09/06/2011 Newsnight

This programme contains strong language.

What a difference day makes. Tonight, following a Newsnight

investigation, the Crown Prosecution Service has launched an

independent inquiry into the Mark Kennedy undercover cop case.

This time last night I revealed evidence that showed the CPS had

failed to disclose information they held about the undercover policeman

at a criminal trial. This vital information could have prevented

the convictions of 20 environmental campaigners. So was it incompetence

other a deliberate attempt to conceal. We have a reaction from

the head of the CPS, Kier Starmer. I have decided to set up an

independent inquiry, headed up by a senior legal figure, to work in

tandem with the IPCC investigation. The Archbishop of Canterbury

preaches on politics, a stinging attack on raft of Government

policies that he says nobody voted for any way. Tonight, the

Government returns fire. All I'm saying to the Archbishop

today is you are more than welcome to tell me in secret and public

that I need to modify certain things, please don't come and tell

me that what I am doing some how is setting out to punish people.

the Arab Spring melts into summer, we have been to meet student who is

feel their voices alone are not enough.

I have come to the Gaza strip, one of the most enclosed societies on

earth. To find out what freedom the Arab Spring can bring to

Palestinians here. Good evening, the strange case of the

environmentalist, the undercover police officer, and the attack on a

power station that never actually took place has already given rise

to seven distinct inquiries, today the number rose to eight, when the

Director of Public Prosecutions called for a senior judge to

investigate evidence, first revealed on this programme last

night, that the Crown Prosecution Service had misled the courts and

broken its own rules. Richard Watson who has pursued this

story from the start is with us? is one of the rare journalistic

moments where you can see cause and effect. The story concerns 26

environmental campaigner who is were due to take environmental

action at Radcliffe on soar power station in the East Midlands -

Radcliffe on sore power station in the East Midlands. The role of Mark

Kennedy was not known to the group, he had infill traited them and was

gathering evidence at that time - infiltrated the group and was

gathering evidence against them. After some insidious work by

environmental campaigner, that fatally then undermined the

prosecution case. The trial of the second tranche of these people, six,

collapsed in January this year, immediately the CPS said that they

had only just discovered this extra new information concerning the

undercover activities of Mark Stone. Last night we revealed that is not

the case, there were senior lawyers in the CPS discussing the

sensitivites of this case back as far back as 2009. Last night on the

programme we had the former Director of Public Prosecutions

saying this is extremely serious, it is his pressure that we have

seen in the CPS today. The inquiry conducted by an independent figure

is much more likely to gain public confidence and get to the truth.

And when you are looking at such a serious situation where a number of

people might have been acquitted due to the absence of the material,

you need a public inquiry. How has the CPS responded?

first response was interesting, their first response was to launch

an internal review inside the CPS, which they said was completed on

the 21st March. It seems that internal review didn't uncover some

crucial information about the knowledge of some CPS lawyers about

the activities of Mark Stone. My colleague, Peter Marshall today,

spoke to Kier Starmer, the director of the public prosecution, this is

what he had to say. What I have decided today is to set up an

independent inquiry, headed by a senior legal figure, to work in

tandem with the IPCC investigation. The idea is that together they can

look at the conduct of the police and the CPS together, accessing all

the same material and share their findings. Who has primacy at the

end, when they come to the conclusion? There is no primacy,

that is why this particular arrangement has been set up. I was

very keen that there should be a consistent approach, and the

conduct of both sides, the police and the CPS, should be looked at by

reference to the same material. is a disturbing situation, what

seemed to happen in your department on your watch? I'm not going to

predetermine the conclusions. I would not have set up this

arrangement if I wasn't taking the issues very seriously. This has

been a huge long-running case, do you think the independent inquiry

will find the answers for some of the critics? To give the CPS some

credit, clearly they have moved their position from having an

internal review into an individual inquiry with a senior judicial

figure. That must be welcomed by most people. However, I think the

defence lawyers and the campaigners themselves, will be unhappy with

this. There have been a shrew of inquiries, really. And what defence

lawyers like Mike Schwarz, who is representing these campaigners says,

is that there should be one overarching inquiry. One gets the

impression that the authorities are making it up as they go along. This

is on my last count the seventh or eighth inquiry set up. What is

needed is a single organisation with power teeth in respect of the

public, looking independently and authoritatively at all of the

issues. The issues including things like the operation and

accountability of undercover police officers. Disclosure by the police

and the CPS, looking at all of these issues. We have such a bod he

yoo, the Court of Appeal looking at the safety of the - body, the Court

of Appeal looking at the safety of the convictions, the 26 activists

convicted last year. I'm joined by my guest, one of the defendants in

the case, Oliver Knowles, whose case collapsed when the undercover

cop's evidence came to light. Oliver Knowles, you must be pretty

pleased with what's happening to? I'm not, - today. I'm not, another

day another inquiry, this is number eight. The problem is each of the

inquires is looking at an isolated component of the bigger picture. We

don't have a single inquiry that is looking at the breath of the story,

the undercover police investigation, the role of PC Kennedy, now the

role of the CPS. I think we need that. Up until yesterday we had

police investigating police, we had the Crown Prosecution Service

investigating the Crown Prosecution Service, we need an overarching

inquiry that gives us all those answers. This is an independent

inquiry announced by Kier Starmer a very distinguished judge will take

it on. Are you not prejudging it to say it is not enough? There are so

many serious issues down on the table, the allegations in the last

couple of days that the Crown Prosecution Service have been

suppressing evidence is part of that. But there are many other

serious issues. We have police officers who are routinely using

sex to solicit information from activists, we have police officers

alleged to have acted as agent provokeures. We have police

officers - provocatures, we have police officers working for private

investigation companies and selling that to corporations. There are a

huge range of issues. We don't have somebody stepping back and looking

at the information. You were minister of policing 2006-2008, how

do you responded to to the inquiry? I understand the problem about

inquiryitis, and so many reviews. What has happened in this case is

serious enough that it is right that the CPS have given it to an

independent legal figure, I think he said, we shall see, and deals

with the complexties and what went wrong with the specific case. I

equally agree there should be a wider look at, I'm not sure of the

vehicle that looks at lessons from the specifics in this case, larger

lessons around undercover policing generally and how that is

controlled. Even Hugh Ord said in February that ACPO should no longer

do it, or senior officers shouldn't do it on a retrospective basis, the

judges should sanction the operations in the first place.

was wrong with the operation, there were plenty of operations under

your watch. This particular unit its funding doubled under your

leading? Much of that would have been in areas not linked to the

sort of protests that Oliver was involved in. There needs to be a

real debate, I think, almost about the politics of policing and the

politics of protest, that says when is it appropriate to have

undercover police work, there are cases when it would be entirely

appropriate. We heard there were vast amounts of money being wasted

in those operations? Maybe longer term, all that needs to look at, or

needs looking at I don't really know the ins and outs of the

details. We need to sort out this case. We need to have proper

protocols and transparn sis in place about undercovering policing,

and a wider approach to politics and policing.

This seems to get out of hand including the period when you were

a minister. I accept that. What I'm saying is these are operational

matters and matters for the CPS, none of these matters should be

matters that ministers should be involved in at all. That way lies

madness, which is why the crime and policing commission is a bad idea,

bonkers. Getting to the Centre of confidence, and conspiracy is an

issue, these are real concerns about democracy, they need

addressing. It is all around case that didn't result in anyone going

to prison, it was around an attack on a power station that didn't

actually happen. Oliver, an enormous amount of public money

will be spent on this case, do you think we have got it out of hand

and are reading too much into it? That is the core question here.

Quet is, to what extent was this operation - quite, to what extent

was this operation proportional, on whose remit? The action if it had

gone ahead would have certainly stopped carbon emissions, it would

have cost large corporation some money, but it was, at so no point,

a threat to the public. Millions of millions of pounds, and thousands

of hours of policeman power was spent looking into this operation.

To what end? That is why I talk p the politics of protest. He were

going to, at some stage, break the law. It is not for me or you to

determine what laws should be broken or otherwise, but there are

fundamental elements to the policing of it and the

proportionality of it. If people start to worry that this is common

practice, the CPS now working ever more closely with the police, that

has been part of the policy to work more closely s that the ultimate

danger of this, that people will not trust what the CPS is doing,

what the police is doing what they are doing together? It chips away

at the integrity and objectivity of the CPS and the police and,

ultimately, the right to protest, which is why I agree there should

be a wider debate, even around whether Kennedy, how much he was

provoking and having a provocateur role. You think that Kier Starmer's

position is rather safe, you think, it is rather late to come to this

and there are serious allegations to this? I won't prejudge the

review, let's have the independent review and see what it does and see

what it does to the CPS internal processes. This is why we need the

bigger overarching inquiry. It starts the Court of Appeal, it has

to. We have 20 activists who have conviction that is may not be safe.

I'm sure a lot more public money will be spent.

Tell us how you really feel, Archbishop. Today the head of the

Church of England said the Government of this country was

scaring people with radical long- term policies which nobody voted

for, raising questions about the nature of our democracy.

That's not the first time that a sitting Government has taken brick

bats from the Clergy, on this occasion the Government in question

has come out fighting. It has been a bit of a hellish week

for the Government. Backtracking on NHS reforms and on prison sentences,

the last thing they expected...was damation from the church (thunder

claps) As guest editor of the New Statesman, the Archbishop of

Canterbury points to bafflement and indignation over health care

reforms, he says we are being committed to radical, long-term

policies, for which no-one voted. The Prime Minister's response was,

well, dam you too. The darpblg Bishop of Canterbury

should be entirely - the Archbishop of Canterbury should be entirely

free to express his views. I can say I entirely disagree with the

issues he has expressed, particularly on debt, welfare and

education. This found a February of the Conservative Christian

fellowship saying that the Archbishop needs to make sure

Anglicanism needs to remain there. It is important that the leader of

a flock that is in decline not to create more disunity. He should

only speak on a subject if he's really certain of his argument. I'm

afraid this is a little bit typical of the Archbishop of Canterbury, it

is quite academic, hard to understand some of the points he's

making, yet he has generate add lot of controversy, I think with very

little gain. Let's example some of the

Archbishop's proclaimations in greater detail. Politicians don't

really treat their manifestos as tablets of stone, often in

Government policies that were proposed at the election time can

be ditched, others produced. But is there really any basis for him to

say that no-one voted for the current health and education

reforms. It is true that the specific

reforms for the NHS were in neither manifesto, although the

Conservatives did mention a reform plan that would give every patient

the power to choose any health care provider that meets NHS standards

and the Liberal Democrats said Primary Care Trusts would be

replaced. As for education, the Liberal Democrats proposed a pupil

premium and the Conservatives put forward a plan for the schools

revolution. Neither manifesto said that tuition fees would go up.

With neither party able to command a majority on their own, the bigger

question is do they have a man died? It is interesting when we

look at the vote share last year and back in 2005, actually the

Conservatives received a greater proportion of the national vote in

2010, than the Labour Government in 2005, the coalition Government have

had to make compromises, and actually they have had to give in

both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, and now actually

the public need to hold the Government accountable to the

coalition agreement, rather than what they said in the manifestos.

When you are looking at mandate before the general election,

particularly in our country, we haven't had a coalition since the

1920s, then you look at one party, you don't look at what the

combination might be. So we're in a new game and situation. It is not

very far between the Archbishop's residence here at Lambeth Palace

and the politicians at Westminster. You could say it is little more

than shouting distance away. But sometimes it seems as though there

is a much bigger gulf between church and state. In this week's

New Statesman, one of the guest contributors is none another than

the Work and Pensions Secretary, Iain Duncan Smith, but apparently

he didn't know just how critical the guest editor was going to be.

Downing Street apparently weren't told about the Archbishop's

comments until yesterday. But compared to previous spats between

the Government and the Church of England, there is far less fire and

brimstone in this particular encounter. In 1985, during Mrs

Thatcher's second term, the then Archbishop of antbury, Robert

Runcie, published Faith in the City. Setting out 23 recommended details

to Government, more a mini- manifesto than a work of scripture,

it called for higher child benefit payments, more council housing and

assisting families in poverty without stigma. The current

Archbishop of Canterbury chides Labour for not giving a full

account of what they would do differently. His criticism of the

Big Brother society is based as much on presentation as policy,

calling the phrase itself "painfully tale". I support The Big

Idea society as an intellectual project, it is important for the

Prime Minister to realise people don't get it still, despite a

number of relaunches and a number of prime ministerial speeches. I

would like the Government to actually talk much more about the

things very concrete things that it is going to help people out of

poverty. But on welfare reform, the Archbishop is more outspoken,

I note Iain Duncan Smith is saying today he's not talking about the

deffering or undeserving poor. A lot of commentary coming from the

Conservative Party, particularly from the backbenches, and a variety

of media sources close to the current Government, are actually

saying exactly those things, and that does start to create

divergence and conflict within society, which is not constructive.

Westminster's garage goils are supposed to ward off evil spirits,

but the Government mighting comprising ways of keeping a man of

the cloth in the distance while taking painful decisions.

I caught up with the Work and Pensions Secretary, Iain Duncan

Smith, and asked him how he reacted to the Archbishop's remarks. Are

you worried the Archbishop of Canterbury thinks this Government

lacks legitimacy? I would be worried he made the statement, I

think he's wrong. He's allowed to stay what he wants. He's wrong

about that. The point about democracy is you accept what the

public decide at the ballot box, they decided they didn't want any

one of the three parties that were the main parties, they chose the

Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats to form a coalition.

That's what we have done. We are proceeding on the bays of our

manifestos merged - basis of our manifestos merged together with

some things brought in. He doesn't think it is reasonable. He says the

widespread suspicion that this has been done fortuneistic and money-

saving reasons allows many to dismiss what there is of a

manifesto. The Government needs to hear how much plain fear there is

around such questions at present. It is not helped by the quiet

resurgeonence of the seductive language and deserving and

undeserving poor. Does it bother you that the Archbishop of

Canterbury says this about your Government? It doesn't, I don't

agree with him in his final conclusions. I would ask him what

he really thinks democracy is all about, with whether or not at the

ballot box at the time of the election was set in concrete,

nothing changes when events change. When you see the circumstances of a

problem are when they unfold in Government you do nothing because

you didn't spell it out at the time of an election. Democracy and life

is not, that it may be like that in church, but it is not like that in

Government. Do you think there is such a thing that there is a

deserving or undeserving poor? have never used that language, I

don't believe in, that I believe a system we have created, that has

become so complex and counter- productive, that rewards bad

behaviour, and penalises people who try, those want to go get back to

work. What is bad behaviour, I'm interested, if you are looking it

cuts you are introducing, the benefit cap, it looks like bad

behaviour is having a lot of kids, they are being penalised for having

a lot of kids? The system now, if you want to go back to work, even

as a lone parent if you go back, the only point of work you could

enter in part-time work is 16 hours, the last Government said that was

the only bit they would support you on. If you did hours more or less

you will lose at rates of 97p in the pound for every pound you earn.

What a disincentive to work your way out of problems. By the way you

might need ten hours not 16 hours because you have caring

responsibility. The system we have set is so complex because it takes

money away from people that need to have more money, secondly, they

don't understand the system. The point I am a making here is that

system penalises the people when they try to do the right thing.

That is a negative point. On the point of the cap, which you asked

about, which I will come back to, it is simply establish ago very

simple point. Tax-payers need a bit - establishing a simple point. Tax-

payers need fairness too. People in my constituency work for fairly low

incomes, they get up early and commute long distance, they work

hard, they don't want to see people on benefits in places and in houses

they could never afford if they were back in work. They say there

is a fairness to say average earnings is a reasonable point to

say nobody should be earning on benefits more than average earnings,

more than I am earning working hard on low earnings. It seems as if you

are punishing people who are unemployed, and those who have

children, many Christians might be worried that your punishing

children in the families? I don't believe we are, all the

arrangements we have made for the housing benefit changes, we will

help people where they have to move and change. That is a process that

we will go through. The key point I want to make about the cap, which

is simply to say, look, this point about fairness cuts both ways, both

those on benefits wrecksed into to support - need to support and help

them, we are doing that with the reforms to the benefits system and

the back to work programme. The key thing is, however, we recognise

tax-payers, paying this money, often on average are on low

earnings themselves, want to recognise that people on benefits

aren't in a position to be able to live a life on a higher level of

income than they get. It is interesting you say that, in the

past you are a committed Christian, you have spoken about this issue,

with the sense of someone who actually saw it also as a moral

obligation to try to bring people out of dependency, is that right,

that you actually feel it is partly a moral duty to bring people out of

poverty and dependency on benefits? It is a personal commitment of mine

to make sure that the system I reform is a system that benefits

the poorest in society. The Universal Credit that we are

bringing forward, 85% of the gains will go to the bottom 40% in

society, it will lift nearly a million people out of poverty as a

result of the benefit changes. policies do you point to in the

Government that show that this is a Government that a Christian can

support, what kind of policies would you point to? I have never

gone after a Christian vote in my life, I don't intend to start now,

I go after people's rational. hear the Archbishop of Canterbury,

and ask is this a Government at odds with the main religion of this

country, how would you reassure them? It isn't about, that he's

wrong, because whether you are a Christian or not a Christian.

should ask yourself a simple question, is it fair that somebody

who wants to try to do the right thing, says to me, which they do

all the time, it is not worth my while entering the world of work

because I get penalised if I do, is it right to have families, three

and four generations right now who have never held a job in their

lives. And children are growing up for the first time, in my

recognition, never believing they will outdo their parents in their

future careers, this is an absurdity. This is the moral point.

If people want to talk about morality, I asked the question to

the Archbishop, why has he not said that this system is fundamentally

broken, it is in his standpoint immoral to trap people in this

position. He should be out speaking about this, alongside us, yes, to

say, watch what you are doing here, be careful of what you are doing

here, I fully accept, we are open to, that that is what I and the

Liberal Democrats debate every day, are we being too hard here, nobody

is trying to punish anybody. What we are trying to do is create

finally system that rewards those that make the effort and assists

those when they did, that is not here today.

He just don't get t the Archbishop of Canterbury doesn't get morality?

I don't know whether he gets morality or not, he's the bishop

and more or less there. You are making a moral point about the

society? The big point here, if you believe in it you can say it is a

moral practice, if not it is practical purpose, the two come

together, the practical and moral purpose is this we can't go on

having five million people and growing in number, trapped on

welfare dependency, putting Ngoga back into the community, sitting on

begin - putting nothing back into the community. Five million people

sat for ten years under the Government without any work,

written off, forgotten about, never seen by anybody, this is not right.

When I came in I had a purpose to change this, all I'm saying to the

Archbishop today is you are more than welcome to tell me in secret

or in public that I need to modify things, please don't come and tell

me that what I'm doing is setting out to punish people. It is not to

punish people, but to help them do the right thing for them and their

families. If you want to help that group that is a purpose about their

salvation in a general sense, getting them through to work to

have kids with aspiration, the answer is to work to change the

system so they have a shot again, like they might have done 30 years

ago, at a life that I would expect my children to live, they have a

shot at that. Thank you very much. We are going to go back to the

issues of religion and politics in a minute. First something

completely different. After four years of turbulent rule in the Gaza

strip, the Islamic militant group Hamas said this week it was

considering not participating in future Government. The hope is in

doing so it might help end Gaza's state of miserable isolation from

the rest of the region and the world. The winds of Chiang Mai be

sweeping the Middle East, but in Gaza, as usual, the direction of

change is harder to read. We have been there to find out what the

Arab Spring has meant for its increasingly restless population.

The last few scruby miles of Egypt, the last memorial to a revolt

resonating throughout the Arab world. Five hours out of Cairo, I

have reached the once closed border with Gaza. Now open, Egypt says, in

the spirit of democracy. Revolutions lapping at the gates of

Gaza, a closed society, in several senses. I'm going through to see

what changes the Arab Spring is bringing on the other side.

Beyond a road through hopelessness. The sea a wall on one side, Israel

a wall on the other. Egyptian youth couldn't move politically,

Palestinian youth can't move at all. For all their engine power.

TRANSLATION: I wish I could drive somewhere on my bike or in my car,

like normal people in any other country. But we are besieged here.

Surreal though it seems, you can learn to dance in Gaza. But now, by

order of its Islamist rulers, Hamas, only in single-sex groups. Though,

traditionally, boys and girls perform these steps together.

feel sad, of course, depressed that I can't have my freedom in my own

country. The Government sputing pressure on us and not allowing us

to do what we love to do. Now, she has joined a group of

students whose frustration finally boiled over a few months ago. In a

Facebook manifesto, they cursed all the forces imprisoning them.

said lock Hamas, lock Israel, lock all of it. The faction is

controlling us, is trying to put every single person to be the same

thing, they are trying to look at a girl like me without putting on the

hijab, that is not acceptable. Under the cover saying we come from

an Islamic perspective and everything, we are very

conservative society, they have really kind of changed everything,

and like 180 degrees changed everything. You used to look around

you and see if somebody is watching you and listening you to see if

something is happening. We like to stay silent, not to talk not to

even think. The biggest problem which was made by the division in

the last four years, is the culture of hating. The brother, if he is

from Fatah and his brother from ham marks he should hate him. That is a

big social problem. I didn't know, if I am young I'm not accepted, no

matter what it is that I have to offer, it is not accepted. This is

exactly what we revolt against. The same demand for self-

determination by an ever-younger population, fuelled all the Arab

uprisings. But in Gaza, it is different. They have got Israel to

contend with as well as their own rulers. Any revolt here cannot be

the same as in other Arab countries, for the simple reason, that this

isn't an independent state. Palestinians who want change,

particularly in Gaza, feel they are stuck within a series of prisons,

one closed box after another. So even if they overcame the social

and political restrictions imposed by their own leaders, they would

still be trapped by the wider conflict in the region. That's

something that Arab people power alone can't easily solve.

At lost Palestinians could stop fighting one another. Confinement

has bred bitter factionalism. The Islamists of Hamas, with their

green banner, more interested, according to some, in crushing

their fine rivals and if, Fatah, than achieving Palestinian

liberation. We are sick of political games. The ridiculous

game between Fatah and Hamas, that game has ruined every single

Palestinian life. Every one of us here lost something. Three months

ago, Roba wrote Palestine" on her face, and helped bring thousands on

to the streets to call for unity among the factions. Independent

protests in Gaza are very rare, they were beaten by police. Two

months later, the yellow flag of Fatah, banned for the two years,

appeared over Gaza. The result of political weakness on both sides

they came together, the as a result of public pressure. According to

this Hamas official, it could lead to a soothing of the attitude to

Israel. Hamas are the resistance. My personal opinion is we have to

work together. We should not now say this is the option of Hamas,

this is the option of Fatah. We have to make a new strategy, mixing

the political action with the resistance.

If that idea flies, there could be hope for economic recovery in Gaza.

Many promises of foreign aid, to turn this clip top into a pleasant

promenade, have been delayed by Hamas's refusal to deal with Israel.

The position of the international community is inbetween two things,

one to help the Palestinian, and doesn't allow 0 to work with Hamas

the Government in Gaza. The Palestinian, Hamas and BA are

getting united again, and I do believe that the committee, America

and Israel, will not have any reason not to co-operate with them.

Already Palestinian sand is being mixed with Israeli gravel and

cement to rebuild the strip. An inspector checks the concrete goes

to only internationally run projects, Israel insists Hamas must

not benefit. What the owner wants now is economic common sense will

trump politics on both sides. You would be happy to recognise Israel

as a state? TRANSLATION: No-one on earth denies the existence of the

Israelis and the Palestinians. you think that the Hamas policy is

going nowhere? REPORTER: When big politicians sit together, and they

have the will to end problems, they will end it in ten minutes.

To reflect as broader desire on the streets, now change is in the air

for less ideology, and more pragmatisim.

But this big man, the top Hamas leader in Gaza, seems as hardline

as ever. Really we are not a negotiating regime. We have an

alternative, we believe that in self-defence, in defending ourself,

against the occupation, we can succeed to eliminate the occupation.

Meanwhile, with interfactional hatred here, burnt into masonry and

memory, nobody knows what will happen. Hamas bullets killed this

man's brother, Abu Maher. TRANSLATION: In the coming days we

will see if Hamas are serious or not, we will have to judge by

whatever real action we see on the ground.

On the ground, they are dancing. Within range of Israeli guns. This

time, boys only. It is one event in day of protests all around Israel's

borders, to mark the anniversary of Arab defeat, in the Six-Day War of

1967. For Gaza's young activists, marches like this are part of the

Palestinian Spring. But the unity deal has actually reduced the

impact of this one, the main factions agreed beforehand, to

limit numbers to avoid risks casualties. The small size of the

demonstration, shows, perhaps, that Palestinian unity is working, but

it is also a sign of how little ordinary people can achieve here.

Some of the angry youths, who have been questioned, or arrested, by

Hamas officials over their actism, are now pessimistic about the

chances of real change here. really disappointed because

Palestinians do want to come out. But they are afraid of the

political factions. They are afraid of the Israelis, because everyone

is working against us. As Arab Spring lengthens into Arab summer,

the beach remains the only window in what so many Gazaians feel is

their prison. Ripples from elsewhere in the Middle East have

reached here, but the young still aren't in charge of their own

desknee, and peace is no closer, without it, despite the idealism, a

new generation may grow up with closed mind, the Mediterranean the

broadest horizon they can ever grasp.

As we were discussing earlier, the Archbishop of Canterbury has

strayed once more into politic. In response we have heard not just

outrage from ministers, but some traffic in the other direction w

saugs that the Government has right on its - with the suggestion that

the Government has right on its side. It turns to the vexed issue

between religion and politics, which glib Newsnight presenters

have just summarised thus, God, how would he vote?

God can be hard to spot in the political landscape of modern

Britain, Tony Blair was famously coy about his beliefs while still

in Number Ten, David Cameron admits that his faith grows hotter and

colder by moments and is not the rock it should be. Ed Miliband is

even less effusive when it comes to the divine. So you don't believe in

God? I don't believe in God, no, I have great respect for those people

who do. However little politicians may wish

to talk about him, his representatives on earth, do like

to talk about politic. This week the Archbishop of Canterbury's

targets were mainly coalition cuts in the big society, but in the past

he has sounded off about the war in Iraq, the killing of Osama Bin

Laden, bankers and Sharia Law. Inside parliament, those MPs who do

profess to have some kind of faith, can be found on both sides of the

chamber, apparently using their creed to guide them in debate about

stem cell research, abortion and foreign intervention. How can one

faith produce so many different political convictions, and whose

side f any, is God really on? Well joining me in the studio are

two MPs with religious conviction, from Labour, Ben Bradshaw, and from

the Conservative Party party, Nadine Dorries. What is interesting

to people, partly from this debate, and there is a broader issue, is

how you can believe in the same faith but actually think it takes

you in a completely different political direction, Ben Bradshaw,

you're a practising Anglican, how does your religion take you to your

political philosophy? It would be ludicrous to suggest all Christians

have to be Conservatives or Labour or Liberal Democrats there are

different parties within the church, there are people within the church

who put more emphasis on what Nadine does, sexual immorality and

abortion, others put it on social teaching and economic justice,

Rowan belongs to that category of Christian, it is a strong tradition

in the Labour movement. You say you chose Labour largely or partly

because it reflected your religious convictions? Partly, it isth has

often been said the Labour Party owes as much, if not more to

methodism it is a did to Marx, that is true, it has a long conviction

of coming up through the radical Anglicans in the inner city areas,

and we had the radical Anglican reports. It would be ludicrous of

me to suggest that the Labour Party has a monoply on faith, and it

doesn't, Nadine will explain why. should ask the same question to you,

how much does your faith affect where you have ended up in the

political spectrum and what you do politically? None of the issues

that I champion particularly, although they would be deemed to be

faith issues, if I were to approach any of them from a faith

perspective I would lose before I have begun, I will give an example,

I moved to have the upper limit at which abortion takes place from 20

weeks to 24 week - 24 weeks to 20, that was from the science and

morality, it seems wrong to abort babies who could live if born at

that particular gestation, although faith provide as moral framework,

in which I think all political parts and individual MPs operate.

It doesn't actually direct your policy. But it can direct people to

fundamentally different judgments. You say you see shades of grey when

it comes to abortion, you are not completely anti-abortion, but on a

lot of social issues you can have Conservative Christian who is just

absolutely the opposite conclusion about gay marriage, or any of the

social issues, that is a religious, that comes from religion? I can't

speak for other MPs, I'm sure there are MPs across the Commons, who use

their faith to make their decisions. It is very interesting, because we

had Catholic MPs in the House of Commons who didn't vote for the

abortion amendments, and yet a fundamental tenant of the Catholic

religion is life begins at conception. It is very grey and it

is difficult to understand how individual MPs, who you would think

were of a certain faith, would vote on certain issues in certain ways,

but that is the way parliament is. What is striking about the debate

today, and what the Archbishop has high loyaltyed in my interview with

Iain Duncan Smith, is - highlighted in my interview with Iain Duncan

Smith, is there is a fundamental way to respond to poverty. Ben

Bradshaw would say, the lesson of the good Samaritan is somebody gave

up their own money to help someone, they didn't ask the Government or

the authorities to help the person who had been mugged, isn't it in

some sense that's more the kind of thing we were hearing from Iain

Duncan Smith is a more religious, is more of a Christian message?

That is the point that Mrs That mucher famously made, when she was

defending her policies - Thatcher made when she was defending her

policies in the 80s. That is a way of getting people out of poverty,

some people saying that Rowan shouldn't speak about these issues

or stand up for the poor and vulnerable. If the Archbishop can't

do that, how what is he supposed to do, it is basic tenet of

Christianity. He feels passionate about it. The question was he was

impuning the morality of people like Iain Duncan Smith? He was

making the great point of view that there is bewilderment in the health

policy, the policy seems to have come from nowhere, it was ruled out

in the coalition agreement and causing disruption. All the

independent bodies say it is the weakest and vulnerable hardest hit

by the Government's policies. Tupbsable for the Archbishop to

speak bout that. You said if you did talk about

religion you would have lost the argument immediately? Absolutely,

what I would like Rowan Williams to do, I would like, when he does

speak, to speak about the issues that the people who attend his

churchs are interested. On the issue of abortion, of teenage

sexual health of teaching of abstinence in schools, on many of

the social issues he is deafening in silence and locks himself in the

ivory palaces, he never speaks on the issues that Christians are

interested in. I'm not sure they are the issues, most church-going

Christians are not concerned with those issues, they are concerned

about social issues. They have black and white views on that?

differences in the churchs are greater than in parliament. If you

look at the Church of England, and the thing that Rowan is trying to

do in holding that organisation together, with absolutely differing

views on things like gay equality, the interesting thing is we are

closer on a lot of things than people within the church itself.

are, but many, many churchgoer, I know this from the abortion

debate,were frustrated and angry that on such an important issue

that Rowan Williams and the church remained silent. He has spoken out

today, he has started? He spoke today on politics, and I'm not sure

he's any better informed on the issues he spoke about than the man

on the street. It was very difficult to understand some of the

points that he was making, I'm not sure where he had more of an

authority than anybody else to speak on the issues he talked about

today. We are going to have to leave it

there. We have just got time for the papers. We have got the