11/01/2013 Daily Politics

Afternoon folks, welcome to the Daily Politics.

Opposition mounts to the government's plans for gay marriage,

as the former Defence Sectary and the Energy Minister line up against

the policy. Will same sex couples be able to marry by 2015?

It's 40 years since some at least celebrated our entry into the

Common Market. This week, after warnings from the Obama

Administration, how real is the prospect of a British exit from the

EU and what would be the consequences?

The House of Lords debates the Leveson Report - should the press

be given time to put their house in order, or is a new law needed to

curb their excesses? And free the Aberdeen One! Helena,

the mannequin locked up for Two stories from Aberdeen this

week! All that in the next hour, and with

us for the duration today is, Mary Ann Sieghart, she's chair of the

Social Market Foundation, a political commentator, and

according to her website, a "Portfolio Woman". Not sure what

that means. It means I do lots of different things, instead of being

a wage slave. Danny Finkelstein has a portfolio but it's a bit thin. He

gets by working for the Times where he's chief leader writer and

columnist. Let's start with gay marriage.

David Cameron has promised to change the law to allow gay people

to marry by 2015, but opposition within his own party is widespread

and apparently still growing. This morning, Energy Minister, John

Hayes, says he has his doubts. And former Defence Secretary, Liam Fox

- you may remember he once stood against David Cameron for the

party's leadership - has come out strongly against the change. A

letter from Dr Fox to his constituents has emerged, and in it

He says he's sure that proponents of gay marriage are sincere, but

Well it's no surprise perhaps that Liam Fox isn't fully signed up to

the Cameron modernising agenda, but it does show the scale of

opposition to this policy. We're joined now by Mike Judge, of the

Coalition for Marriage who are campaigning against same sex

marriage. Welcome to the programme. Pleasure

to be with you. Is it your claim opposition to this policy is now

growing within Parliament, within the Conservative ranks? Certainly,

I don't think there can be any doubt. We had seen upwards of 130

and more, and growing, backbench Tory MPs saying they will

definitely vote against it. There are many more yet to declare. I

suspect they on nervous about this policy and unsure about what has

been proposed. And for Dr Fox to come out with his letter, he is a

senior Tory figure, popular with the grass roots who have been

disaffected by this policy. It is a devastating blow for David

Cameron's plans. I wonder if it is devastating? In a free vote, given

the attitude of the Labour backbenchers, Conservatives and the

Lib Dem backbenchers, doesn't it get through? All observers on both

sides of this debate expected to go through the House of Commons. I do

think there will be a strong opposition within the Commons, a

level of oppositions which will surprise many observers. Then the

debate moves on to the House of Lords. Polling in the House of

Lords shows the majority think it should be put on hold because it is

yet to be demonstrated there is any kind of public appetite for this.

am not talking to you about the rights and wrongs of this issue,

just the politics of it. Your hope and perhaps expectation is this

could be stopped in the Lords? certainly think it will be sent

back by the Lords will stop I think also we will get a strong showing

in the House of Commons. Stick with us, let's hear what on guests pink.

Is he right? Is he right it is controversial? Yes. Is he right

there may be a defeat in the House of Lords? I guess it is quite

possible. Is he right the public don't support it? No. I am

disappointed an organisation that says it is for marriage is against

marriage and wants to restrict the number of people to marry. I don't

know how two people getting married could affect my marriage or anybody

else's marriage. I was just wanting to look at the politics, because we

have debated the substance of it quite a lot. Assuming Mr Judge is

right, it will probably get through the Commons. But if it is stopped

in the Lords, it would be embarrassing for the Prime

Minister? It would, and it is difficult for the Prime Minister

because it wasn't in the manifestos. By tradition, the Lords tend not to

block legislation that was in the governing party's manifesto. But I

think it would be difficult for them to block something that has

majority support in the country. Judge, it is said you are

campaigning against something which the British public now seem more

comfortable with and may have done for many decades? I think, public

opinion, the more they have heard about this debate and they have

understood the rights of marriage are already available to same-sex

couples through civil partnerships, 70% have said, I don't see any need

to redefine marriage. And that particular arguments is what has

commenced a lot of MPs and the knock on effects of the civil

liberties of those people who disagree. All of those reasons when

the public look at a more detailed way of what is proposed, they are

happy with the status quo. That has fed through to MPs, MPs sitting on

marginal seats. They are saying there is not in need this, it does

not have a popular mandate, we are not sure we will vote for it.

do you mean defect of the civil liberties of people who disagree? I

won't be effective if people of same-sex want to get married?

Someone put on Umm Qasr that he was in favour of this proposal, and he

was demoted and lost 40% of his salary. Will people working in the

public sector be allowed to voice their opposition against this?

same opposition that were shown on Section 28, age of consent and so

will partnerships. Each time we have had the same debate, usually

big red herrings are put about, and in the end it gets through. What I

suspect it will happen, the same will happen, it will be

controversial. It is difficult for the Government, because it divides

Conservatives particularly between older and younger. Liam Fox

referred to lifelong Conservatives. It probably is true of like long

Conservatives, but younger Conservatives are more in favour of

it. Isn't the problem, you face being on the wrong side of the tide

of history? Within my lifetime, it was illegal to be involved in

homosexual acts. I don't think many people would now propose to bring

that law back. It is not that long ago you could smoke on an aircraft.

The idea you could now smoke on an aircraft would be regarded as

derisory. In a few years, won't we see gay marriage as part of life?

Many things do change in life, but marriage has not been one of the

things that has changed. Marriage between men and women has been

around for thousands of years, it is before the Christian church and

Britain as a nation. I'm sure it will be around for many years to

come. But the public on not convinced of the argument it needs

redefining, especially because there is in law, no discrimination

for same-sex couples and the same rights married couple have are

available through civil partnerships. And that point is put

to people and then they are not convinced of the argument. Banks

for joining us. Just before we move on, the politics of this is

interesting. Mr Cameron has upset a lot of people in his party by being

seen to champion this. He could probably have got away with this is

the economy was growing by 4%, living standards were better and

the Tories were 10 points ahead in the polls will stop none of the

above is true. You have also got to show you are in favour of the

things you are in favour of. You have to give heart to liberal

Conservatives as well. And to broader, non-Conservative supported

him at the last General Election and show them you have not lost the

vision, when you are taking typical, economic decisions. Making people

think the Conservatives have had to be hard-nosed. He is being true to

that. It is because people are saying they have become the nasty

party, they are cutting benefits. He has got to show, in other areas

of life, more compassionate. And it gives people a lot of happiness.

Time for the daily quiz. Which member of the Government was

allegedly involved in throwing Damian Green, in fact off the

bridge in Oxford during his student days? Was it Chris Grayling.

Solicitor General Oliver Heald, or the Home Secretary, Theresa May.

Will I have to answer? Not now, at the end of the programme. Do you

know the answer? Yes. January is quite the month for

birthdays. The Daily Politics celebrated its 10th this week. Mel

C from the Spice Girls is going to be 39 tomorrow. And can you believe

it's been 40 years since Britain joined what was to become the

European Union? Doesn't time fly when you're having fun? Adam's been

looking back at the events of 1st Jimmy Osmond was popular in that

year. # I will be your long-haired Lover

from Liverpool. Richard Nixon was preparing for his

second term in the White House. And a village in Devon celebrated

Britain's entry into the Common Market, joining France, Belgium,

the Netherlands, Germany and Luxembourg.

It was also the year at the New London Bridge opened, so where

better to meet Tony Blair's former man in Brussels, who is now the

official historian between Europe and the British political

establishment. They looked at a North Atlantic free trade area with

United States. The Americans said, you must be joking. Then they look

at going it alone. But we were no longer economically powerful enough.

That is why Ted Heath signed us up to the Continent will clock, paving

the way for the treaty in 1970 to stop but only after the French

vetoed our membership twice in the previous decade. Then insisted we

make a big contribution to the Budget. It also had to be written

into British law by a knife edge vote in Parliament. On the old

files there is the draft of the statement he had ready just in case

he lost the vote. It was one of those bits of paper that never got

used but it was there. Nowadays, hardly anyone remembers the

occasion was marked by a Euro themed beauty contest on television.

But the foundation had been laid for the Euro wrangles we see today.

There was an underestimate and up the extent this would be dynamic

and there would be growth in the number of laws and policies that

would emanate from Brussels, even though we would play a part in

negotiating them. The leaders at the time thought the European

Community would be led by the three big countries. They underestimated

the power of the institutional structure that had been set up.

other words, the EU is a bit like the area around London Bridge, it

looks pretty different now, but really it is still dominated by

We are joined by the Times' European correspondent, who has

written a book, Au Revoir, Europe, and Mary Ann and Danny are still

with us. David Charter, let me come to you first, do you think, looking

back, when we joined 40 years ago, did we realise it was going to be

so rocky, that we would become so disillusioned with it as a nation

overall? Well, happy birthday, Andrew! I think there is no

question that people who voted in the 1975 referendum feel that they

were a little bit hoodwinked in some way by what developed. Because

within, say, five years of having that referendum, the assembly where

we sent our MPs to talk about the laws in Brussels became a directly

elected parliament, under all sorts of unforeseen developments then

came from monetary union, which we did not take part in, of course, to

the adoption of a European foreign minister, and of course now the

plans for banking union, fiscal union, economic union. Little

wonder that people say, we did not know what we were voting for in

1975, when we had the referendum. We were not really told what we

were in for in 1973. Whole lot of water has passed under the bridge

since we joined, the country is more Euro-sceptic, the policy of Mr

Cameron is to repatriate, and as the eurozone becomes a closer union,

we are going to attempt to repatriate powers back to London.

The Foreign Office has been briefing that the Germans are not

there is against this as they might seem, that the Germans could be an

ally in this, because they do not want to lose Britain altogether.

You are sitting in Berlin, shed some light, is that really true?

Well, up to a point, because the Germans are terrified, in fact, of

being left without a big ally against what you might call Club

Med, the group of countries that led by France, but including Italy,

Spain, Portugal and Greece, there would like a different style of

European Union with more social protections, and protections for

their businesses and their farmers, for example, from foreign

competition. So there is a very strong feeling in Berlin that, as

much as possible must be done to give Britain in the club, but I do

think that Angela Merkel's patients and the patience of others in

Germany has a limit, and at the end of the day they will save the

European Union, rather than saving David Cameron's neck. Before I

bring in other guests, I am grateful to have you to date from

Berlin, is it really credible for the British to expect the Germans

and the French, but particularly the Germans, to repatriate so many

powers that we get all the advantages of being in the single

market and the open market, but we have almost none of the

responsibilities or costs of club membership? I am very sorry, I have

lost all sound from London. Is the status quo sustainable, given the

state of British... Can we just carry on? No, but there is a big

difference between status quo and the idea that you can somehow

renegotiate meaningful powers back to Britain, and as you put it in

your question, and remain within the single market, which is after

all a British creation. We need the extension of the single market to

include things like telecoms and energy, extended across services,

and we have the problem of the EU budget, but you do all that from

within the union, fighting your corner with allies. It is right

that Germany has a lot of sympathy for us, but I would not push it too

far. They are not about to give us meaningful powers. So is the prime

minister's strategy credible, and can he do end up...? He now

presides over the most Euro-sceptic mainstream party in Europe now, and

repatriating the Working Time Directive and a couple of other

things, that is not going to surprise, is it? The first thing to

say it is not eccentric to be Euro- sceptic. It would have been a

different model for this country, but we decided to stay out of the

euro, that is a settled view in this country, and that requires a

different relationship with the European Union. It is not just a

question of the Prime Minister eccentrically wanting to repatriate

powers for Tory Euro-sceptics, it is not possible for Europe to move

towards consolidation of a single currency without changing, and that

change cannot happen unless Britain's relationship from outside

the euro changes. So this change is necessary, and does however much

people have and Bath, in the country or out of the country, they

will have to be a change, and that change will take either a limited

or greater form. But unless we join the euro, we are going to be

different from other countries who are inside. Are we really going to

hold the ever closer union of the eurozone hostage to them giving as

what Mr Cameron wants? I do not think it needs to be as dramatic as

that, but yes, in 1973 lots of people said that we gave away

sovereignty by agreeing to join, and that was absolutely correct. In

return, what we got was a large say, and in places a veto, on how Europe

develops.,... When Thatcher signed up to the European market, we

decided to give up our veto, because we did not want the French

vetoing the single market. What you think of the general proposition

that if the eurozone wants to have more fiscal, more economic union,

which is the cause they have to embark on if they want to save

their currency, we will say, you can only do that if you let us go

in the other direction? Is that credible European policy? It is a

credible negotiating position, and people like Rowland will say, you

cannot have a pick-and-mix Europe, but we already do have. Some

countries have joined the euro, some have stayed outside. Some have

joined the Shengen agreement with three borders, some have chosen to

stay outside. That is how the union has developed. Can you tell me

another major country that wants to repatriate powers? I don't know,

I'm afraid. Going back to David Charter in Berlin, can you hear us

now? I am back, yes! We have managed to get the director-general

to put another shilling in the meter to keep you here. What I

wanted to know, I know that, as you say, they would prefer us to stay

in rather than leave, because in economic attitudes we share a

generally liberal philosophy compared to the French and Club Med

countries. What I wanted was whether Angela Merkel, because she

is the one that will matter in this, is she prepared to lead Britain

have all the advantages are one over market in Europe, and almost

none of the responsibilities and costs that go with it? No, she is

not prepared to go that far, and this will be subject to the most

difficult negotiations, which is why David Cameron would be well

advised not to over promises in his much vaunted forthcoming speech on

Europe later this month. Because not all of it will be deliverable

in terms of what his backbenchers are saying they want. You have got

to remember that these directives that David Cameron does not like,

and many of the Conservatives do not like, and many in business and

British society do not like, are seen as absolutely fundamental

parts of the single market in most of Europe. And the single market is

what many Conservative MPs assay is the only thing they want. I'm

afraid they therefore misunderstand what the single market is. It is a

system of open and free-trading that has checks and balances to

ensure social protections for workers. And that is the deal.

Roland Rudd, people like yourself are strongly pro-European, don't

you have a fundamental problem these days, considering what Danny

was saying, if we are not going to join the euro and no-one seems very

keen to do that for the foreseeable future, I mean, you're not in

favour, are you? No. This business about being at the heart of Europe

is a nonsense. You cannot be at the heart of Europe if you are not in

the inner circle. I do not believe that to be the case at all, and I

think the reason that people always say that the remorseless logic of

the euro is further integration is because politically that is their

position and has always been our position, and it proves the point

that they want proven. But it is proving to be right. But is not in

Britain's interests to expend capital and energy in something you

do not want to have happened. Far better to use our interests to get

a more liberal, open market and to put our ethics with Germany.

Germany has made it clear they will not allow the price of further

integration to harm the single market. Look at what happened with

banking union, it is a shadow of what was promoted by the French and

Italians, because the Germans stood by the British, and we negotiated a

good deal, Osborne worked with the Germans on banking union. You are

not denying that the eurozone will become an ever closer union. I am

sure that will happen. And we will not be part of it, rightly or

wrongly. But let's not talk about it in the sense of edging them on,

because it is not in our interest. We want to focus on the things that

are important, British jobs and prosperity. Once we decided not to

join, we created a different relationship with the other

European countries, and you see this differently because eventually

you want to join the euro. I keep an open mind. That is fine, sorry

if I have misunderstood that, but in any case, you are creating a

different relationship with the European Union, and that requires

us to create a structural distinction. David Owen explains

this very well in his recent book, it creates a structural distinction

between the single market, with all of what David Charter has said, and

the eurozone. It creates a difference. When are we getting the

Prime Minister's speech? I think it is the 22nd. David, do we have a

date for that speech? It is going to be in Holland, we understand.

think it is 22nd January, finally we have a date, and finally we

think it will be in the Netherlands, not here in Germany, unfortunately.

Probably wise! But another country that, of course, has a mini rebate

from its contributions to the European Union. If I could just

come back, people asking me about what Merkel once, very quickly, we

voted in 1975 for 40 years of surprises in the European Union.

Merkel will not be around forever, there will be a Social Democrat

chancellor one day in Germany, and perhaps he or she will decide they

want a more social Europe. Unlikely to be one this September. Oh, very

unlikely! Mrs Merkel is looking the top favourite there. Thank you for

joining us in Berlin, we will try to come back to you to get the

reaction of the Germans to Mr Cameron's speech when he delivers

it on that date. Roland Rudd, thank you, we will continue this debate

That is a real terms cut once inflation was taken into account.

On Wednesday's Daily Politics, the Conservative Treasury minister,

Sajid Javid, and the Chateau Work and Pensions Secretary, Liam Byrne,

debated what the consequences of the cap would be. Because of that

discussion, Sajid Javid made a specific claim about the state of

the public finances when the current government came to office.

Let's listen to what he had to say. During the last decade, welfare

spending in real terms went up by 45%. It represents, in total, one

in every �3 that is raised in taxes, it is a Budget that was out of

control. When you are using divisive language, talking about

shirkers and strivers... You have had your chance, you have had your

chance. You are having trouble answering the questions, I want to

about a bit. The problem is that he does not want to acknowledge the

reality, and I wish she could be honest again, as he was before,

talking about there being no money left. I thought you were trying to

help them out! I want to be straightforward and acknowledge

that the welfare budget was out of control, and if you are going to

deal with the largest deficit of any industrialised country when we

came to power, you have to deal with the welfare budget. So Mark

these words, the largest deficit of any industrialised country when we

came to power. That was, of course, in May 2010. But was he right? A

loyal viewer, Eugene Zelem, e- mailed us to ask us to look into

them had the biggest deficit and the highest overall debt, so we

have asked Paul Johnson from the IFS to cast some light on the

situation, and here he is, welcome! Let's go back to basics, as a prime

minister once said, let's clear up first of all, because it is often

mixed, sometimes intentionally by politicians, what we mean by

deficit and what we mean by, I think, probably best called the

The national debt is the total of many outstanding that as a country,

we still owed. It is more than a trillion pounds. The deficit is the

amount we borrow every year. And that is around �120 million this

year pulls up the deficit is the flow of additional borrowing.

time we borrow more than we spend a year, that amount we borrowed gets

added to the national debt? Exactly right. You can only reduce the

national debt, it can become a small amount if the economy grows,

is that right? That is exactly right. All politicians, I hope you

use that distinction. The Government's aid they had cut the

deficit by 25%, the public think they have cut the overall national

debt by 25%. The national debt is growing a lot. A proportion of the

size of the national income, it is going to go up above 80% of

national income, which it is the highest that it has been. Savage

jabbered said we had the highest debt the city of any industrialised

country when the coalition came to concrete -- came to power, was he

right? What was understood at the time in 2010, he was basically

right. The OCD was saying... Americans are higher. Although at

the time we thought our deficit was the highest, in fact when we looked

at the figures again, the Americans were higher. The Americans were

slightly above us in 2010. The story does not change, we did have

the want or two highest deficits Our public finances were not in a

good place. So he is not quite right, he may have thought it at

the time, but we now know the Americans had a bigger deficit as a

percentage of GDP, and we had. We had the second biggest question

mark a century. Was it bigger than Greece? Coming back to the national

debt, the accumulated deficits from over the years. Where are we in

terms of the national debt? In the middle of the pack. We are rising,

but it in 2010 card debt was a bit less than the average across the

own. The Italians could be there as well. If you are spending 113% of

your national debt, and it has not worked by now, you would think it

would have worked. The United States is ahead. As you said, it is

It is rising and it is rising very fast. One of the reasons the

Government is missing its fiscal rules is it will be continuing to

rise in 2015, when they had said it would be falling in 2015. So he was

not entirely right, he was a bit wrong, but not way-out wrong?

basic story was right, we were one of the two countries with the

biggest deficits in 2010. In 2010 we did think we were the biggest.

We did have a very big deficit. the one thing this coalition cannot

save the other conceivable future is that it is cutting the national

debt? It is increasing the national debt? The national debt is going to

carry on rising we think at least until 2016. The proportion of

national income is forecast to fall after that. It depends on how well

the economy does. Is there any time in your crystal ball, when this

national debt in absolute terms, starts to fall? I don't know when

it starts to fall in absolute terms, but assuming it goes terribly well,

it will be the 20 30s. It is a generation and a half before we get

back to where we were. Which is not in a very low level of national

debt. There was another controversy on Wednesday as well. It was about

how much families would lose by the 1% cap and other things the

Government, the coalition has done. Why on the changes you have made,

were working families by next year be �280 poorer, and the year after

that �534 poorer. These are the men walking past the curtains? Those

working families will only be poorer if you look at the changes

in isolation. That wouldn't be right. The House of Commons library

figures are there. I have to confirm what Liam Byrne has said.

There the �280 been worse off next year, that is from House of Commons

library. That includes the personal allowance. And the figure of �534

worse off by 2016, is the Institute of Fiscal Studies and includes a

rise in the personal allowance. only includes the change in the

personal allowance that it was announced in the Autumn Statement.

But does not include the change in the personal allowance for the

entire period. Does it include all the changes in

the personal allowance? The �534 No. We are looking at, is just the set

of figures that were announced in the Autumn Statement, which

includes some of the increase in the personal allowance, but not all

of it. It includes the benefit of rating. It includes restriction of

pension tax relief for the rich, and a restriction of the higher

rate tax relief. A significant chunk of that money is coming from

those right at the top of the distribution. Given what they're

doing, for those in working families, the coalition argument is,

all right, we are tapping your tax credits by 1%, but we are taking a

huge chunk of your early income out of tax altogether by raising the

personal allowance. Does your calculation take that personal

allowance rise into account? have done a bunch of calculations.

To some calculations if you look at the consolidation package as a

whole. It takes everything into account since 2010. It you look at

that there is a clear pattern. People on modest to higher earnings

of the least affected. The most affected are those at the top of

the distribution, lost their child benefit, paying 50 pence tax. The

next group most affected of those dependent on benefit, particularly

those out of work and also those in work. The people at the bottom are

badly affected. The people in the middle of the least affected and

the people at the top of the most affected. Would it be fair to say

that because of the families at the very top had been most affected,

because they don't get the benefit of the personal allowance, it does

not feed through to them. This business of families being �534 was

up by 2015, that is an average. Isn't that skewed by the number of

well off families that are being very seriously hit? At �500 number

is one very specific families, single earner families with

children. That has been chosen in the debate because it is the

biggest number affected by the Autumn Statement. It is skewed by

the fact it takes effect of some of the high corners and some of the

smaller things that were changed. Would it not be better to give the

median figure? A medium figure would be good. We have looked at

the effect of the Autumn Statement changes on families, the operating

effect on families with children, who are in work. That is one to

�200 a year on average for the group who are affected. The

majority are not affected. I am still a little bit confused. Was he

right when he said that �534 figure does not take all the personal

allowances into account? Yes, he was right because it is a number

which was announced in the Autumn Statement. In the autumn statement

there was a small increase in the personal allowance but it does not

take into account all the increases into the personal allowance.

didn't you do that? We have. There are hundreds of numbers you can

produce. If you look at the changes made by the Government since 2010,

what you find is those on modest too high incomes in work have been

less affected than those on benefits at the bottom end and

those are well up at the top end. We can get this on your website?

is all on the website. Government wants a Royal Charter.

Labour and campaigners are calling for full implementation backed by a

new law and the press have recoiled from any suggestion of statutory

regulation. Negotiations have continued this week between the

Government, political parties and the industry over how best to

implement Lord Justice Leveson's report into the, "Culture, practice

and ethics of the press". Today the Lords are debating the issue. Let's

The Prime Minister has said he does not believe statutory legislation

is necessary to achieve the principles outlined by Leveson.

Noble Lords should be aware my Right Honourable friend, the

Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has been clear that

if the industry does not deliver a tough, new self regulatory system,

she won't shy away of going down the legislation route. We do have

some concerns about the Government's proposals that an

independent regulator be underpinned by a Royal Charter. We

welcome the fact this represents an acceptance of the need for a legal

framework to underpin the role of the regulator, but we had some

doubts as to whether this is the best mechanism. What we need, what

we have always needed is a regulatory regime which is

independent from the Government and the media. And is about the

regulation process and not content. This is what Lord Justice Leveson

proposes, a set of voluntary regulations. It is a voluntary

regulation based on incentives, with a guarantee of proper

standards. It is not a liberal, state regulation. For those who say

the press cannot be trusted to put its house in order, I say now it

has no choice. If that sounds like a threat to legislation, it is. And

the press would be very foolish to ignore it. My Lords, we won't need

another enquiry if there are more scandals on the scale we have

witnessed. Legislation will be inevitable. The 2000 pages of the

Leveson report makes it seem like a light weight document. It is

important to remember why the report was written. It was the

consequence of national, moral outrage. Anyone who believes

Britain's moral conscience is worse than it was, might reflect on our

collective response to the phone hacking scandal. Long ago I worked

as a journalist for four newspapers, including one owned by Rupert

Murdoch. I was sacked by him, and experience of which I am

unequivocally proud. I was also sacked by Robert Maxwell, but I

won't go into that here! The Leveson report, which we are here

to debate is immensely impressive. I basically supported its approach.

Especially to the need for a fine delicate layer of statutory

underpinning. I am much more accustomed to defending the press

and much more comfortable in that role. Why is it in the last two

years I have campaigned for change? Basically it is because I had seen

the values that I am much journalists hold high, trampled

into the dirt. It is because I have seen so called journalists

attacking the public rather than carrying out their essential duty

of standing up for their rights. am optimistic of a good outcome. We

shall seek a profound change of culture, and an end to sloppy

journalism ruining the lives of innocent people, without losing all

that is good in our press. We shall demonstrate that for a good

journalist, freedom of expression and professional principles can,

and must be inseparable. Indeed symbiotic. And to the victims I say

this, the clear message must be, never, never, never, never, never

We are joined by Jacqui Hames, formerly of Primark's, who speaks

for the Hacked Off campaign. Reminders why you got involved. --

remind us. 10 years ago now, I and my family were put under

surveillance by the News of the World. I husband took over the

reins of a very prominent murder inquiry into the death of a private

detective, a very complex issue I will not going to, but in basic

terms, our phones were hacked, we will put under surveillance, our

mail was tampered with. He felt the News of the World behaved in a

disgraceful way towards you. Completely. That is what motivated

you in this. Yes. I think everybody accepts that the press has to

change and that it needs a new code of conduct and it has to be able to

account quite stiffly on a new code of conduct. The argument is down to

whether it should be statutory or not, and Hacked Off wants statutory

underpinning. What is your reaction to this idea that is being floated

by Oliver Letwin that they should be some sort of royal charter

instead that would be the mechanism by which the press was held

accountable to new standards and ways of doing things?

difficulty at the moment is that we have not seen the detail of that

discussion. Clearly, he is having a discussion of the newspaper editors

and proprietors about that. We have not been privity to that

information, and I do not know the full extent of what he is proposing.

The idea of a royal charter, I am not a legal expert, does seem a

rather draconian measure which does not seem to have the teeth that I

and other victims of Hacked Off would want to see. But we have got

an open mind. This idea of a royal charter has been bandied about,

although Letwin is the man behind it, he was floating it before

Christmas. -- Oliver Letwin. argument on statute has changed.

The original wave was that it would make sure that people could not opt

out of the regulatory system. Brian Leveson ruled against that. The

argument on statute is in a different place and now, it is

whether or not you actually need, in order to have independent

regulation, to have a statue. My position is, if a way can be found

whereby you do not need to do that, it is preferable not to, but you

have to be reassured, of course, that the system will deal with the

issues that Lord Leveson's report talked about. There has been a lot

of conflating from the newspaper side of statutory regulation and

statutory underpinning of independent regulation, which is

what Lord Justice Leveson called for. He did not say the government

should regulate the press. He said the government should create the

circumstances in law whereby an independent regulator could

regulate the press. The press has started talking about statutory

regulation as if it is the government regulation. Conflation

has taken part of all sides. The reason that Hacked Off wanted it

was to have statutory regulation. Conflation has taken place across

the board. I do not think Hacked Off wanted that. Absolutely not.

order to ensure... But in order to achieve compulsory membership of

the regulatory body, and Sir Bryan Leveson ruled against that, so now

it has been decided that he wants statutory regulation for a

different purpose. I was not convinced it was necessary. We will

see whether that is the case. draft bill follows Leveson, as I

understand it, it is not compulsory to be part of this, but there would

be penalties, as he recommended, if you are not part of it. It is just

taking the regulations side of the recommendations about the fact that

they should be independent central regulation -- there should be

independent self regulation. But there should be another body to

underpin that, and that should be in legislation, and the hack of

draft bill takes those simple recommendations and shows how

simple and easy it is and how straightforward it is and how

nobody has anything to fear. -- the Hacked Off draft bill. It also

enshrines this feeling of free speech being part of the country's

DNA. No-one is trying to... I do not doubt your sincerity in this,

it is very tricky, but you cannot say there is no need to fear. If

you introduce legislation, this is my concern, it may be very

difficult to draw the line that Mary Ann wants to draw between this

and statutory regulation. But maybe the intent, that may be the desire,

but it is difficult to do. We have been overrunning on almost every

item this morning because I have been enjoying the discussion so

much. Isn't there a sense the press are dragging their feet on this? If

they really wanted to scupper your thing, they would be more

enthusiastic about coming up with their own proposals. You can never

put two editors in a room and they will agree on anything. We have got

30 in a room trying to agree on something. They are dragging their

feet, but it is like trying to herd cats. Thank you very much.

It is well known that Aberdeen is Scotland's richest city, it is

probably Britain's richest city. On Wednesday, we talked about that. It

does not just both its wealth to oil and gas, it is a goldmine for

new stories. We heard about its attempts to ban begging, today it

is the mannequin locked up for seeking election to the council. In

a moment, we will be speaking to the mannequin's agent, but to

explain the story, here is Kevin Keane.

Cleared of electoral corruption,... It was a nomination which was to

land her in court. This is Helena Torry, a shop dummy who was to

stand as a councillor. No win in the election, but now a victory in

court. I feel vindicated anyway, it has been stressful at times, but I

never felt guilty, so I was not as stressed as maybe I could have been.

At one point during the proceedings, the mannequin was produced as

evidence, wheeled into the courtroom by the clerk, still

wearing the red hat, long coat and scarf, and bearing a placard with

the words, support Helena Torry, the voice of the silent majority.

Two police officers were asked to identify it. The name never made it

onto the ballot paper, but it was published on the initial list of

candidates. The returning officer said he received information the

next day about Helena Torry and contacted the police. He maintains

this was the right action. I am absolutely certain of that, and the

situation arose again, I would do the same thing. In April last year,

Rene Slater was interviewed and charged. Afterwards, she brought

police to this cafe in Aberdeen city centre, where the mannequin

was being scored. It was handed over to officers and taken away in

a policeman. Right now she is still behind bars but expected to be

reunited with their agent within weeks.

We did try to get in touch with the returning case -- the returning

officer who brought the case, but we have been surprisingly

unsuccessful. But we are joined by the manic and's agent, Rene Slater,

thank you for coming on to the Daily Politics. -- mannequin. Why

did you put it up for election? There have been a lot of problems

in Aberdeen in terms of lots of closures happening within things

like mobility, people with mobility issues, people with learning

difficulties. It was all disappearing to some extent because

they have stopped ring-fencing it, but many of these people have no

voices, so I thought it would be useful to bring in someone who had

no voice to speak for the silent majority. The one not try to imply

that the mannequin had more personality and character than some

of the people standing for election. -- you were not. So you were trying

to imply that! I understand they put you in jail for a while. Well,

yes, I was in a police cell for six hours. They would not let me out

until I handed in Helena Torry. It was a bit of a prisoner exchange.

Let me get this right, Helena Torry is the name of the mannequin, and I

think it is to do with Helen of Troy. It came from that

amalgamation, but it is also a place within Aberdeen itself, an

area of deprivation. Where I worked, I have done youth work for 30 years,

they had programmes there for use projects, and they have all

disappeared to some extent. -- use projects. It is about losing

resources from local areas. there was a prisoner exchange, you

were allowed out in return for the incarceration of the mannequin.

That is correct. And is it still in jail? I am going to see if I can

collector after three weeks. assumed the mannequin has not been

maltreated. I do not think so. She is all over the place. She has not

been waterboarded. She needs a change of clothes, I think.

suspect she does. A final question, briefly, what do you think the

political import of these will be? Well, I mean, it is difficult to

tell, actually, what could happen in the future. She might get

involved in the fight against the gardens being dug up. I think it is

quite important to be involved in some local issues as well. She has

a voice, even though she did not speak herself, she has a voice and

charisma, and people enjoy a bit of humour after all. Give our best to

the mannequin. Thank you very much, Andrew. We will organise a Daily

Politics campaign to spring air, if it comes to that. Thank you for

joining us. Now, it is hard to think of

anything newsworthy that we have not covered today, not just the

waterfront here. He is a round-up of the week's political news in 60

Monday saw the eagerly awaited, well, awaited coalition review.

David Cameron called it the Ronseal deal, it does what it says on the

tin, but just before an audit of what the government has actually

delivered and what it has not was published, it was Ed Miliband's

turn to give him a coating. A PR man who cannot even do a relaunch!

Meanwhile, the lesser spotted Miliband attacked the Government

benefit cuts. This rancid Bill is not about affordability. Then Lords

were leaving, not Strathclyde and Lord Marland leaving frontline

politics. Apparently Lord Strathclyde found the Lib Dems too

much to bear. Still, he did resist the temptation to call me, as he

launched a radio phone-in on LBC. Have you ever worn a onesie? I was

given one. So now you know. And as you might say, see you same time,

Right, this business about benefits for pensioners, taking it away from

the better-off pensioners. Nothing is going to happen this side of the

election, but as the election approaches, is it back on the

agenda? You can make an economic case, a social case, a political

case. We are all in it together, surely. I am just saying that I

think it would be very difficult. I can understand the public policy

argument, but it is not the vote. It sounds like could use an

Aberdeen word, you are at the end. He made that promise in the first

place because of the votes. He was bounced into the Labour campaign,

which was very effective. Keep your eye on that subject. Before we go,

the answer to the quiz. Which member of the Government was

allegedly involved in throwing the police minister Damian Green of a

bridge in Oxford during their All of them responsible for up

holding the law! I think it was Dominic Grieve. I know it was.

did he do it? They had some sort of argument over the presidency of the

Union. I have forgotten! Nothing to do with the Bullingdon Club. All

right! So it was Dominic Grieve, the police will be knocking on your

door, Attorney-General! Thank you to all my guests. The news is