08/07/2011 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics. As the Prime Minister's

former director of the medications is arrested in connection with the

phone hacking scandal. The Prime Minister says the relationship

between the politicians and the press must change. It is no good

just pointing the finger at this individual journalist or that

individual newspaper. It is no good actually just criticising the

police. The truth is, to coin a phrase, we have all been in this

together. The press, politicians, and leaders of all parties, yes,

including me. He announces two inquiries into the conduct of not

only the press but also the police. We will look at what questions they

have to answer. And where did this week's

revelations leave the press and politicians?

And with me today, Anne McElvoy of the Economist and Danny Finkelstein

of the times. We are also joined by Lord Prescott. As the former

director of the communications for the Conservative Party was

attending a police station, the Prime Minister was holding an

impromptu press conference at Downing Street. He announced two

inquiries. One to be led by a judge into the phone hacking scandal and

the police investigations that followed. This will start work when

the police investigation has concluded. A second inquiry will

look into the press, its ethics and how it is regulated. This will be

led by a panel of independent experts. David Cameron said he

hoped it would started work immediately. He'd -- he told

journalists that the political classes were guilty of not waking

up to the press. Politicians and the press have spent time courting

support, not confronting the problems. It is on my watch that

the music has stopped. I am saying, loud and clear, that things have

got to change. The relationship needs to be different in future. I

am not going to pretend there is some nirvana of two separate worlds

relating to which other on the basis of total transparency and

edible perfection. That is not real life. But we can do a hell of a lot

better than what we have done so far. As this scandal shows, while

it is vital that a free press can tell the truth to power, it is

equally important that those in power tell the truth to the press.

Let me just say this about a couple of the individuals concerned. First,

Andy Coulson, who worked for four years of my director of

communications. He resigned from the News of the World because of

the things that happened on his watch. I decided to give him a

second chance and no one has ever raised serious concerns about how

he did his job for me. But the second chance did not work out and

he had to resign all over again. The decision to hire him was mine

and mine alone and I take full responsibility for it. On the case

of Rebekah Brooks, as I have said, I don't think it is right for the

Prime Minister to start picking and choosing who should run and who

should not run media organisations. But it has been reported that she

offered her resignation over this and in this situation I would have

taken it. The Prime Minister saying that the resignation of Rebekah

Brooks, the current executive of News International, should have

been accepted. He was also asked if he was warned that Andy Coulson

might not be a suitable person to employ as head of communications at

Downing Street. I was not given any specific, actual information about

Andy Coulson. The decision I took was the same decision right from

the beginning, that, you know, very bad things have happened at the

News of the World, he had resigned, I gave him a second chance, he had

proved himself as an effective person in opposition and it was

acceptable for him to come into Downing Street. That was the

decision I took and a decision I will be held responsible for. I was

not given any specific information that would lead me to change my

mind. I am checking all of that. David Cameron at that press

conference. Danny Finkelstein, I was watching that press conference,

he said repeatedly that the public would have to judge him on his

decision to take on Andy Coulson as a former director of communications.

That was a judgment he made, and was he right? The public will judge

him. What's do you think? I don't think the public have better things

to do. These issues excite people. Both he and Andy Coulson will

regret that all of this has happened in retrospect, I suspect.

We hire people to be very tough with the press, so you tend to hire

tough press people. I am sure that he would hope that it had worked

out differently. You take a risk when you do that and it did not

work out. The judgment will be whether he should have taken him on

on the basis of assurances. He said there were assurances and he was

not sure about warnings that were given to him by civil servants,

maybe by members of his staff, about the suitability of Andy

Coulson. It is very easy for me to sit here and say that of course you

made a misjudgment on the date that Andy Coulson is arrested. But I

shared that misjudgment. Clearly, it was a risk. You do need people

that are very tough with the media. They tend to have a media career

behind them and all that that brings with it. Lots of people are

arrested and nothing ever happens afterwards. We don't know, but I

think this morning it is probably something that David and Andy

Coulson which they had not done. the Prime Minister done enough? He

was pretty open and candid and he said the buck stopped with him and

he was in it just as much as anyone else. I have been campaigning for a

long time to get rid of the useless PCC. That is going. The inquiry

must have a judge come in immediately. Then they must stop

the shredding that is going on. Medic has a tremendous reputation

of withholding information. -- Rupert Murdoch. The police inquiry

is essential and that came about because of the action we took on

judicial review. They had not done their job properly. On the second

chance, I wrote to him two years ago to this day, to say that he

would regret it if he appointed Andy Coulson. That was when he was

in opposition. The Prime Minister has all the security available in

the world to ask about people. He did not. That affected his judgment

and when the truth comes out they will judge the Prime Minister.

he right? Yes, I think Ahmad point, John Prescott is right. -- on that

point. He struggled a bit in the press conference on what he had

known and what he tried to find out. I think he pretended and we let him

pretend, like in Casablanca. Andy Coulson was effective with the

press, Danny is right. But that was not the question. There were

criminal charges hanging over him, and that was beginning to get going

by the time he got into Downing Street. It looks like a lapse of

judgment to retain him at that point, even if he had hired him in

the first place. In terms of the relationship with the press, the

Prime Minister made a great deal about the fact that cosying up

between journalists and use their proprietors and broadcasters had to

effectively be changed. -- newspaper proprietors. But what

will change? They will not meet the head of the BBC? That is not

practical. I don't think it is practical, actually. The

relationship between Parliament and Jonas has always been strong,

because they are going after stories. I think that is not the

issue. Their practices in the media and those practices, particularly

in the case of the News of the World, those practices were a wreck

-- reprehensible. The idea that you are going to break the relationship

altogether between politicians and the press, while... Have been was

self-criticism on David Cameron's part. It was near copper. I did not

like the spreading of the blame, and we all have to examine

ourselves, it is like when social workers tell you we are all in it

and we are all guilty. It is largely about one specific title,

the News of the World. And New Labour was just the same. That

includes you, maybe not personally, but in terms of Tony Blair and

Gordon Brown, they were as close to the Rupert Murdoch empire. All of

the leaders have been like that and I thought it was terrible. I used

to argue with Blair and Brown about this. Yes, the press will find ways

to get information, that is how they get the story, but not by

using telephone tapping. That is the same. That relationship, if you

have Christmas dinner together and get close, then... In is that

healthy? It is not. We have pictures of Tony Blair with Rebekah

Brooks. I am trying to answer you. Then do. Why is it useful to have

that relationship? Can I answer now? My experience with Tony Blair

and Gordon Brown was difficult at times, when the press reported on

that they were right. One would have some information, and where

would they get it from? Rebekah Brooks. How the hell does that

women get this kind of information? She plays them off in politics.

They don't just eat together, they get political. They have a purpose.

She is entitled to have a conversation with a politician.

am trying to get an agreement between two guys, but it is the

tittle-tattle. News International have a lot of big questions to

answer about the dysfunctional relationship between Gordon Brown

and Tony Blair, but that was just their fault. It is how they get

involved in the politics. That is why they say the son of won it.

They are trying to get rid of one party and bring in another. -- the

Sun newspaper won it. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have a newspaper

to get across and they want to do so. Hence the fraternisation. What

the newspapers do with that is up to the newspapers themselves. Tony

Blair and his team believed that the deal had been done. If Rupert

Murdoch had been able to pursue his interests in peas, he gave them

fair wind. That worked both ways. And not convinced that they

produced new Labour or the Labour Government. They believe that but I

don't accept it. They play that game, no doubt about it.

Politicians actually believe it. That is why they play this game.

Miliband, he is employing Tom Baldwin, part of News International,

should he not do that? Well, I was concerned. I do the News

International play that part. I am very suspicious of most people from

using to National. Danny is putting a good case for Murdoch, the best

you possibly can. There is no place for the Murdoch role in politics.

This is turning from cleaning up something that is very bad and that

everybody is aware of, into you just getting Murdochs. As though

everything is OK if we get him. I correct that? I would not want

that to be the position. Murdoch is in the docks because of the issue

with Glenn Mulcaire and everything. They pointed out that 30 newspapers

were involved, 300 journalists, doing a legal things to get

information. This is not just Rupert Murdoch it, it is everybody.

When I worked for William Hague, he was betrayed as a dead parrot. And

the reader's thought there was truth in that. When newspapers tell

people things that are not true, it does not work. Everybody has to

completely understand why you are angry about it, with what has

happened with your phone hacking. You have probably regarded the

coverage as disappointing, too. I can completely understand. But

don't think it is dangerous to overestimate. If a newspaper

stepped out of line with where its readers were, it would not get

support. When The Sun moved from the Labour Party to the

Conservative Party, it did so because its readers have already

gone that way. Rupert Murdoch was managing a situation. All of the

information that came out, I heard James Murdoch say it, we started

the inquiry voluntarily. Did you howl! It was a judicial inquiry

into the rock of the police that made them produce it. In order to

separate this idea of influence and press regulation, it has been said

that press regulation would be dangerous. Anything that is

controlling the free press. I think he is right. My opinion might be

the minority right now. There is a lot to be lost from over regulating

the press. I have travelled in continental Europe this week.

Reading these dead newspapers, clearly not holding the leaked to

account, sharing rough-and-tumble. -- holding the elite to account. I

don't think we should throw the baby out with the bathwater. There

are many good things about the British press. There is a solution

to that and er think it is an independent body. If you control

the press, then it is state press and I don't think we should have

that. You could not win that argument. You can use a body like

that. In 1997, dealing with the Human Rights Act, the industry

fought against any kind of sanction in terms of press complained. They

wanted it to be self-regulated. You can build on that. You could make

it work. That is where we have to As the Prime Minister said this

morning it's not just News of the World journalists who are in the

frame over the phone hacking scandal, the police are also in the

firing line. The Met Police initially launched an inquiry into

phone hacking in 2006, which saw the News of the World's royal

editor Clive Goodman and private investigator Glenn Mulcaire jailed.

But no one else was implicated. In 2009, the Guardian Newspaper

produced further allegations of the hacking of thousands of people, but

the Met chose not to investigate further. By 2011, however,

Operation Weeting was launched, following what the Met called

"significant new information". And, in total, five people have been

arrested and bailed as part of the police investigation. Pressure has

now also come on the police following News International

handing over emails which allegedly show tens of thousands of pounds

were paid to police officers in return for information. And that

they were authorised by Andy Coulson, who was arrested this

morning. Andy Coulson has always denied any involvement in, or

knowledge of, illegal activity. Back in 2003, Rebekah Brooks

admitted to a Commons Committee that: "We have paid the police for

information in the past." although she later said she had no knowledge

of "any specific cases". The Independent Police Complaints

Commission has now launched an inquiry into the allegations with

the watchdog's deputy chairman Deborah Glass saying the inquiry

will be "robust in its attempts to identify any officer who may have

committed an offence." with me now is the former Scotland Yard

Commander, Brian Paddick, who recently won a High Court bid for a

judicial review into the police inquiry.

Welcome to the programme. The first thing to say is, your judgment that

the police at the end of that investigation, did not reveal

widespread phone hacking, was it because they were implicated?

theory, we had more important things to do, we didn't have the

resources. Which creates in my mind, the adage, a stitch in time saves

nine. Second excuse, it is important we have positive media

coverage because we need the confidence of the public if we are

going to police effectively. Therefore we mustn't upset them, so

narrow this down and move on. Third, all these are possible but there is

no evidence, in the same way politicians on the parliamentary

committee refused to recall Rebekah Brooks to give evidence because

they were threatened aspects of their private life would be made

public, maybe some police officers, they refused to take it further,

because they had the same threat. For it is that final point, that

relationship between the police and journalists, and Rebekah Brooks did

reveal something when she said they had paid police officers which was

illegal, although at the time, it wasn't picked up. When Ian Blair

became commissioner, he went on a charm offensive. I know the sort of

thing you're talking about. Inviting used -- news editors to

dinners. People were coming away with a worse impression after the

dinner than before, but that's another issue. Why weren't you

saying anything? As a senior officer? As far as offices being

paid for information, it is very difficult to establish who is being

paid, how much, and less... At a lot of information was going into

the press, some obviously from the police. Without the active co-

operation as we now have of News International offering up the names

of people being paid. Journalists have gone to court and being

threatened with being jailed, refusing to say who their

informants are. That would apply whether that was a police officer.

And lest the newspapers are prepared to offer up the police

informers, they will get away with it. You are putting the onus back

on the press and not looking inside the police. Did you think the

police dealt with those allegations properly? As far as money being

paid for information, very difficult to do anything unless you

have the active co-operation of the Police -- Press. The phone hacking,

we have won a right to judicial review, the police waiting did not

fulfil their legal obligation to investigate it properly first time

around. Do you think in that case, if Brian Paddick does not feel it

was done properly, that the police now are being put into the frame by

the Prime Minister saying they must take responsibility? There is

clearly police negligence here for a mixture of reasons. Various

reasons. This does go back before phone hacking. The police and

tabloid and crime reporters have had a close relationship which has

produced good stories which people would want to know about. It is

clearly massively out of control. Failure to investigate looks

extremely culpable. Everyone wondered after the first, why debt

-- why they did not press further. Drinking down the pub together to

get stories is one thing, payments is another. Were they fearful of

newspaper editors? Police culpability will form the basis of

one inquiry. When there is a discussion about general media

ethics, the relationship with the police will become part of that.

There is a real issue here. Sometimes, very dubious methods

produce very important stories. One example, stolen goods involved in

the MPs' expenses story. You have to be careful that you do not, in

cleaning up the media, prevent them going tough investigative work. No

one can justify, particularly pursuing stories of incredibly

dubious public interest, using illegal methods. There is a point

that the investigative work of June the less -- journalists is crucial

at times in the public interest. It is difficult to keep that separate,

you don't want to stop that. issue is, what is the dividing line

between private and public interest? The press want it to be

totally public interest. Behind this is a campaign for them to be

able to print whatever they get in whatever way they do it. I have to

say, we have the chief executive before the committee saying, yes,

we do pay the police. Why didn't that lead to News International

producing evidence about telephoning? The only do when they

find they are going to be exposed. As someone who has spent their

career as a radical and never been comfortable with the establishment,

wouldn't you be uncomfortable with the idea that the newspaper's

ability to investigate its scandal and wrongdoing would be restricted.

It is difficult to draw these lines. In the current atmosphere,

particularly with my newspaper, because we are on the back foot

over terrible practices, we accede to too much control... You should

have a body by which you can take appellations. Take the one about

the Business Secretary and using evidence and subterfuge, they

shouldn't do it. I agreed the method is questionable but we found

that what he really thought and in my view still have to have

mechanisms for people to find out what the elite think, not just what

they say in front of the camera. Yesterday was a sad day for British

journalism, we lost a newspaper that did a lot of good work and

revealed a lot of stories that would otherwise not have been told

which were generally in the public interest. We have to protect that

at the same time as making sure there is not an inappropriately

close relationship between the media, the police and politicians.

There have been a few other things happening this week, apart from the

News of the World scandal. Here's Victory for Ed Miliband as Labour

MPs voted to deprive themselves of the right to let the Shadow Cabinet.

In Afghanistan, a surprise visit by the prime minister to announce the

withdrawal of an extra 500 troops, overshadowed when a missing soldier

was found dead in Helmand. usually regrettable, all day my

thoughts and prayers had been that young man and family fat -- family.

The MoD had absent-mindedly mislaid assets worth millions.

And a government U-turn, the Treasury has scaled back its tax

grab on all and gas companies. Grim news for manufacturing as our train

maker revealed it would be cutting 1,400 jobs in Derby after losing a

government contract to a German rival. When these thousands join

the queues of unemployed... Danny Finkelstein and Anne McElvoy

are still with me. The BSkyB takeover, 156,000 commissions had

been handed in to Jeremy Hunt. Consultation closed today. Should

the Prime Minster has said, yes, we will pause it officially. He is

restricted by the law and he has to follow it. This is not an issue

about politics. He cannot start the era where he says I'll not have

been appropriate if relationships with the press by making at hoc

judgments based on the politics of the moment about commercial issues

of sensitivity. If it isn't a legal process, it will fall apart in

court. You could allow Ofcom to say, they're not fit and proper. That is

their role. Couldn't he say. He is the prime minister. The public

might say, why can't you step forward curtain-up really, News

International acted... People will say it is about saving Rebekah

Brooks. It is more about saving the BSkyB deal, this is a commercially

astute company. For David Cameron to say, this looks dead full --

dreadful, it would look like summary justice. There will be

renewed scrutiny as it should but it should go through the proper

channels. It is a bad signal for business. September would be a good

time to go back and look at it. Rebekah Brooks, can she stayed in

her job? News International had been hugely good employers and have

learnt my respect. That's all for this week. Anita will be back with