05/07/2011 Daily Politics

Afternoon, folks. Welcome to the Daily Politics. Celebrities,

politicians. Now it's the phone of a murdered school girl. Where will

the phone hacking scandal end? We'll be speaking to the Chairman

of the Press Complaints Commission. Ed Miliband wants the right to

choose his own Shadow Cabinet but will it be enough to stamp his

authority on the party? And the government want to make it easier

to complain. But will it make any All that in the next half hour.

With us for the whole programme today is Conservative Peer and

Chairman of the Press Complaints Commission, Baroness Peta Buscombe.

Now the shocking allegations that a private detective working for the

News of the World was involved in hacking the phone of murdered

school girl Milly Dowler. Detectives from Scotland Yard will

meet executives from the paper to discuss the claims this morning.

It's the latest in a string of stories about the activities of the

paper's journalists. We have the background. Yes, I do, Andrew.

After Milly Dowler's disappearance in March 2002 it's claimed that

Glenn Mulcaire, a private investigator working for the News

of the World, illegally intercepted, and then deleted, messages from

friends and relatives left on Milly's mobile phone. He was

apparently trying to make room for more messages. It's claimed that

these actions gave Milly's family false hope that she might still

have been alive. The phone hacking story first blew up in 2006 when Mr

Mulcaire and the News of the World's royal editor, Clive Goodman,

were found to have hacked into the phones of members of the royal

household. Both Mulcaire and Goodman were jailed in 2007. Since

then dozens of other politicians and celebrities have claimed they

were illegally targeted by the newspaper. In January, the High

Court will hear claims from various test cases including Jude Law,

Labour MP Chris Bryant and interior designer Kelly Hoppen. These

developments raise tricky questions, not only for the News of the World,

but its owner, Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation, which is planning

a full takeover of the broadcaster BSkyB. A matter currently being

considered by the government. The Prime Minister, who's in

Afghanistan, was asked about the matter this morning.

As for the issue of BSkyB, and the takeover issue, that has to be

followed in a correct legal way. The Government, on these processes,

is acting in a judicial way and it's quite right the Secretary of

State for Culture Media and Sport carries out his role in that manner

without any interference from anybody else in the Government and

that one of the reasons I had abstracted myself from this process

and want him to carry out his role in the way that he should under the

law. That was David Cameron speaking from Afghanistan. And the

Labour leader Ed Miliband has this morning called for the UK chief

executive of News Corp, former News of the World Editor Rebekah Brooks,

to step down from her current job. He also criticised the way the

industry is regulated. The current system does not work because these

abuses were going on when we had a Press Complaints Commission. Why

weren't they stopping this happening? That's why we need a

proper look at the proper practices of the industry so these things

never ever happen again. We have heard from the Prime Minister and

Leader of the Opposition. Let's now hear from Baroness Peta Buscombe.

Why is it, since the start of the biggest crisis in British

journalistic standards in living memory, you and the Press

Complaints Commission has been missing in action? That's not true.

We have not been missing in action. Words cannot describe how angry I

am with this. Totally angry. First of all, I have been working really

hard for the last two-and-a-half years since I arrived in 2009, to

further improve, work hard, but the reality is we have to be careful.

This is allegations going back to 2002. Two people went to prison in

2007, but what was happening Ben was totally and utterly appalling.

I understand. If you haven't been missing in action, can you tell me

what a useful thing you have done to bring the news of the world and

those doing the hacking to justice. We are doing it now. First of all,

in 2007, we put out edicts right across the industry demanding that

they introduced new guidelines and practices in terms of their

internal practices within their organisations. It made no

difference. Remember, these are allegations going back to what

happened to 2002. What have you done it that's useful. I want to

finish the question. I would like you to tell me, not issuing edicts,

what you said is, I wanted everything in my power to ensure

that does not behaving are brought to book. Tell me what you have done

which has brought anybody to book? We are doing all we can. But what

have you done? We set up a review. Following on from 2007-nine, we set

up a review of what took place over those past years. We are holding

the News of the world to account. In what way? There's only so much

weight. Your report in 2009... is a police investigation about

criminal activity. There are laws in place, statute is in place to

take care of this. Those laws were not in place in 2002 but are now.

We are doing all we can, given that there is a police investigation

going on. I understand that but you're not answering a single

question. Actually, I am not. You have not been able to tell me a

single thing. Let me ask you this. In at 2009, November, you actually

published a report that vindicated the News of the world. No, we

didn't. Your report went along with the news of the World claimed that

it was one of rogue journalist. You've indicated the News of the

world and you were completely wrong. We didn't vindicate them. We said

there was no evidence at that time and we doddered I personally, and

the PCC, are so angry because clearly, we were misled. We said

that very clearly and publicly. even attacked the Guardian a.

didn't attack the Guardian. warned the Guardian not to publish

things when you didn't have full evidence. But we didn't have the

evidence. You implied the Guardian was wrong. The media select

committee did not come up with any new evidence. You are the regulator,

they are not. Yes but is only so much you can do when people are

lying to us. Now we know. We didn't have the evidence them. I was not

being given the truth. Who knows if there are other newspapers who have

lied? But you are the regulator. You're meant to know these things.

Yes, but that's like saying, anyone who has committed a crime, judges

will know all the answers. That's not the case. This is what happened

back in 2002, 2003, the 1990s. What was the culture of news

organisations them? What was the ability of the PCC to regulate

that? 0. Because it is a criminal activity and the point is, we are

the regulatory body which has a hugely important role to play and

it fulfils an important role in terms of regulating the press but

we cannot cut across criminal activity. That said, we set up this

review at the beginning of this year. We are looking at all that

has taken place in the last few years. I have excellent people on a

review committee. I have police from Cambridgeshire, a professor of

media law. We will wait to see the results. We also talking to M I.

I'm not going to let you a filibuster this interview. Not only

did you implicitly attacked the Guardian, you then attacked the

lawyer who testified that 6,000 people had been hacked. I'm not

going into that. You had to apologise, pay damages and costs.

I'm not going into that. I want to talk about what we have done, which

is what you ask me in the first place. Why would you attack the

lawyer who testified to the Commons that 6,000 people had been hacked

and you told the Society of Editors that's not true. I didn't say that.

You are misquoting me and that is totally unfair. Did you have to

apologise and pay damages? I'm not going to comment on that. The PCC

takes all have this incredibly seriously. For the last 2.5 years,

I have been working exceptionally hard to beef up our sanctions and I

have now demanded the publishers, the proprietors, because I am

deeply unhappy about what has taken place. You have to understand that

this is your industry. It is the journalists... A Which are your men

to regulated. I'm going to ask you one more time. This is also...

would like to ask you this question. Do you not feel that having sided

with the news of the world, having attacked a lawyer who knew that

6,000 people had been attacked, could you tell me one a useful

thing that the PCC has done which is either exposing this cracking or

brought people to book? You haven't done it yet. We have beefed up our

sanctions, making more demands on the industry. I have demanded to

see all the proprietors and I'm asking each one individually and

the publishers what they had done in this area. Have you exposed any

of the hacking? In the last two- and-a-half years since I had been

on board, we have had one complaint about phone hacking which was

withdrawn. So you haven't? This happened back in 2002. Andrew, I

know it has been going on now but I didn't know that when I came on

board in 2009. Let me finish. truth is, a lot is coming out now

and I am so glad. I have to tell you, I have played a part. Tell me

one thing you have revealed. I, and the Press Complaints Commission,

were badly misled by the News of the world and I know you're

laughing at that for some so you have revealed nothing? This is a

criminal activity. There is a police investigation. I had a

review committee. You have told us that. I know. It's difficult for me

to explain. Let me ask you this final question. I cannot cut across

the police investigation. You know that, Andrew. You must sense my

frustration. That's not what our view was wanted. They want

effectiveness. I do too. The Calcot report said it self-regulation

didn't work, there would have to be statutory regulation. Is it

important to everybody that self- regulation has not worked and the

recommendation will have to be implemented? First of all,

statutory regulation now exists for this criminal activity. The Data

Protection Act,... You know what I mean, statutory regulation of the

press. Yes or no? We have to be very careful about the newspaper

industry regulator by the state. I am almost at my wit's end about

this but, at the end of the day, I also care massive leak about the

freedom of the press, responsibly, to be able to investigate

wrongdoing. I'm afraid we have to leave it there. Thank you. Labour

MPs are voting this evening on whether to deprive themselves of

the right to chose members of the shadow cabinet. At the moment when

a new leader is elected, he doesn't get to choose who sits beside him

on his front bench. Oh no, his MPs and Peers get to pick who makes the

grade in elections every two years. So what can we expect this evening?

Our Political Correspondent Iain Watson joins us now. It has been a

third of the Times, -- it has been said a few times, Iain, is this Ed

Miliband's Clause 4 moment? It is certainly not bad. The result is at

6:00pm. Party sources don't seem to be hanging on the edge of the seeds

over this one. They expect MPs to back Ed Miliband but the vote is

not binding. This is part of a much wider remit. Those reforms will

have to be approved by the party conference in September and today's

vote I think is the easy vote for Ed Miliband. We might stumble

across a cause for moment. One of those challenges is he wants to

water down the trade union influence in the party's decision-

making. That may be more controversial. He also has to

change the way the party leader is elected because, as you know, his

tale is constantly tweak by Conservatives because he was

dependent on trade union votes to beat his brother so that has to

change as well. Interestingly enough, in the shadow cabinet,

that's the easy bit. He a state guarantee existing Cabinet members

he would not reshuffle them as soon He needs to do something quickly.

According to a poll became out in the Independent yesterday, it is

not looking good for him. He is less popular than Ian Duncan-Smith

was when he was leader of the Conservative Party. He is more

popular the Michael Howard or Michael Foot. I think, at the

moment, there is a feeling around Shadow Cabinet members in the pit

of their stomach that something has to be done. Ed Miliband is not

punching through or getting enough impact. I think people want to see

him perform better. He can help out. I do not think in any stretch his

leadership is under threat. They should be doing better. We're

joined now by Michael Dugher, who's the newly appointed right hand man

to Ed Miliband, and by John Rentoul, chief political commentator for the

Independent on Sunday and a critic of the Labour leader. Research

published in the Independent today shows that Mr Miliband is more

unpopular than Ian Duncan-Smith in the same stage of his leadership.

We know what happened to him. has been leader for only nine

months. With the cuts, it does feel longer. He has been leader for nine

months. He inherited a situation where Labour suffered one of the

worst defeats in our history. He knows we have to work harder and

listen more. All our policies are being reviewed. He is determined to

drive through big changes in the party. He is saying let's get rid

of the elected Shadow Cabinet. I'm confident that will go through

along with other changes. It is one of many changes I think we'll see.

It is only the first step. At the Tory speech in Wrexham, the

outlined a number of changes about making the Labour Party look at

weird and not in word. His time running out for Ed Miliband? -- in

words. I think time ran out when he took the job. I welcome the

important changes he made. The Shadow Cabinet elections were

ridiculous when Labour MPs voted to keep them last year. I think it is

ridiculous they're voting to get rid of them today. It is not hugely

important. It does matter. Any leader ought to Beale to appoint

their own people. What is more important are the changes where Ed

Miliband has decided he is on the side of the voters when it comes to

crime and law and order. Let me bring Michael back in. Labour

people have not been for him themselves over to come out and

support Ed Miliband. Lord Goldsmith, when asked, does Mr Mellor band

still need to prove himself? He said, yes he does. -- Ed Miliband.

Is that the best Labour people can do? Most members of the Labour

Party would not know who look Goldsmith was. Look at what he has

done! You think his comment is of no virtue. It is not representative.

We had the U-turn from this government. He has turned us into a

very effective opposition. I think it is sustained pressure from the

opposition. I think we get a little help along the way. He wants to

turn this from an effective opposition to a future government

and that means big changes. fact is, as long as Labour stays

ahead in the polls, and this was not true under Iain Duncan-Smith,

his personal ratings are as bad as those of Ed Miliband. The Tories

are way behind Labour in the polls. As long as Labour has eight

consecutive months, they were not get rid of them. I do not think it

is to do with the opinion polls alone, it is to do with a lack of

an alternative. The only realistic alternative is the brother of Ed

Miliband. Ed Miliband is likely to lead Labour into the next election.

I think the Labour Party is have a terribly bad situation. It is a bad

for everyone who wants to see Labour win. How much comfort to you

take from the reassuring fact that your leader is slightly more

popular than Nick Clegg for --? real elections would real voters,

we have won four by-elections on the bounce, including some

difficult fights been in the Clyde. They have hundreds more councillors.

We need to do better in the south and Scotland. It is good work in

progress at the moment. You are a Tory peer. Do you share the view I

have heard express several times by leading Tories that Mr Ed Miliband

is the best asset you have. He is a remarkably good asset. He has taken

a risk in getting rid of elections in the Shadow Cabinet. He wants

people around him who he can trust and can work with. Why is there a

risk? It is a risk because of the power of the trade unions. They

play a hugely important role. has said, do not go on strike.

reason he got elected in the first place and beat his brother was that

he was put in there with the help of the trade unions. If he house

them in terms of them having a say in terms of who is in the Shadow

Cabinet, he is taking a risk. Maybe that risk is worth it. It is a very

tough choice. I do not quite see the Tory Shadow Cabinet ever being

elected but we leave it there. Are we any good at complaining in this

country? Oh, yes. Some of us are champions! I'm sure our guest of

the day, Peta Buscombe, chair of the Press Complaints Commission,

thinks we're too good. But when we do complain, do we get an adequate

response? The Government is currently consulting on how to make

it easier to make a fuss. Giles has been looking into this himself. We

Brits are not natural complainers. There was a generation, is

something was wrong, they would just say, we just won't come again.

But we have got better. We are complaining more and arguably it is

Mrs Peggy for Clarke wrote to us about her dustbin. It left with the

dust men one morning and it is still missing. They told me I could

have a bag or a sack. Other sooner have a been so went to bring it

back. Being able to complaint is a fundamental democratic right. It is

up to you to grasp the nettle and complain. Keep going! Why, oh why,

oh why? Most Brits will not still complaint unless it is something

that is really important because they do not think it would make any

difference. I think it is changing slowly. There are more channels. It

is easy to work of any male will send a tweet to an organisation

that has annoyed you. -- whack off an e-mail. People who e-mail are

nearly always happier than people who write in. I am being held in

ecus. Michael is extremely important to them, apparently. If

it were, Your coverage of person at the end of the phone. The real

problem is having a real person to complain to. In giant organisations,

you may have an e-mail address but there's no real person you can talk

to. You have a suspicion that you are hitting a bit of the computer

which gets a standard response. Thank you so much the of bread-and-

butter reply to my complaint. us an e-mail to this address and we

will send a standard reply back is about appearing to care. We do

think we're getting more angry as a society. We asked people and they

say, a no. If all else fails, I suggest to become a freelance

reporter for Horse and Hound and grin of the Press Office.

usually does have an effect. -- Even if you do not talk to a

machine, sometimes you talk to a person who is reading off a sheet.

They have prescribed answers. not ring up. You are going to be

listening to music for the long time. It is remarkable how long it

takes. The written word is far more effective. Who reads this? I

imagine they are piled underpins. You need to personalise the

complaint and find an individual to write to. Do not just write to the

chief executive, write to the financial director. How do you

respond to those letters which are addressed to you personally? I am

so pro complaints. You say I do not welcome complaints, that is what

the other full. I asked the question. -- what we are there for.

We put up a fantastic new advertising campaign to encourage

the public to come to us. It is easier to complain now, which is

good. It is channelled so people have the right outcomes. Sometimes

companies want to give you the appearance they are caring and

sharing. They pay lip service to the idea of complaining. London

Underground will give you a little token if you tick the boxes. That

is what they want you to do. I'll weep easily fobbed off? We are. --

are weep easily fobbed off? What we really crave is a dialogue with a

real human being. I am surprised to say that. You should see some of

the deters of the way that people complain to us. -- the details. It

is a public service, people come to us. We work closely with all sorts

of agencies. We resolve complaints to the satisfaction of most people.

We care about the harm and the hurt they have felt at the butt end of

the press. Someone watching us wants to complain about this

programme, what do they do? report came up last week saying

that the worst place in the world to complain to is the BBC for a

stub your complaints system is of rubbish. I would not e-mail, I

would not write in. Try and find an individual. I to take the point

that people do care. The managing director of Tesco and Marks &

Spencer does care about the organisation. Why don't I just

write a block where her moan about it? It gets tweeted. -- a block,

where I moan about it. The moment it is on the internet, it can be

inflammatory. Go back to an old- fashioned expression. I love a good

moan. If you want to complain, do not write to me, right to Anita.

Tamara is Prime Minister's Questions and we are on early. --