the last. There is

a �37 billion announcement by Network Rail, more details came out

this morning. We are electrifying from Southampton to Yorkshire and

electrifying to South Wales. 800 miles of electrification over this

Parliament, compared to 11 miles under Labour. So the urgency, I do

not take it. We saw a question about how these projects are not

happening. They are happening. was asked how many of the

Government's 40 priority infrastructure projects would be

under way by 2015, he did not know. That is because he is only a few

days into his job. How many of the 40? The depends how many of the 40

you count. How many of them will be under way by 2015? Almost all of

them. You heard it there. Were at work under way on the M6, the M5

and lot of other projects. We won't have time to talk about funding.

are making huge progress. Funding has got to come from the private

sector, you said. One of the ways it was suggested was to invest from

pension funds. George Osborne said it would hopefully raise �20

billion. Amateur money we get to spend on infrastructure from

pension funds? Best how much money. There is 10 million man's work it

has been designated. We will extend the Northern line to Battersea.

us tell us the amount of money. billion where this project is

outlined, and the Northern line extension to Battersea, which is a

�1 billion project is funded, including these guarantees. It is

under way, it will open up an area of London. But the National Pension

funds said it had only managed to secure �700 million. �700 million

was October. I had just show June the figure whether projects are

being worked on his 10 billion. That answers your urgency questions.

We have gone from 700 million to 10 billion. We have had a long-term

structure issue. But this sort of debate that takes place on these

programmes is part of the programme. The political class have a point

scoring issue, when actually we have a major, a national crisis,

effectively. The Prime Minister said we were fighting an economic

war. We need a huge scale of investments, we need to secure the

investments for the private sector. We need to get growth going in the

UK, to levels which make us gross competitive in the world economy,

even if the economy was going bad, we wouldn't be there. Now, Matthew

Hancock, you're staying with us because MPs have been debating ways

of increasing the number of women on the boards of listed companies.

Currently, less than 20% of FTSE 100 board directors are female. A

level which all sides agree is unacceptably low. The government

asked Lord Davies of Abersoch to write a report on the issue, which

was published in 2011, and have been pursuing a voluntary,

business-led approach to improving gender balance. Now the European

Commission is getting involved. They want to set a target for all

major companies to have at least 40 % women non-executive directors by

2020. The proposal was debated in the Commons yesterday.

On the substance on the challenge of women on board, it is clear the

Government has taken a lead and things are moving in the right

directions. The current strategy is leading us towards the target the

EU has proposed. On this issue about making progress, one of the

ways of making progress is a voluntary approach. Lord Davies has

made it clear in other speeches, he feels there has to be progress, and

if progress is not made, we should look at a non voluntary approach.

His he arguing the Government would be willing to look at that as

something, we the UK we do, rather than some think the EU would do?

Before coming a minister I wrote a book saying this should happen and

we should hold open the proposition of legislation. The Government's

position is clear, which is that we should approach this on a voluntary

basis. Today we baked -- debate the need of greater gender balance of

those in leadership in business. In doing so, the house and the

governor has 22% of the current members and just 18% of the Cabinet

are women. This is a disgraceful state of affairs in 2012. We are

proud on these benches, that 33% of the Parliamentary Labour Party, and

40% of the Shadow Cabinet are women. should debate, but in this house we

are in no position to lecture. Parliament rejected the EU's

proposal, deciding this issue should be tackled at a national

level. Matt Hancock has stayed with us to discuss the issue further.

Shami Chakrabarti, he did not support the legislation, but you do

now? I was in the liberal position growing up, an ambitious young

woman, I did not want to be a token. But I have realised, not just in

this country, but all over the world, there is such injustice and

discrimination towards women, possibly more than any other

discrimination in the world. The process is slow and the barriers

are great. You could have legislation that it was time

limited just to kick-start the process. You set up a company

because you want certain benefits that come from companies

legislation. We did this at Liberty, despite it being a human rights

organisation, very few women on the council and the board. There was a

time limited constitutional amendment that allowed the co-

option of women and other minorities. It landed -- lasted two

years, and at the end of that period they stayed. Why couldn't

that happen? You agree, you said that you would like to see more

women as non-executive directors on company boards. It won't work

without legislation? It is moving in the right directions. I agree

with an awful lot of what Shami says. The cultural point, people

tend to promote people who are similar to them. If you are getting

somebody for your board, let get somebody who fits the organisation

we are in. Cultural change is crucial and legislation can have a

role in that. Legislation always has some unintended consequence.

The arguments I wrote in my book, and which I put in the Commons, is

we should push in this direction, but we should hold open that option.

So you would be prepared to use legislation if you do not think

enough progress has been made in five years? I won't put a time

limit on it, but I wrote a book making that argument. And making do

cultural argument that more diverse sports, not only diverse boards in

terms of sex, but background and people's life experiences. The

evidence is clear, more diverse boards are better. There are

downsize to legislating. What is the downside? The way you draft it

could be very complicated. They could end up being unintended

downside consequences. In Norway, where they have this legislation,

the number of non-executive directors has risen. But there has

been no change in the number of executive women... It is about

making a start. Coming back to Shami. It is moving. It is true to

say I think Lord Davies, who carried out the review so the

current rate of exchange, it would take 70 years to achieve gender

balance boardrooms in the UK. I am getting more impatient, and I

want change to hurry up. I want to update the figures. That was from

his report. The proportion of directors, FTSE 100 companies,

women, is 17%. It was 12% two years ago. We have increased that

proportion faster in all but three countries in the use. The UK is

moving in the right directions. What about a time limit piece of

legislation that Shami suggested. He would just have that league,

like the all-women shortlists in Parliament, then culture will have

The best thing is for this to be a business-led approach that is run

by business and we push in the right direction. Race

discrimination legislation was not a business-led approach.

Legislation has a harder edge to it. But there is already equality in

legislation, gender equality in legislation, and the gap has closed

a wart. You have got to work out what works and if we are moving in

this direction, and faster than almost any country in the EU, we

are making progress. But Mike position is clear and I think we

should hold open the option -- at my position. We should let

brilliant people make the progress and get things happening. He has

walked the tightrope very well because he has a private position

and there is a government position. This is a good review of what

Parliament did yesterday. Hands up to us on that!

Now, remember the Leveson Report? Our guest of the Day, Shami

Chakrabarti, will. She was one of the assessors to the inquiry, who

listened to much of the evidence. Sir Brian Leveson delivered his

report into the Culture, Practice and Ethics of the Press at the end

of last year and, over the next few months, the Government and the

media industry will have to decide how the report should be

implemented. Let's bring ourselves up to date with that process with

our political correspondent, Ross Hawkins, who also followed the

inquiry throughout. Where are we? I am recovering

slowly from the process! What they normally do is just throw press

releases and statements at each other in a political battle. Here,

but throw around entire draft bills and there are now five different

potential versions of legislation that might or mocked -- that might

or might not make it into law. I understand one drawn up by the

government, to prove how difficult it would be, is going to be

published by a campaign group he says it proves it is all simple.

They are now talking about a royal charter to set up a body that would

check whether a new press regulator was doing its job, the appeal is

that would not need legislation. The bit that might get people to

join in with that process would need legislation and that is where

the debate is that. The Minister and her opposite numbers are

meeting today, editors will meet on Thursday. You feel we are drawing

towards a conclusion at some stage but I am sure the conclusion will

not look much like the one drawn up originally pine -- by Sir Brian

Leveson after we spent so long sitting through those hearings.

eight months, I believe! -- eight months.

And Labour's Helen Goodman joins us now. Why cannot the press get their

own house in order? They have not fought a long time and that is why

we had the Leveson Inquiry a. you trust them to do so? We want a

beat -- a free press independent of government and politicians because

it plays a vital role in holding power to recount, but we need to do

what the judge recommended and to create some real inducements to an

ethical proprietor or editor to join a better club. The PCC was not

enough. Should there be a legal basis? Should there be some statute

backing this up? There has been a false debate about whether you have

a statute or not. We need to make sure that we -- we need to make

sure nobody is compelled to join the decent club, but if they do,

Beryl legal benefits. One way to do that is to have a statute. -- there

are legal benefits. It just a hat - - it just has to make it worth your

while. So if you go to court, you will get benefits in terms of costs

or damages that might be awarded against you. Our inducement enough?

We need to have those. -- are inducements enough. It is important

that what replaces the PCC is not just better, but that the public

can see there is a guarantee it will be better on a continuing

process -- basis. So the guarantee does need legislation back in it?

We think that is the best way to make sure it will happen. We cannot

see there is a satisfactory alternative. What would you like to

see? Ed Miliband called for full implementation of the report, did

he rushed to judgment a bit? and we have now had time to draft -

- to draft a bill, one of the five that has been published, that gives

a commitment to freedom of the press and it gives a system for

recognising the new independent regulatory body, at which we want

the press to set up, but there must be criteria which can be seen to be

met and to meet the public's genuine concerns. But you do not

think that is necessary in terms of having some sort of accountability

in law. Various a democratic point, the press are not accountable? --

there is a democratic point. A few are to get these benefits in court

and you say aye am in this -- if you are to get these benefits in

court and if you say that you are in this club, somebody has to judge

if your club is good enough. If newspaper editors do not join up

and if somebody decides, I am not going to play with this, it does

not work. It could work because if the judge is recommending that you

-- that if you do not join at the club, be decent club, if you put

yourselves outside the club and you find yourself pseudonym privacy

action or a defamation action, they should be damages against you. --

if you find yourself in a privacy action. Would this work? If the

people that did not join work small publications, this would work, but

if large proprietors did not join in, we would have a problem. The

government has agreed to the status quo is not an option. Everybody

agrees come up of the cross-party talks going to succeed?

everybody agrees with that, but of across party talks going to succeed.

And will we have a new regulator by next week? I am not sure if it will

be agreed by next week but we hope the government will look at this

bill and a constructive light and see it meets the criteria and does

not mean a big regulatory burden, which is what they were talking

about. Thank you. Now, the start of the

Olympics may seem like a distant memory, but for our guest of the

day here, it was a day she won't forget in a hurry. She was one of

the flag carriers at Danny Boyle's opening ceremony, along with

esteemed figures such as Muhammad Ali and Doreen Lawrence. So how did

Shami get there? I think it is mad that we do not. I

am too simplistic and so are these very successful prosecutors in the

United States. We can use listening devices, if I'd bug their bedroom,

their conversations can be used and all this would be relevant. -- I

bug. I want to pay tribute as a mother and campaigner to Janice be

started a campaign for her own son and he saw it was not just about

around San but about everybody's sons and daughters and vulnerable

relatives. -- son. I am not paying attention! It is no wonder all

those people and up in jail! -- a foreign jail!

Shami Chakrabarti, the founder of Liberty.

She has been cringing with embarrassment. The opening ceremony

was watched by so many people, but I was not the founder of Liberty,

it was founded in 1934! I know I am sharing -- showing my age, but I am

just the caretaker of Liberty. We are joined now by the PR Guru

Mark Borkowski, who has advised a number of celebrities on their

image. How do you think Shami has been able to transcend the

political left and right to reach this national treasure status?

Shami is incredibly bright, as we sought a minute to go with that

minister, she is brilliant at punctuating people. -- as we saw.

With a media dominated by white middle-aged commentators, she is a

breath of fresh air and she cut through the rhetoric we have had

for years about social mobility. -- cuts. Very few icons are as bright

and direct as her. But having built her up, she could come crashing

down, that is the dangers. daresay she has a lot or control

and is more sensible about her image. -- a lot more control. If

you look back at the key element of when the silver screen was in its

heyday, there was Arnold publicist he said it was the strength of

character that was important -- there was an old publicist. You are

being kind but we need a reality check! You use words like icon and

national treasure, one of my favourite movies of the 1980s is

called Working Girl, and there is a great line from her friend who says,

sometimes I sing and dance around the house in my underwear, do not

make meet Madonna! I am a human rights campaigner! -- make me. A

did you have reservations about the Olympics? When the phone call came

through, I thought it was a joke and I played along for five minutes.

When I realised it was not a joke, I had reservations because I

thought, what if the protesters get arrested and it is like Beijing?

What if this is an excuse to clamp down on civil liberties? But then

they said the magic words, Doreen Lawrence, who had agreed to do this.

So I phoned up my friend and heroin and I said, you have agreed to do

this, are you not worried that if there is a clampdown on young black

children of protesters, that you could be used to endorse that? --