06/09/2011 Newsnight

All those yoghurt weaving hand wringers who thought that the

summer riots were caused by austerity and social failure were

wrong were they. The Justice Secretary revealed three quarters

of the rioters arrested are prior convictions, a feral underclass. If

he's right most of them are graduates of a criminal justice

system that has no idea how to rehabilitate their customers. The

police minister and the former Lord Chancellor are here. James Murdoch

pleaded ignorance to the House of Commons, that he didn't know about

the widespread phone hacking going on at the News of the World. Enter

his company lawyer with this unhelpable intervention. Listen, it

was the reason - unhelpful intervention. Listen, it was the

reason we had to settle the case. In order to settle the case we had

to explain the case to Mr Murdoch and get his authority to settle.

that game over for James Murdoch's career, or can his media

organisation shrug off a few poor reviews at Westminster. His

father's biographer, along with one of his inquisitors and a News Corp

shareholder. And we name the six towns in Britain with the most

boarded up shops on the high street. Can they be saved by a TV celebrity,

heading a Government mission. Shop Tsar Mary Portas has been

called in as the high street cries out for a sexy new make-over, and

ministers, as far as they can see, don't have a thing to wear.

The riots which sent such a shock through Britain last month, were

largely the work of criminals, the words of the Justice Secretary

today echoed the Prime Minister, but at another level, his

disclosure that three out of every four adults charged, already had a

criminal conviction, raises big questions about what we do with

people found guilty of crimes. Keneth Clarke describes the record

of the penal system as "straight forwardly dreadful", and claims to

be able to fix it. But how? As the CCTV footage is replayed,

and more suspects identified and arrested, a fuller picture is

emerging of those responsible for last month's disorder. In London

there have been more than 2,000 arrests. Three quarters of those

charged in connection with the riots had criminal convictions. So

the opportunistic rioting and looting which police admitted today

they were unprepared for, was largely the doing of what the

Justice Secretary called "a feral underclass".

Right after the rioters swept through this street in Hackney, I

came down here, and remember people's shock at the speed and

violence of the rampage. Now that we know that most of those

responsible had previous convictions it raises new questions.

Not just why did the riots happen, but why is it that people who have

broken the law and been punished are apparently so willing to

reoffend. Keneth Clarke, whose breezy

attempts to cut prison sentence, infuriated many in his party,

borrowed language they might applaud to condemn the rioters'

outrageous behaviour. But he used it to argue again that prison isn't

working. The idea that the length of a sentence is going to solve the

problem is simplistic nonsense, and good the system worked t does give

the punishment the public want to see, why doesn't that punishment do

more good, we don't want them coming back again.

There were minor disturbances at Westminster today, as London's

mayor arrived to help MPs unpick what caused the trouble. Boris

Johnson supported Mr Clarke's call for more adequate punishments that

help offenders turn their lives around. If you arrest such a huge

number of people, as we have, and you put them into the criminal

justice system, you cannot simply abandon them there. The Government

is holding an official inquiry, but in the meantime, MPs heard from the

Met's Acting Commissioner, that, in the early phases of the disorder,

mistakes had been made. Sometimes you suddenly realise how thin the

blue line is, when you are confronted with such scale of

disorder over such a large area. But the key for us, in terms of

stragically getting under control, is crime has to have consequences.

The arrest of the offenders had to be done swiftly and the courts had

to respond quickly, that was the key we put into place, that had a

significant impact in terms of the lack of repeat we then saw. But the

effectiveness of what happens after arrest and prosecution is under

scrutiny. While Ministry of Justice figures show the number of crimes

committed by reoffenders is falling, campaigners say this doesn't tell

the full story. Reoffending rates are staggeringly high, and have

been for a very long time. That points us towards the fact that the

criminal justice system should be doing better at focusing on that

kind of work with offenders, seeking to reduce reoffending at a

better rate than it currently does and protecting society from future

victims being created, we are not doing that at the moment.

police say the public are helping them to identify more suspected

rioters. So far 1500 have appeared in court. But the poor outcomes for

those qual slowed up by the criminal justice system, are -

swallowed up by the criminal justice are not doing enough to

stop them getting there in the first place, particularly those

drawn towards crime. We heard 19% of those charged in London had

links to gangs, and 21% were aged under 18. At Eastside Academy in

London's East End, they have a system of mentoring black boys, it

has led to a drive to recruit black men to help. It was launched at the

time of the riots, prove detentionly says its founder.

Something that can be effective for the child at the right time, if you

take the academy, what we found, in our experience, where you intervene

early and effectively and decisively, you can make a

difference. Why? Because the boys are shown an alternative, and they

are given an opportunity to lift their eyes beyond their current

circumstances and see a different way.

The Met have more than 20,000 hours of CCTV film still to wade through.

More suspects will be marched into court. The fact so many of them

have a criminal record already means they won't be alone in the

dock. So will the system that put them

there. With us now the criminal justice

minister, Nick Herbert and Lord Fawkes, former Lord Chancellor and

a Labour Party justice spokesman. Nick Herbert, what do you conclude

from the fact that three quarters of those charged had a criminal

record? That the criminal justice system has been failing. That it

has not delivered the message that offending should have consequence,

that a system that, sure, should punish people, should incapacitate

them, actually hasn't done what it also needs to do, which is

rehabilitate them, and prevent them from reoffending. It should make us

think very hard about the fact that we are processing tens of thousands

of offenders every year, but the very large majority of them are

going on to reoffend in a very short space of time. We have to

address that. This was a sample of 2,000 people? We know the

reoffending rates are high any way. But in this particular case, the

so-called feral, criminal underclass, was a sample of 2,000

adults, of whom roughly three quarters had criminal records. We

are talking about a feral criminal underclass of 1500 people? That is

the plain fact that 75% of them had criminal conviction, and half of

adult offenders leaving prison reoffend again within a year. We

know the system is fail to go prevent that reoffending, that is

why we have to go reform prisons to make them places of work rather

than idleness. We have to look at the supervision and support we are

giving offenders after they leave prison. It is why we have to deal

with drugs in prison, and why we have to have far more effective

community sentences. I would agree with many of those things, the idea

it is the failure of the criminal justice system, on the basis of the

figures produced by the Ministry of Justice today is utter nonsense.

You have 77% of less than 1600 people described as having previous

convictions or cautions, did they go to prison, were they fined for

drunken driving. What on earth are you believing that the criminal

justice system could do to stop it. What will your Government do, they

have the highest prison population, and therefore, even less money to

do anything about it? Well, firstly I think, that we should continue

with our programme of radical reform of prisons. In particular,

ideas like paying for effective rehabilitation, which the previous

Government failed to deliver. reduce the reoffending rates. You

are talking in fantasy land. need a criminal justice system that

sends clear signals both in terms of how swift justice is, and how

effective it is, that offending always has consequences. We have

failed to do in the past. If you look at the time that is taken

normally before you put offenders before a Magistrates' Court and

bring a conclusion, it is 156 days, in this case it was swift and sends

an important signal to offenders. We think there are very significant

reforms to drive through, including the use of technology in courts and

video links. That wouldn't have stopped the riots, would it? That

will make justice more swift and sure. That is what the public want,

it sends a clear message to the offenders. We focus on the

rehabilitation. The vast majority of crime. You know it wouldn't have

stopped the riots? You are talking nonsense. Half of all crime in this

country, you know this as previous Lord Chancellor, is commit bid

people already through the criminal justice system, the system has

failed to deal with the offenders, we need to deal with that system.

It hasn't stopped them reoffending? How many of them had cautions where

nothing happened except a caution, how many did one offence of

shoplifting. The idea you put on to the criminal justice system the

whole responsibility for stopping the sorts of crime we saw. What

your film showed very graphicically and accurately was gang culture is

a very important part of it. What has happened since you came into

power, and since your mayor is an increase of violence. You are not

seriously saying it is a consequence of the 2010 election

are you? No, but it is a much more productive line. This is the

familiar old Labour line, it is all to do with reducing public spending,

it is pathetic in terms of dying know six and no excuse - diagnosis,

and no excuss. You need to have sharp criminal - No excuse?

need to have sharp criminal justice, and discourage people from joining

gangs. This idea that there weren't sufficient sentences in the past,

which Ken's article said and Nick has just said, seems to be nonsense.

Even if it were right, I'm not clear in my own mind what the

Government are doing to do about it. For entirely understandable reasons

the prison population is the highest it has ever been. What are

you going to do. What are you actually going to do? Firstly, I

agree with Charley to this extent, we need to look at the issues of

social exclues, exactly what Iain Duncan Smith has been talking about

today. We need to look at why it is that young people find themselves

getting into the criminal justice system in the first place. Does

that mean dealing with the gang stuff. Dealing with gangs both in

terms of...Spending Money on that? Also in terms of effective

intervention and the kind of alternative that is the mayor's

adviser was talking about. Where will the money come from? With the

prison population at its highest now. With a robust response. That

is why the sentencing was absolutely right. It was your

policy to reduce the prison population? It is the highest it

has ever been. 8 7,000 or something. August is the lowest month.

Prime Minister has made it clear sufficient prison sentences will be

provided. Is it still your policy to reduce the prison population?

is not. It was? No, the Prime Minister has made clear we will

provide sufficient places. Your rehabilitation revolution was going

to be funded out of the reduction in prison places. The right way to

reduce in the long-term is to reduce reoffending, what we are

focused on with the radical proposals to get new providers in,

and interventions and help people get off drugs. The cost of failure

is huge. You haven't the money to do it. You are spending your money

on the extra prison places? payments savings are made by the

radical programme. You should be supporting it. I would support very

strongly improved measures to reduce reoffending, but I recognise

for it to be done it involves intensive intervention that is cost

money. You are not being realistic when you are saying...Your Solution

as ever is to spend more public money. It may be there isn't the

money, but you should be straight forward about it. We have the most

expensive criminal justice system in the world. If spending more

money we would have effective criminal justice now, we don't, we

have the highest reoffending rates around. This is how well the money

is spent, how effective the interventions are, and how well it

is organised. Tell bus the changes with less money you get better -

tell us about the changes, with less money you get better results.

Swifter and insurer justice, and prison sentences, a scheme to pay

by results to reduce reoffending, capture the savings, there are

billions of pounds of cost of a failed system, if we can prevent

that we can save money, reduce reoffending and make a better

system. That is what we are talking about in social reform and penal

reform. It is an optimistic message about how to improve the system.

You have bequeathed a system with prisons full to prison, failing,

spending more money. You have said it is no longer your policy to

reduce the prison population, do you mind how big it goes? We have

said the inexorable growth in the prison population we saw under the

previous Government, when it is combined with high rates of

reoffend something a vicious circle, we need to break that. Do you mind

how high it goes, 8 7,000, where it is now, is that as high as it

should go? I want the prison population to fall in the long-term,

because it is effective at reducing reoffending. How high should it go?

We want in the long-term to see a prison population not rising. We

have not said, the Prime Minister made clear, we will provide

sufficient prison places for those that the court sentence. That

happened in the case of the riots and will continue to happen going

forward. Your wholly commendable desire to reduce reoffending will

involve greater expenditure in what goes on in prison, I'm not clear,

from what you are saying, how you fund more prison places than ever

before, and extra work in prison and more extra rehabilitation.

have a welfare-to-work programme, you can pay a provider if he gets

into work you can pay him for the success. You fund it by the person

off benefits, you have made a savings and fund the intervention.

We can have a payments by results system in the criminal justice

system, which says if you can get somebody off reoffending and help

them go straight with an effective intervention, whatever it is,

mentoring, you get them to go straight, there is a saving to the

criminal justice system because they are not incarcerated in future.

You can capture that saving, and this is why it is an exciting,

radical scheme to help reduce reoffending in the future. James

Murdoch, the News International boss who denied knowing how

widespread phone hacking was in his company, didn't tell investigating

MPs the truth, maybe he did. A former company lawyer said it was

inconceivable that Mr Murdoch was unaware how common the practice was.

Mr Murd mur responded tonight by saying - Mr Murdoch responded

tonight by saying he stood by his remark that he never saw an e-mail

relating to staff. The stakes are high, not just for Murdoch himself.

MPs have now asked thousands of questions about phone hacking. But

through the hours and hours of testimony, and the thousands of

hours of broadcasting, the central question hasn't really changed. Up

until fairly recently, News International was insisting that

phone hacking at the News of the World was confined to one rogue

reporter, Clive Goodman, the paper's royal editor, who pleaded

guilty and was jailed in 2007. However, that version of events is

categorically contradicted by an e- mail, marked "for Neville", it

shows transcript of messages left on the phone of Gordon Taylor, of

the Professional Footballers Association. Clive Goodman is not

called Neville, or as royal editor is he interested in the goings on

in the world of football. Anyone who saw the "for Neville" e-mail,

or learned of its contents, must have known that phone hacking went

far beyond just one single journalist.

The paper eventually settled with Gordon Taylor for a whopping

�425,000, plus his legal expenses. According to News of the World's

external lawyers, that was double the - News International's external

lawyers that was double the amount he could have expected if the

matter went to court. James Murdoch has signed off on the

matter, he said he did not know about the "for Neville" e-mail.

you see or were you made aware of the "for Neville" e-mail or message

transcript. No, I was not ware of that time. When James Murdoch

signed off the Taylor deal and its massive pay-off, there were two

other people in the room. Today the select committee heard from both of

them. And they both agree that they did tell James Murdoch, not only of

the "for Neville" e-mail, but of its huge significance for the

company, of which he was supposedly in charge. Tom Crone was legal

manager at newsgroup newspapers, and Zdenek Mlynar was there when

the settlement was approved. Do you regard the existence of the e-mail

as evidence that the phone hacking was k cysting beyond Clive Goodman?

That was the first evidence we had seen that it went beyond Clive

Goodman. Given it was so significant, clearly it must have

featured pretty large in your conversation with James Murdoch?

Listen, it was the reason that we had to settle the case, and in

order to settle the case, we had to explain the case to Mr Murdoch and

get his authority to settle. So, certainly, it would would have been

discussed. I cannot remember the detail of the conversation. And

there isn't a note of it. The conversation lasts for quite a

short period, less than 1547, or about 15 minutes, - 15 minutes, or

about 15 minutes, it was discussed. But exactly what was said I can't

recall. Inside the committee there was incredulity that at the same

time the pair could be so sure in their recollection of their meeting

with James Murdoch, but hazy as well. The bit I struggle with, if

you are both adamant that James Murdoch knew the full extent of

what you were telling him about the "for Neville" e-mail, the bit I

struggle with, is this meeting lasted at the absolute maximum, 15

minutes. It seems to me if you were telling James Murdoch, actually we

have got evidence here that shows that other people at News of the

World were involved in phone hacking, that's what we have got in

our brief case here. That's why we must settle this case. I can't

imagine how you could go through all of that and the implications of

that in less than 15 minutes. is my recollection of how long that

meeting would have taken. I can't speak for what Mr Murdoch

understood at the time or not. I have seen what he has said since,

I'm absolutely prepared to accept that he has his recollection wrong.

I do, and I am certain, that I explained to him that this document

had emerged and I explained what it was and why it meant that the

defence that we had lodged in the case couldn't be run any further,

we had to get out of it. Again and again, the committee attempted to

extract more clarity. Was he clear that this meant there was further

wrongdoing within the News of the World, as a result of the existence

of that document? It seemed to be clear to other people. I'm not

asking about other people, I'm asking about him. I can't speak for

Mr Murdoch's recollection of this, and I can't speak for Mr Murdoch's

view that he took away from that meeting. What I took away from that

meeting was that there was an agreement to settle, and that is

what happened. The significance is very clear, from Mr Murdoch's

testimony, he said neither Mr Crone or Mr Mlynar said there was any

wrongdoing by Mr Mulcaire, there was nothing from the meeting that

led me to believe that further investigation is necessary. He's

very clear on his recollection of the meeting and you are not.

sorry, I am clear, there was no ambiguity of the significance of

that document and what options were there for the company to take.

statement tonight, James Murdoch It seems certain now that the

committee will be recalling James Murdoch, the decision won't be

taken until next week. With us now in the studio is

Michael Wolff a contributing editor to Vanity Fair, and the biographer

of Rupert Murdoch. Also here is Louise Mensch, the MP who sits on

the Culture Select Committee, and we are joined by Donald Yacktman,

President of Yacktman Asset Management Company, one of the

biggest investors in News Corp. How much trouble is James Murdoch in do

you think? Career-ending trouble. The trouble of his lifetime. I

don't think you can exaggerate how much trouble he's in. His

credibility has been virtually destroyed, and credibility is the

coin of the realm when you're running a major coopgs. So it is

over for him - Corporation. So it is over for him? It is over, but

the over may take several months. On this particular issue, he has

wriggle room, doesn't he? I think he has plenty. I think your report

there was extremely fair. We saw testimony today, as your report

said, members of the committee attempted to extract clarity, I

attempted to extract some clarity, it was made clear n my own view,

and I can't speak for the rest of the committee, that he had had

agreed to settle the case. To my mind it was not at all made clear

that he had been told definitively that wrongdoing extended beyond

Goodman and Mulcaire. All you are establishing there is the

possibility that he may stay out of jail. Anyone else looking at this

says he's a dissemabler, he's a misrepresenter, he's someone, in an

overarching way, is not fundamentally being straight, or

doesn't know what was going on. will deny several of your

accusations straight off, and they are not provable at this point?

This is matter of perception, and a matter of people who have seen this

week after week, month after month now, and you see a person who has

paid an enormous amount of money for what possible reason? This is a

matter of both perception and beyond that pure logic. As a major

investor at News Corp, what do you make of what is happening here?

makes for titilating press. But it doesn't effect...? As an investor

our thesis, it doesn't effect our thesis of investment in this

company. The basic thing we look for is a forward rate of return. If

we were to buy a company and hold it for a long period of time, what

kind of rate of return would we get. In fact, this might sound counter

intuitive, that things that come out that knock the stock price down,

we like because that means that we can buy more of it at good value

and the company is in there buying their stock back. What have you

been doing buying the stock for. You haven't kept pace even with the

SNP, this is a money-losing investment you are looking at.

Depends on what time frame you are looking at. We are very long-term

investors. You have said you're a long-term investor, if you are a

long-term investor in News Corporation, you have lost money?

No, we haven't. We have made a ton of money. We bought it two years

ago. If you had bet on the SNP, you're underwater, so on the most

basic...Not At all. Absolutely wrong, you're absolutely wrong.

Trust me, I could take over your business, because you

absolutely...He Has half a billion dollars invested in this company,

how much have you got invested in it? A lifetime of work. You are

under water, you are absolutely under water on this company if you

have held this over a long period of time. Let's broaden this out.

ought this two years ago. You have invested in a company in which you

don't have a vote. Can I finish. Hang on a second, in your judgment

is there any possibility now of James Murdoch ever taking over News

Corporation? There is no possibility of him taking this

company over. And the company itself has basically now set this

up. They don't refer to James as the heir any more. It is now Chase

Carey is the person who will have the power passed to if Washington

Post comes to worst. I think that the internal workings of News

Corporation are a matter for them. What the committee is trying to do

is establish the truth. I can speak purely only for myself, we heard an

awful lot of muddied evidence today I thought and not a lot of clarity

was brought to the table. Mr Wolff passion shows many people come to

the Murdochs with a certain agenda, my job and the committee is to see

if the previous committee was misled. You have done a fairly

terrible job on. That I would suggest that all of you people

should spend a smes ter at an American - sem mess ter at an

American legal college. That is because you see hooves coming out

of their head. I am not in any way a Murdoch antagonist. Are the

Murdochs a fit and proper people to be running a company? I want to go

back and address this other thing. If their credibility is a problem,

the person that just spoke about righting a novel, or whatever it

was. It is called a biography. Maybe it was a novel. A biography,

your credibility has just been destroyed, because if you looked at

where we bought News Corporation, and what's happened to the SNP in

the interim, you have found out we have done well above the SNP in

News Corp. You seem to have these very strong opinions and you don't

know where you are coming from. have asserted the worthwhileness of

holding shares in News Corp, what I'm wondering is how much your

commercial judgment is affected by all these things that seem to be

coming out about the way some elements of the Murdoch empire

operate? Well, again, to us this is more politics and this is a deep

bench. Mr Rupert Murdoch is the one who founded this company, and is,

if you will, the brainchild behind is. And I think Chasecarey is an

excellent - Chase Carey is an excellent executive and heir to

this. I have empathy and I'm concerned about the company, but as

far as whether James Murdoch runs it or not, I think this investment

is still going to be a very good investment.

You would be perfectly happy. have just heard a difference in the

company line, they would never have said that two months ago. Sure. Let

me clarify one thing, you would be perfectly happy as a major investor

in this company to have James Murdoch take it over, would you?

think it depends on the time frame. The overall circumstances as well.

I think that is premature, that is the board of directors' decision,

they are in a much better position to make that kind of decision. They

should exercise it. Mensch, the other contribution on the question

of the Murdoch empire today, came from the Prime Minister, your

leader, who said perhaps, he had been too close and he should

maintain distance in future. Can he realistically do that? I think he

can certainly try, and one thing that will come out of the press

inquiry in general is the closeness of politicians to the press. In our

previous committee we heard testimony from Mr Rupert Murdoch b

how close he had been to successive primes of all parties, how many

times under - prime ministers, of all parties. And how he had gone in

and out of the back door. The fact of the matter, contact between the

press, the lobby and politicians had to be maintained, but from now

on they would be logged and open. The fact there will be no more cosy

fire side chats is perhaps a good thing. The people have a right to

snow when the lead - know when the leaders are meeting press Barons,

that won't stop but it needs to be transparent. If you look at the

high street and see boarded up shops and the same dreary brands

everywhere, don't despair. You could be in Hartlepool, west port,

and west prom witch. They have the highest proportion of boarded up

shops. The Government is concerned, and has asked Mary Portas, the so-

called Queen of Shops, to investigate and come up with ideas

of bringing back life to the high street. We have been out with them.

Whoever said it is grim up north, never saw a walk about in Rotherham

by television fashionista, Mary Portas. It is brilliant, something

different. David Cameron's shops' Tsar. That said, not even her

copper bob and towering heels, could entirely distract the eye

from vacant premises and cut-price discount chains.

Pound shops are catching on here, probably not for you. Probably not

for you, either. Is that a pound jacket. What do you think of the

schmutter? Lovely. This is what I believe in, I would be doing this

despite Government. If Government support it, which I'm hoping they

will, we will be able to, hopefully, leverage this a lot quicker than if

working on your own or with councils. At this bakers in

Rotherham Town centre, they warm up snacks for office workers, they say

people prefer to go to supermarkets for the family loaf or the big shop,

other outlets have simply disappeared. There is no gents'

outlet, no toy shops, you can't entertain the kiddies for half an

hour in the toy shop. There is nothing like, that you send them

into Argos and look through a catalogue. That is not the same for

kids, they like to touch. In the shopping jargon, the foot

fall has all been going away from the high street in many farts of

the country. But analyst - parts of the country, but this analyst has

been heading in the other direction, crunching the number of shops as

they shut. As recently as two years ago, only 6% of shops on Britain's

high streets were disuse the. Now more than 14% - disused, now more

than 14% of them are. That is 39,000. The reality that comes out

of this, is we have permanent change here, and some of the

centres that are right up in the high, one in three shops being

vacant, will never go back to what they used to be. Therefore, there

has to be some kind of change of use, or purpose for that centre.

some towns, well over a quarter of shops are idle and shut up.

Newsnight has discovered that the six places with the biggest

Even very respected people are saying get rid of the high street,

it is finished, it is out of town? I think there are some towns, I

don't think it is finished, that is ridiculous, we have towns where it

is working. There are towns where it is dead, the horse has bolted.

Just give up on those? Give up. There are some towns we can look at

a rejuvenation, whether that is housing or looking how to change

some of the towns. That has to be done, it is bonkers to say we can

do them all, we won't be able to. There are many towns that have

great potential to do that. It is looking at what that new business

model will be, and looking at how consumers have changed. This is the

severed foot there. �2.99, fantastic for the kids. What

whether they go for? An arm and a leg! Yes, more delicate retailers

may recoil in terror. But pile them high and sell them cheap are rising

from the tomb of the high street as we knew and loved it. The low-

budget shops, which are opening as others go dark, course well on

price and convenience. But they claim they can only operate at

bargain basement wage levels. pay the minimum wage, and then

obviously the staff, the supervisors and the managers are

obviously on more money, yeah. that fair and ethical, are you

making profits on the back of your workers? Absolutely not, we are

here and trading at the absolute minimum on the profit margins. The

profit margins are very inthis. You are right in what you said earlier,

it is stack it high and sell it cheap, that is the only way we

could do it. You couldn't afford to pay them more? The model wouldn't

work. But on the stay the Shops' Tsar

came to town, we found innovative thinking in Rotherham. Council

workers tried to brighten the centre by getting rid of chewing

gum. It changed the it into a crime scene out of an old detective

movie! Remember the numbers that come back. After this shoe

shopowner was refused a loan by the banks to expand his business, the

borough council are thinking of stepping in to act as guarantor.

They wanted to buy the buildings themself, when the new Government

came in, they said draw a line under that, we stepped in to try it,

they have been very supportive, they will be guarantors against a

mortgage for us. We won't get the money, we have to pay every penny

back, they will be behind us assuring the lender we will repay.

Do you want Mary to buy a pair of boots while she's here? She can

have a pair if she likes. Is that Newsnight, ever sophisticated. What

is curious about the Shops' Tsar, including the ministers who

recruited her, is she believes shops aren't necessarily the answer.

I don't know if I'm optimistic, I'm realistic, I will give it my best

shot in thinking what the future might be for retail in the town

centre, it might not be the mix we have seen over the last 20 years,

and we will be looking at a very different mix t might not be retail,

but social meeting places and any reason to get people back in, if we

won't we will have social problems back on our hands. We have seen

that, even with the riots, if there isn't a sense of belonging. Mary

Portas says she has had no guarantees from Government that

they will implement her advice in the autumn, when she offers the

high street her brand of retail therapy.

Rodney Fitch has styled many of Britain's most famous shop fronts,

including Top Shop, and Phillip Blond, a self-styled red story is

the founder and director of the - red story is the founder and

director of the think-tank, ResPublica. What preserve of the

Government is it to try to preserve the high street? It is up to the

Government to represent the interests of the people. Very

clearly an overwhelming majority of people in this country care very

deeply about their high street, the mix of t and what's happening to it.

In that case, why don't they shop there? You have hit on one of the

issues. What I think is interesting is people can want one thing and do

another. What is really interesting is if we look at what is happening

to the town centres, there is three factors, there are, genuinely,

uncompetitive practices going on, by for instance, supermarkets and

out of town developments. There are supsidies to that business model,

and small shops and local shops have to get their act together a

lot are awful. We need a new way of delivering local retail. You would

agree, as a member of this society, that it is better that we have

healthy high streets than unhealthy high streets, presumably? I would

agree we have, it is better we have healthy shopping, rather than

necessarily healthy high streets. I think I agri with Mary, and that

little film - agree with Mary and the film, there are some high

street that is are very good, other high streets are very poor. The

people deserve better. It is already talking about Government

intervention and they should do this and that. But the people

choose. You don't live by shopping alone? More or less it is the

purpose of life, more or less. It is a huge economic driver, it is

what people like to do. I know of a study going on for 15 years, across

19 countries, and at no time in any year has shopping been out of the

top four things that people want to do. And you don't give a monkeys if

people are going off to out-of-town shopping centres, where they see

all the same sorts of shops as they would see anywhere else and the

heart of their town dies? That isn't true. They go to these

places...I'm Asking if you care or not? I care about people shopping

well, I care about that very much. They will find, people find better

shopping in places other than traditional high streets. I think

it is not the people needing to stop shopping, they can shop

differently. The ways of shopping differently is changing the way in

which we sell goods and the way in which we buy goods. But if we stay

as we are, let's be clear, we will have a shopping centre just full of

cloned stores, charity shops and pound shops, and nobody, in my view,

in this country, wants that. So we need to do something to change the

game. He does? He has a vested interest in that, also it is an

interesting comment to make. But I think in his hearts of hearts he

doesn't believe that. I bet where he chooses to live he won't select

to live near a town which has that dead centre. Apart from hoping

people will have some conversion to shopping on the high street, and

high street retailers sharpen their act up. Have you other ideas what

to do with high streets? You can remove the subsidies that the

present model, one of those supsidies is rate relief on car

parking. That see sengsly in town retailing - that is paying rates on

parking spaces in the town and the out of town doesn't. The Localism

Bill Hasselhoff moved to allow town centres to be free not to charge

and open up car - the loyalism bill has moved to allow town centres to

be free from rates for packing. local authorities make it difficult

for them to use the high street, and if the Government is to be an

interventionist Government, which I personally worry about, they should

be trying to join up the dots, rather than just...They Already

have, in the last few days the Government has shown very clearly

it has removed the restrictions on car parking, so from now on, town

centres will be free to do whatever they want in respect of car parks.

Also, what is interesting, is the Government has, once again,

reasserted the priority of in-town development. For new development it

has doubled the period of time in which the assessment for

sustainability takes place. So I think there are things we can do.

It is not inevitable. It sound like King Kantue? It is not, already we

have very successful town centres, Mary has spoken about things do -

doing well. She has also conceded some will go under? Town centres

can be different, they can be a way to bring theatre and leisure to

people. New ways to make town centres exciting places. Unless

local retail gets its act together. We have small shopkeepers operating

in ways that don't help the whole area, we need to get them to

operate as an area to change the mix of their area and open it up to

new entrants. We really shouldn't think about some kind of romantic

high street of the past with the local butcher and the local baker,

et cetera. What would you use it for? What would you use the high

street for. Mary gave something of an indication. There is so much

innovation in the retail business and technology, it is the most

dynamic of industries, retail will find its own level. What to do with

the high street. What it won't do is put back poor quality bakers,

poor quality butchers because the people won't go there. They won't

use it. But it is false choice, nobody is arguing for that.

Everybody wants to have high- quality, local retail there is lots

of measures you can do to generate. That you can remove the supsidies

of a model that destroys town centres and put in innovative new

practices to change the mix but renew our cities and towns.

Tomorrow morning's front pages now. The Guardian says James Murdoch

will be recalled, although the decision has not yet been taken by

the media select committee, it That's it for tonight. The Rugby

World Cup begins on Friday, in New Zealand on every corner of every

street and shopping mall, flash mobs of Kiwi youth are gathering to

Hello there, pretty windy outside. The winds dropping further through

the early hours. Tomorrow will be breezy but not as strong, the wind,

not as gusty as it was during Tuesday. There will be a lot of

showers, mostly focused across western Scotland and North West

England. To the east of the Pennine, one or two getting through, a good

chance of staying dry. A dryer day across East Anglia, not many

showers here, and there should, at times, be sunshine coming through.

After a bright start it will cloud over in the south west. A few

showers could drift by on the breeze, overall a dryer day on

Tuesday, as it will be in South Wales. Northern parts of Wales will

see fairly frequent showers blown in on a strong wind t will be a

windy day across Northern Ireland. Not much sunshine here, cloudy with

frequent showers. The showers will pepper western Scotland as well.

Not too many getting to the north- east a good chance of sunshine for

the likes of Aberdeenshire. It will feel cool wherever you are because

of the strength of the wind. By Thursday the winds are easing,

across Scotland it is looking like a dryer day with a better chance of