13/07/2011 Daily Politics

Good morning and welcome to the Daily Politics, as the Prime

Minister prepares to name a judge to lead two inquiries into phone

hacking. MPs of all parties unite to urge Rupert Murdoch to drop his

bid for BskyB. We'll have the latest.

Up to 2,000 rank and file police officers will be descending on

Westminster to protest against budget cuts and a pay freeze. But

how much has the phone hacking scandal eroded any public sympathy

for their position? And what about those issues which

usually make the political weather? Could weak growth blow the

Government's plans for the economy off course?

And is a lack of runways in the South East putting the brakes on

And before we all pack off on our hols, with us for the duration for

the this last Daily Politics of the summer is the man who'll be getting

us there, Transport Secretary, Phillip Hammond. And hitching up

her Bailey Pegasus 514 is former Labour Minister and keen caravaner,

Margaret Beckett. I thought that was a motorbike!

The Prime Minister will attempt to get on the front foot over the

phone hacking scandal. He'll be making a statement to MPs just

after Prime Minister's Questions, on how the inquiry into phone

hacking will be set up. That will be just after 12:30pm.

And then later today, MPs will support en masse a Labour motion

calling on Rupert Murdoch's News Corp to abandon its bid for BskyB.

That will probably be in the early evening. If there is a vote. There

will be about a three-hour debate. The government are having to run

fast to keep up with public opinion and the opposition, isn't it?

are very clear where public opinion is, and what our own feelings are.

The government, unlike the opposition, and to some extent the

media, is constrained by what the law requires it to do, what the

legal processes are. We are now in a position, because Rupert Murdoch

withdrew the assurances he had given around the BSkyB bid, we are

in a position to refer that to the Competition Commission and that has

been done. You will vote for the Labour motion tonight? If there is

a vote, absolutely. I suspect all Members of Parliament will agree on

this and nobody will be willing to shout no, and therefore it will go

through by unanimity. That is by acclamation, but it doesn't count

the votes. If you want to let Mr Murdoch know what our parliament

really thinks of him, and his desire to get the rest of BSkyB,

shouldn't you count the votes? think it is a really interesting

question that you have put your finger on. There won't be anybody

who wants to say, by shouting no, that there will be a vote.

don't you shout no? Thanks! not? It would be a matter of

twisting somebody's arm. People will be discussing whether that is

the best way to go, or whether to say, there is so much unanimity,

nobody wants to go, might be an even more powerful message --

nobody wants to vote. The premise that has changed his tune several

times, it took him a while to agree to having a judge lead inquiry. It

was only when the story became too horrific to ignore that he agreed

on that. He initially told the BBC he would do the debate tonight,

then he said he wouldn't. He doesn't really know what he is

doing. The Prime Minister said very clearly from the outset, there

would have to be a judge Legg inquiry, he made that very clear

last week. Excuse me, he made it clear last week but there have been

calls for an inquiry long before last week. Once the story started

to break, the Prime Minister was very clear there would have to be a

judge lead inquiry. The question tonight, won the debate today, is

about how best for everybody to have their say. -- on the debate.

The Prime Minister will make a statement and that is the proper

way for prime ministers to set out the Government's plans. There will

then be a debate which is primarily a chance for Parliament to have its

say, for backbenchers to have its say. Many more speakers have put

their names forward than will be able to speak, so I don't think it

will be helpful for a prime minister to again repeat what he

has already said in his statement, chewing up time when backbenchers

could be debating this issue. Miliband is having a bit of a field

day. Most commentators think he has set the pace. He has led on this,

completely. It is not through courage, is it? He only turned on

Mr Murdoch after he was already doubtful but two weeks ago, he was

paying obeisance at Mr Murdoch's summer party. He never raised any

of that. He is kicking Mr Murdoch because he is not powerful. I have

heard you say enough things about the Murdoch empire and about Rupert

Murdoch's attitude to things. I thought that when Ed came out and

said what he did about the BSkyB bid and the hacking, I thought it

was a classic Yes Minister moment. You could hear Sir Humphrey in the

background going, that is very brave. It was. It would have been

braver to do it too was three years ago. Some of us were critical of Mr

Murdoch when he had the power to strike back. Your leader has been

critical now he has not got the power to strike back for a Ed was

not the leader two or three years ago, he is now. He stepped forward

when it was not clear how this was going to go. It was a very bold

thing that he did and everybody else has had to follow. If he

hadn't stepped forward, I doubt we would be in the position we are in

today. What do you say to that? If Mr Miliband hadn't set the pace,

even though the going was Elia -- was easier, we wouldn't be here

today. I don't think this is getting us anywhere. Whether it is

a lot, the viewers is -- will decide, what is the answer? I think

the viewers will have decided, all politicians were too close to the

Murdoch empire. We know the previous Labour administration were

very close. David Cameron has been clear, he now sees that we were too

close to the Murdoch empire, and we all now need to distance ourselves

from the media. Would you like to answer this question or have 30

seconds silence to contemplate? When Gordon Brown says, he never

had a good relationship with News International. I think that is

probably right, actually. Why did he go to Rebekah Wade's wedding?

Let me give you a slightly different example. I have heard

repeatedly, look how Tony Blair flew to Australia. I have always

thought that was an issue that should be turned on its head. If

you have an invitation to go to something and you say, certainly

not, when you are in a position of being a political leader, whatever

your party, you are uttering a deliberate public snub. Why did Mrs

Brown invite Rebekah Wade to Chequers for a sleep over? Well...

That sentence, never had a good relationship, cannot stand. He is

talking about with News International, not individual

journalists. He has said he had huge respect for Rupert Murdoch.

Rupert Murdoch was at Chequers over the weekend that Gordon Brown made

the decision to pull the 2007 election. If that isn't indicative

of the closeness of the relationship, I don't know what is.

Sometimes, 30 seconds silence works well stop lots of people go to

up to 2,000 police officers are descending on Westminster this

lunchtime. No, they're not all being questioned by MPs, but

protesting at cuts to the police and a Government imposed pay freeze.

I'm joined from their day of action by Simon Reed, who's vice-chairman

of the Police Federation, who represent rank and file police

officers. Thank you for taking time out for us. I wonder, in the light

of this tacking scandal, how much it has heard your cause. Your

reputation as the police is not flying very high -- hurt your cause.

There are three profession to have been harmed by this. Journalists,

politicians, police officers. We have a very few number of reach. I

hear what you are saying, -- of each. I think you will find it is a

very few number at the moment. It affects all three professions are.

Do you know of any police officers who have taken money from

journalists? No, I don't, not at all. Are you surprised that the

practice went on? Yes, I am surprised. I imagine that

yourselves as journalists are surprised, and politicians are

surprised at their own professions. We are where we are. We have

investigations going on. We can't speculate, we have to let those

inquiries happen and see what outcomes they are. I won't ask you

to speculate but react. Maybe you saw Andy Hayman, you could not have

avoided hearing his submissions to the select committee. Were you a

bit embarrassed by the kind of South we have certain views about

what was said by all of them. are those views? We would love you

to share them with us. What did you make of what you heard senior

police officers saying to the select committee? Some of us were

quite surprised at how inadequate some of the responses were. We have

also got to accept, they are speaking from memory, they don't

have notes, they have left the service. We have to put it in

context. The majority of people I have spoken to were surprised at

how poor Andy Hayman was. Let's talk about the protest today.

Everybody is facing cuts, surely the police have got to take their

fair share as well? Indeed, we have always accepted that. We said from

a year ago, the 12% cut that Her Majesty's Inspectorate was saying

is possible over four years, we accepted that, and we were prepared

to help the government to do the 12% cut. But we have seen 20%, an

additional �1 billion out of policing. That is what our concerns

are. I wonder if it is wise to take such an aggressive stance. You are

meant to be neutral but taking a very aggressive stance when it

comes to the government. During a Police Federation conference in May,

Theresa May had to sit through a video talking about cuts, and you

had the music from the Kaiser Chiefs's I predict a riot, it is

hardly a neutral stance. Why would it be a neutral stance? We work in

a vacation we are proud to be part of. We know what is happening in

terms of policing and what the cuts will mean. We know that there is an

issue of crime and public safety. We need to get our message across,

sometimes we do it in a robust way. We don't make any apologies for how

Philip Hammond, they don't like you very much, and it is an odd and

peculiar situation for a Conservative minister to be in,

when you hear a policeman having such antipathy towards a

Conservative-led coalition government. I should start by

saying, we do like them, are great admirers and respecters of the

police. They don't feel like to, they feel you are cutting service

to the bone for us that they have to change, as other parts of the

public service have to change. are talking about a 14% real terms

change in police funding -- real- terms cut. We are talking about a

service which still has some very considerable changes that it can

make, in labour practices, in the amount of overtime used, that will

make it more efficient and effective. Get more police officers

out onto the front line and deliver a better service to the public.

There is some fog over how many cuts will go into front line

services and there was a leaked memo to the Guardian, predicting a

That is assuming there would be no contribution from local precepts.

On the wider issue, how has the image of the police force been

damaged by hack date, or as others are saying, everything gate. I hope

that the public are drawing a distinction between the bobby on

the beat, and the small Quatre of officers that appear to be

implicated in this kind of activity. I don't think this will dent public

confidence in their local police forces, who they see as

tremendously important and part of their community. Are there a few

rotten apples or is this endemic? think we are talking about rotten M

-- rotten apples. I am sure the policeman hate that when someone is

pulling out with the police, they will throw this in their face. --

falling out. I also agree that most people won't think it is the police

they deal with day-to-day. One of the most excellent things that has

come out of our period in office is that we have this neighbourhood...

People know the local police who on the beach, they have their mobile

numbers and so on. They are not going to put those people in the

same category. On the of it face of it, some good

news on the economy this morning, with unemployment falling by some

26,000. That is a measure which most economists -- economists think

is the most accurate way of measuring unemployment. But at the

same time, the number claiming Job Seekers' Allowance increased by

almost the same amount and the Employment Minister, Chris Grayling,

warned that the "road to recovery would be choppy." It's it may be

because of the government's welfare Questions about the growth of the

economy, rather than unemployment or prices, are now taking centre

stage. If there isn't growth, it could wash away the Chancellor's

plans for reducing the deficit and getting the economy going. Anita

has the details. Yes, just as Andrew is getting

ready to hit Magaluf for the summer, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is

also off to the seaside. But the ominous waves on the horizon

threaten to destroy all his pretty work of rebuilding the economy.

First, there's the growth problem. Last November, the Office for

Budget Responsibility said growth for 2011 would be 2.1%. In March,

they revised this down to 1.7%. But the average independent forecast

has now fallen to 1.5%, and shows no sign of stopping there. And

looking at the last three months, the NIESR think tank thinks the

economy grew by just 0.1%. The Chancellor will get the official

figure on 26 July, but with the economy stagnating over the

previous six months, that would mean growth of just 0.1% in nine

months - raising questions over how the Government can possibly cut the

deficit. And the Chancellor will also be concerned about

manufacturing. The accountancy firm BDO's optimism index has fallen by

26 points from February to June. The problems in UK manufacturing

have become synonymous with the Derby-based train-builder,

Bombardier. They have said they will shed 1,400 jobs after missing

out on the Thameslink contract. Today, union leaders met with the

Transport Secretary, Philip Hammond, Philip Hammond, starting with

Bombardier, on how did the meeting go? A meeting with the unions was

primarily to discuss the reform agenda and the McNulty report. They

asked if they could raise the Bombardier issue. I answered their

questions. So there is no joy? procurement carried out was carried

out properly within the narrow confines of what was set out in the

procurement that Labour started in 2008. I did not have, and it does

not matter how many opposition politicians assert that I did have,

I did not have the flexibility to award... Just for clarification,

the union meeting this morning has changed nothing as far as the

contract is concerned? That is right. I wanted to talk with the

unions about how I think, going forward, we can and must look at

the way that we procure these big public contracts, to make sure that

we give British business a fair chance. Margaret Beckett, my right

in thinking that Bombardier is inure constituency? It is a big

issue for the British economy and a big issue for your area, given the

jobs and the skills involved. The Government's case is that the way

in which the contract was constructed under the Labour

government meant that it was a narrow contract and they could not

take wider considerations into account, and they had to give it to

Siemens in Germany. That is their case. But as Philip is well aware,

there are quite a number of questions around that argument.

From my point of view, I do not agree that this was done and dusted,

cut-and-dried and there was no choice. Why not? Partly because it

appears that the argument is that a lot of this was because of the

finance. Siemens is now a bank. I have only recently realised this.

It was able to put its balance sheet of behind this order and that

may, rather than the quality of the trains, have been the thing that

caused it. Was it? It was a factor. One of the things I have said to

Margaret and publicly is that I do not think the way the procurement

was structured was most helpful. Why should Siemens being a bank

affect the decision? Because Siemens is a company with a very

strong credit rating. It has a massive balance-sheet and it is

able to borrow money more cheaply than Bombardier. Is that not an

unfair situation? The contract was structured as a requirement for

somebody to build the trains, or one and finance them over 30 years.

The cost of financing was part of the structure. I am not blaming

Labour politicians. I think this is about a culture in the public

sector,... You don't blame them but to make it clear that the hands --

your hands were tied, is that not right? We do not think it is.

is what he is saying. I understand that. Philip is in the position all

ministers are run. He is being given information by civil servants.

If you look at the tender as it was drawn up, you can argue that was a

poor process, and I agree we need a different one for the future, but

within that, the Department for Transport kept explicitly the

decision to handle financing separately. They had two

opportunities to actually trigger that separate decision. Let me

answer that. I have specifically looked at this issue. The ability

for asked to intervene is only at the preferred bidder stage. We

could say to Siemens that having appointed the preferred bidder, we

do not like the package and we want to nominate banks to provide 50% of

the financing. But that would not run to the preferred bidder status.

I have looked at this. Certainly, it is a tragedy for the people at

bomb RDA. A tragedy we are trying to avert. -- Bombardier. Let me

look at the economy. Economic data out this week. If you look at what

is happening in the Eurozone, the reason why the right these massive

downgrades on the debt of Greece, Portugal and Ireland, and now Italy

in trouble too, they have this massive debt but there are

economies are barely growing. Some are actually declining, so the

markets have concluded that they will not make the money to be able

to pay back the debt. Britain has Floodline for six months, and a

quarter that has just ended looks like it is going to be weak.

Minister, are we not in danger of ending up in the same position? --

Britain has a flat wind. There are two major differences. First of all,

we are not in the Eurozone. We are able to adjust the value of our

currency for. We have done that already. It is already down 25%.

may happen again. You think it should go more? We do not make

predictions on the exchange rate but Britain has a currency. The

exchange rate can change to reflect the reality we are in. Greece,

Ireland, Portugal, Italy, Spain do not. They are locked into a fixed

exchange rate mechanism. The second point is that we have taken clear

and decisive action to resolve the problems in the public finances in

a way that the markets find satisfactory. Right now, Britain

has a level debt which is similar to Portugal's in relation to GDP,

yet we have interest rates very similar to Germany's. The market

has given Britain the benefit of the doubt because they have seen

that we have a credible plan and that we are determined to deliver

it. If we waver in that determination, then the markets

will start to struggle. So the position is there is still no Plan

B. Regardless of the Kroll problems, what the minister says about the

markets have been sunk confidence in the deficit reduction plan,

based at bended judgment in the election campaign. -- they

suspended judgement. They suspended judgment to wait until the campaign

was over. The race no alternative to deficit reduction. Everybody

agrees that there is no alternative. But by their scale? We do not

accept that. Then you could end up in trouble. Well, if you look at

sales of long-term gilts before the election, it was perfectly clear.

Every time I hear this conversation about George Osborne, I think he

was hoisted by his own petard. He was very responsible and

competition -- in opposition. All that rubbish about us being in the

same position as Greece, it was not true, but if the markets start to

believe it, we will all suffer. markets would have believed George

Osborne rather than Gordon Brown, who would have thought? Last night,

some lucky person here in the UK hit the jackpot. They did not win a

Daily Politics mug, but they would have wanted to. They won �161

million on the EuroMillions lottery. Isn't it good to live in a country

where effort and hard work and application gets you on in society?

There are, however, some things which money cannot buy.

Unless you go on eBay! I knew she was going to say that! To be in

with a chance of winning, he will have to enter our Guess The Year

competition. We will remind you how in just a

moment. First, can you remember We hope to create a shield against

aggression, and the fear of We shall also show that we are not

just the nation of shopkeepers. -- In these 49 cars is the heart of

A flurry of guesses here. To be in with a chance of winning, just send

your answer to our special e-mail address: Full terms and conditions

on our website. I think it was a very important

year. Very important in my household. A very, very important

here. Coming up to midday, Big Ben behind

us. It can only mean one thing, Prime Minister's Questions is on

its way. It is the final PMQs of the summer season. There will be no

more until September, which means that we will not be seen Nick

Robinson at this time of the day, but we do today. We were all

assuming that PMQs will be dominated by the Murdoch scandal,

but it does not end there. At 12:30pm, the Prime Minister will

stand up again and tell us? We will get a statement from him and, in a

sense, it battle for the control of the agenda. Ed Miliband has led the

way with the motion that we will see afterwards, emotion which

everyone will support. The Prime Minister is desperate. It looks

like he, and not a Labour leader, is in the driving seat. He will

announce the name of the judge who will lead this inquiry. It will be

one, not two inquiries. Two faces. The new approach to transparency in

Minister's meetings with media moguls. At the moment, you only get

that information if they have met on official premises but from now

on, I think we will get something that suggests that even a meeting

in the Prime Minister's flat for his constituency or a form of

meeting at a party will be revealed publicly. That will be interesting.

In Piers Morgan's diaries, it came out that the Prime Minister, Mr

Blair at the time, had seen the editor of the miniature -- the

editor of the male I think 65 times, which made a lot of people wonder,

why are you seeing Piers Morgan 65 times? Is that has to become public,

you will think about that. Not only that, but how will journalism work

if every meeting asked to be made public? Things are said

confidentially to journalists. What I do not know is whether there will

be a distinction between people who control newspaper groups or own a

newspaper groups and the journalists. The reason the Prime

Minister did not spell this out is because instantly civil servants

pointed out these problems, say if you see the economics editor, if

you're the Chancellor, and you reveal that you had been meeting...

You were after reveal that you saw the Chancellor of the day before,

it is quite easy to work out where the story came from. Exactly. It is

likely to be limited to executives but the trick that says, well, we

met at a party or a country house, I think they will have to find a

way of saying that that is dealt with as well. The political contest,

who is in the driving seat? The truth is it is Ed Miliband. He will

want to make questions about David Cameron. I expect we will see the

question saying, what did you know and when about Andy Coulson? This

business of two inquiries, two for the price of one, there is going to

be an inquiry... I will have to hold that question because we can

go straight over to Prime I had meetings with ministerial

colleagues and others ant in addition to to my duties, I will

have further such meetings today. Secretly deleting voice mails left

for a missing teenager, buying the silence of public figures who would

incriminate your business, and publishing confidential medical

details of a disabled child who just happens to have a famous

father. I ask the Prime Minister, I any of these the actions of a fit

and proper person? My honourable friend makes an extremely powerful

point in a powerful way. We have to be clear about what is happening

here. There is a firestorm that is engulfing parts of the media, parts

of the police, and our political system's ability to respond. What

we must do, in the coming days and weeks, is think of the victims,

like the Milly Dowler family, who are watching this today, and make

doubly sure we get to the bottom of what happened and prosecute those

Mr Speaker, yesterday, I met the family of Milly Dowler, who have

shown incredible bravery and strength in speaking out about what

happened to them, the hacking of their daughter's phone, and their

terrible treatment at the hands of the News of the World. I am sure

the whole House will want to pay tribute to their courage and

bravery. Does the Prime Minister now agree with me that it is an

insult to the family, that Rebekah Brooks, who was editor of the News

of the World at the time, is still in her post at News International?

I made very clear, she was right to resign, that resignation should

have been accepted. There needs to be root and branch change at this

entire organisation. I think it is now becoming increasingly clear

that while everybody, to start with, wanted to separate what was

happening at News International and what is happening with BSkyB, that

is simply not possible. What has happened at this company is

disgraceful, it has got to be addressed at every level and they

should stop thinking about mergers when they have got to sort out the

mess they have created. Mr Speaker, I it thanked the Prime Minister for

that answer and he is right to take the position that Rebekah Brooks

should go. When such a serious cloud hangs over at News

Corporation, and when the more systematic pattern of deceit we

have seen, does he agree with me, and he clearly does, that it will

be quite wrong for them to expand their stake in the British media.

Does he further agree that if the House of Commons speaks with one

voice today, and I hope he will come to the debate, that Rupert

Murdoch should drop his bid for BSkyB, should recognise the world

has changed, and he should listen to this House of Commons. I agree

with what the right honourable gentleman said and I think it is

good that the House of Commons is going to speak with one voice. As

he knows, the government has a job to do, to act at all times within

the law. My right honourable friend, the Culture Secretary, has to obey

every aspect of the law, laws that were on the whole put in place by

the last government. Yes, as the honourable member says, we should

look at amending the laws. We should make sure the fit and proper

test is right, we should make sure the competition and Enterprise acts

are right. I think it is perfectly acceptable, perfectly -- to obey

the law as a government but to send a message that this business has

got to stop the business of mergers and get on with cleaning its

stables will stop I look forward to debating these issues with the

Leader of the House, who will be speaking for the government later

in the debate. I know he is making a statement shortly about the

inquiry, but can he confirm something we agreed last night?

That we need to make sure we get to the bottom not just of what

happened at our newspapers, but also of the relationships between

politicians and the press. Does he agree with me that if we expect

editors and members of the press to give evidence under oath, so should

current and past politicians? agree with that. On this issue of

the debate, we are debating now, and that is right. We will have a

statement in the House of Commons. I will stand here and answer

questions from as many Members of Parliament as want to ask them. I

think we should focus on the substance. As the Leader of the

Opposition said, we had an excellent meeting last night, we

discussed the nature of the inquiry that need to take place, we discuss

the terms of reference. I send those to his office this morning,

we have had some amendments, we are happy to accept those amendments.

They will still be draft terms of reference and I want to hear what

the Dowler family and others have to say, so we can move ahead in a

way that takes the whole country with us, as we deal with this

problem. I also think, if we are going to say to the police, you

must be more transparent and cut out corruption, if we are going to

say to the media, you must be more transparent and cut out malpractice,

yes, the relationship between politicians and the media has

changed and we must be more transparent as well, about meetings,

particularly with executives, editors and proprietors. I will be

setting out proposals for precisely that in a minute or two. I want to

thank the Prime Minister for those answers and they answers the whole

country will have wanted to hear. Can I also ask him to clear up one

specific issue. It has now been confirmed that his chief of staff

and his director of strategy were given specific information before

the general election by the Guardian newspaper. The information

showed that while he was editing the News of the World, Andy Coulson

had hired Jonathan Rhys, a man jailed for seven years for a

criminal conspiracy, and who made payments to police on behalf of the

News of the World. Can the Prime Minister tell us what happened to

that significant information that was given to his chief-of-staff.

would like to answer this in full and I need to give a very full

answer. All these questions relate to the fact I hired a tabloid

editor. I did so on the basis of assurances he gave me, that he did

not know about the phone hacking and he was not involved in

criminality. He gave those same assurances to the police, a select

committee of this house, and under oath to a court of law. If it turns

out he lied, it won't just be that he shouldn't have been in

government, it will be that he should be prosecuted. But I do

believe that we must be to the principle that you are innocent

until proven guilty. Let me deal directly about the information

given to our office by figures from the Guardian newspaper in February

last year. This information was not passed on to me. Let me be clear,

this was not some secret stash of information. Almost all of it was

published in The Guardian in February 2010, at the same time my

office was approached. It contained no allegations directly linking

Andy Coulson to illegal behaviour, it did not shed any further light

on the issue of phone hacking. It was not drawn to my attention by my

office. What is more... I met the editor of The Guardian the very

next month and he didn't raise it with me once. I met him a year

later, he didn't raise its them either. I would ask, if this

information is soap significant, why have I not been asked one

question about it at a press conference, or in this house? The

reason why, Mr Speaker, it didn't add anything to the assurances that

I was given. Let me say once more, if I was like to, if the police

were lied to, if the select committee was lighted, it will be a

matter of deep regret and a matter Order, order. Any body might think

that there is orchestrated Nye's. Order! Order! The house will come

to order. -- orchestrated noise. These exchanges will continue in an

orderly way. Mr Ed Miliband. Speaker, the Prime Minister has

made a very important admission. He has admitted that his chief of

staff was given information before the general election, that Andy

Coulson had hired a man jailed for seven years for a criminal

conspiracy, who made payments to the police on behalf of the News of

the World. This evidence casts serious doubt on Mr Coulson's

assurances that the phone hacking over which he resigned was an

isolated example of illegal activity. The Prime Minister says

his chief of staff did not pass on this very serious information. Can

he now tell us what information he proposes to take against his cheek

of staff? -- is chief of staff. have given the fullest possible

answer I could to the honourable gentleman. He can ask questions

about Andy Coulson. I can ask He can ask questions about my

private office. I can ask questions about Damien McBride. Do you know

what, Mr Speaker? I think the public, and the victims of this

appalling scandal, want us to rise above this and deal with the

problems that this country faces? Mr Speaker, he just doesn't get it.

I say this to the Prime Minister. He was warned by the Deputy Prime

Minister about hiring Andy Coulson. He was warned by Lord Ashdown about

hiring Andy Coulson. He has now admitted in the House of Commons

today that his chief of staff was given complete evidence which

contradicted Andy Coulson's previous account. The Prime

Minister must now publish the fullest account of all the

information that was provided, and what he did, and why those warnings

went unheeded. What he should do most of all, he should apologise

for the catastrophic error of judgment he made in hiring Andy

Coulson. I am afraid, Mr Speaker, the person who is not getting it is

now the Leader of the Opposition. What the public want us to do is

address this firestorm. They want us to sort out bad practices at the

media, they want us to fix the corruption in the police, they want

a proper public inquiry, and they are entitled to ask, when these

problems went on for so long, for so many years, what was it that

happened in the last decade? When was the police investigation that

didn't work? Where was the public inquiry over the last 10 years? We

have now got a full un police investigation that will see proper

prosecutions and I hope, proper convictions. We will have a proper

inquiry, run by the judge, to get to the bottom of this issue. That

is the leadership I am determined to provide. Order! Order! Order! Or

I say to the Children's Minister, tried to calm down, and behave like

an adult. If you can't, if it is beyond you, leave the chamber, it

get out, we will marriage without due. Mr David Ward -- we will

manage without you. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Order, order. This is

intolerable behaviour as far as the public... It is not fund it. Only

in your mind, Mr Lawton, is it funny. It is disgraceful. Mr David

Ward. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. In a case of the pot

calling the kettle black, if we could have a pantomime interval for

a moment. Is the Prime Minister aware that there are young people

in Bradford being quoted, without convictions or claims, �53,000 to

insure their first car. These ridiculous premiums are being

driven by insurance companies selling fresh details of personal

injuries. He my honourable friend is making a very good point about

the problem of referral fees, that are driving up the cost of

insurance for many people. right honourable gentleman, the

Member for Blackburn, has made very powerful points about this. There

was a report to the government calling for refer all fees to be

banned. I am very sympathetic to this, the Justice Secretary is as

well, and we hope to make progress. Will the Prime Minister, if asked,

give evidence to the judge lead public inquiry that he is setting

up today? Of course. The point about the inquiry, which I will be

announcing in a moment or two, it will be judged lead, it will take

its powers from the inquiries Act, it will be able to call people

under oath. His there is the issue of police corruption, the issue of

what happened at the media, and questions for politicians, past,

My constituents are increasingly concerned about the deepening

problems in the Eurozone. Will the Prime Minister reassure me that he

is doing everything he can to keep us out of it and to urge the

Eurozone to Act? I think my Honourable Friend his right. We

have to stay out of the Eurozone. A think being a member of the Euro

would take away the flexibility we currently have, but we have to

remember that 40% of our exports go to Eurozone countries, so we have

to make constructive suggestions about stress tests for their banks,

backed up with the recapitalisation involving the private sector, and

earning fiscal credibility through concrete action to reduce excessive

deficits. Basically, Eurozone countries have to recognise that

they have got to do more together and faster. They have to get ahead

of the market, rather than responding to the next crisis.

Ashdown said he warned Number Ten last year of the terrible damage

that it would suffer if Andy Coulson was appointed. Can the

Prime Minister see how precisely he reacted to this powerful warning?

The point I made before, of course, the decision to employ a tabloid

editor meant that there were a number of people who said it was

not a good idea, particularly when that tabloid editor had been at the

News of the World when bad things had happened. The decision I made

was to accept the assurances he gave me. As I have said, those

assurances were given to the police, to a Select Committee and the court

of law. If I or others were like two, that will be a matter of deep

regret. We must make sure that we judge people at innocent -- as

innocent until proven guilty. week I received another e-mail from

a constituent regarding Meckel and cable theft, although this time it

told me of an elderly lady who was at home and unable to raise the

alarm because she had had a fall and the cables from the village had

been stolen for the second time in as many weeks. This is a growing

problem. The legislation relating to this dates back to 1964, please

can we have a review to ensure that those scrap-metal dealers to accept

the Still to come: Will are prevented from doing so and

prosecuted? I have every sympathy. I am being -- I'm trying to make

sure that these crimes are taken very seriously by the police

because they put massive costs on to voluntary services and charities

and businesses. We must make sure it is not seen as a second order

crime. It is a worrying crime. debate this afternoon will be vital

because it shows that the House will be united in its revulsion at

what has been done to Milly Dowler's family. Can I ask the

Prime Minister to make urgent inquiries as to whether the

families of the victims of 9/11 were similarly targeted by

criminals and News International, and if they were, well you raised

it with his counterparts in the United States? -- will he raised it.

In the statement I will make, I will give figures for the amount of

phones that the Metropolitan Police think were hacked. They pledge they

will contact every single one. Paul Stephenson and thyme last night,

and I sought further reassurances of -- about the scale of the

operation. In what was a mixed appearance by police officers at

the Home Affairs Select Committee last night, I thought that Sue

Akers, leading the investigation, acquitted herself extremely well.

We should have confidence that the Metropolitan Police will get to the

bottom of this. With ambitions of being the greenest County, Suffolk

is committed to a low carbon world with offshore wind farms, nuclear

power and the recycling rate of over 60%. He is always welcome to

visit but will he give his backing to our ambitions to enhance skills

training so we can build a new job opportunities to be created locally.

I think the honourable lady makes a good point and I congratulate her

on branding Suffolk as the green coast. I think there is a big

opportunity in light of what the Energy and Climate Change Secretary

has sat, in terms of green jobs, renewable energy and nuclear. One

of the things to encourage the inward investment we want is to

demonstrate that we are going to build up our skills base, and that

is where local Enterprise partnerships can create such a

valuable role of. Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether he

had any conversations about phone hacking with Andy Coulson at the

time of his resignation, and will he place in the elaborate a lot of

any meetings and phone calls between him and Andy Coulson

discussing his resignation? As I said, perhaps before she wrote or

had written her questioned, of course I sought assurances from

Andy Coulson and I received those assurances. Those assurances were

not just given at the time to me, but also given subsequently to the

Select Committee and to a criminal case under oath. These were

repeatedly given. Let me say, for the avoidance of any doubt, if

these assurances turn out not to be true, then it is not just that he

should not have worked in government, it is that he should,

like others, face the full force of law. Can I raise a different case

of hacking. The computer hacker Gary McKinnon. Whilst I recognise

the Home Secretary has legal process to follow, does he share

the concern for my constituent's nine-year nightmare as he feels his

life is hanging on a thread, waiting to be cut by extradition?

recognise the seriousness of this case. The Deputy Prime Minister and

I raised it with permanent -- President Obama when he visited. It

is not about the alleged offence, which everyone knows is very

serious, and you can understand why the Americans feel so strongly

about it, REALLY is in front of the Home Secretary, who has to consider

reports about Gary McKinnon's Health and well-being. It is right

that she does that in a proper, effectively and quartzite judicial

way. -- and the case really is. Can I ask the Prime Minister to

justify the following expenditure, at the beginning of last month a

servicemen from Northern Ireland a asked for a non urgent pair of

boots. �45. They were dispatched from defence based best by private

courier to Northern Ireland at a cost of �714. Is it not time that

he got a grip of this? I know that former health ministers wanted to

hear the rattle of every bedpan and maybe I should see the order of

every pair of boots, but to recognise the point. One of the

things we're trying to do in the Ministry of Defence is recognised

that there is a huge amount of cost in terms of back-office costs and

logistics. We want to make that more efficient so that we can spend

money on the front line. The example he gives is a good one and

I shall check it out. Can the Prime Minister assure the

House that all the legal press activity under the last government

will be investigated now, and that this will include the criminal

conspiracy between the highest levels in that last government,

with parts of the Murdoch empire, including blagging of bank accounts

of Lord Ashcroft in a bid to undermine him and his positions, as

laid out in dirty politics, dirty times. The point about the inquiry

is that it will look at the relationship between politicians

and media groups over the whole issue of that relationship as it

relates to media policy. I think this is extremely important. The

inquiry will have the ability to call serving politicians, previous

Prime Ministers, to get to the bottom of what happened and how on

healthy this relationship was. That is what needs to happen. One Monday,

the MoD Permanent Secretary told the Public Accounts Committee that

the Prime Minister himself locked the National Audit Office from

accessing relevant Security Council documents. The audit is considered

essential to assess whether decisions on the aircraft carrier

in the Defence Review represent value for money. That refusal is

unprecedented. In the interests of full transparency and

accountability, will be Prime Minister now agree to immediately

release the information? The short answer is we were following

precedent, but a long answer is, if she wants me to come to a committee

and explain what an appalling set of decisions by last government

made on aircraft carriers, the delay alone by the government she

worked for added �1.6 billion to the cost of aircraft carriers! If

she wants me to turn up and not just tell you what we discussed in

Cabinet, but lay out the full details of the waste that her

government was responsible for, name the day. Following a question

from me three-and a-half years ago, his predecessor, the right

honourable member for Dunfermline and Cowdenbeath set up pilot

schemes to provide sign language support for deaf parents and their

children in Devon and Merseyside. These have now been completed and

have been a success. Will he meet a delegation of deaf parents and

children to discuss how this sign language support can be extended to

all children and parents across the United Kingdom? We do a lot to

support different languages throughout the United Kingdom and

signing is an incredibly valuable language for many people in our

country. These pilot schemes have been successful and I looked at

what the last Prime Minister said when asked this question. I will

certainly arrange a meeting for him. My question to the Prime Minister

concerns the Translink real programme and the contract. He will

be aware that with 20,000 manufacturing jobs at risk, it is

right that it should be of concern. Can the Prime Minister confirm that

no contract has been signed and that no contract can be signed

until the funding package itself is determined. --? Given that the

funding package... 20,000 jobs are at stake. Given that 20,000 jobs

are at risk, will be Prime Minister look at holding the competition for

that funding package... I think we have got it. What I would same to

the honourable gentleman, I know he cares deeply about this issue, and

bombard BAA is a great country if - - Bombardier is a great company. In

this case, the procurement process was designed and initiated by the

previous government. We were bound by the criteria they set, and

therefore we have to continue with the decision made according to that

criteria. We are looking at all EU procurement rules to see whether we

can make better for the future issues like this. Will the Prime

Minister join me in calling for the electrification of the crew Mach 2

Chester realign? -- Crewe took Chester rail line, which will link

us to High Speed Two? I am well aware of this campaign. I remember

spending a lot of time at Crewe station during the last Parliament,

normally accompanied by people dressed in top hat and tails. It is

not in the current programme but we will look sympathetically. We know

we want to see more electrification of railway lines in our country.

His government said that university tuition fees would average 7005

under pounds. In actual fact, the average �8,400. -- �7,500. How can

you open the taxpayer to such a liability during this Parliament?

There are only nine universities charging �9,000 for every student.

There are 58 universities that will not charge �9,000 for any of their

courses. If you look at further education courses, 108 out of 124

will charge less than �6,000 for all their courses. But the point I

make is that university degrees have not suddenly started costing

7000, 8000 or �9,000. They have always cost that. The question is,

do you last successful graduates to pay or do you ask the taxpayer to

pay? We have made our choice and I think that the party opposite, that

introduced tuition fees, has got to come up with an answer. Amid the

turmoil in other European economies, is it not essential that this

country should continue to take steps to reduce its debt and Steer

clear of paying for any future EU bail-outs? It is not only the

restrictions of the Euro, it is also the building up of

unsustainable levels of debt. Although we are out of the Euro, it

does not mean that we do not have to deal with debt. We do. But we

have the opportunity of being a safe haven for people. You can see

our market interest rates coming down because of the action this

government has taken. We have to keep that up but recognise that the

Euro is sorting out its own problems and that is in our edition

-- that is in our best interests. We have to be helpful and

constructive. Last week, I was approached regarding a fee paying

debt management company that wanted to advise their clients to take out

a remortgage to pay debts. The company paid �11,000 to creditors

and went out of business, taking the rest of his money. I have many

other examples like this. Self- regulation is not working with his

industry. Will the Prime Minister look at regulating this sector and

provide the OFT with the resources to take action swiftly so that

vulnerable people are not continuing to be ripped off? I know

that the honourable lady has not just constituency experience of

this but managed a Citizens Advice Bureau centre herself, so has

experience of seeing people coming in with debt problems. I would say

that the Citizens' Advice Bureau was probably the finest

organisation in our country for helping people with debt. I will

certainly look at the suggestion she makes about whether the sector

can be better regulated. And also, looking at the issue of credit

unions and how we can lead to their expansion. The House will share the

out rage that the right honourable member for Kirkcaldy and

Cowdenbeath Express this week about the publication of private medical

information relating to his son. He said when he was Prime Minister, he

tried to set up a investigation into phone hacking. Can my -- can

be Prime Minister save what detailed preparatory work he

received? I have sympathy with the former Prime Minister about the

blagging of his details. In public life, we are all subject to extra

scrutiny. It is not fair one laws are broken. The fact is, we have

suffered and we have been too silent. That is the problem. You

hold back from dealing with these situations because you want good

relations with the media. I did not inherent any work about the public

inquiry. But the one we have set up will get the job done. The 45th

International Children's Games will come to lecture at the start of

August. When hundred 1012 to 15- year-old will participate in nine

sports across the county. Will the Prime Minister congratulate two

Labour authorities in Olsson the games and will he set a -- send a

representative of the Government to It sounds like an excellent

initiative and I wish everyone the best of luck. Would the Prime

Minister confirm that all witnesses will be required to give evidence

under oath? As I will explain in a minute, it is going to be one

inquiry with two parts, but led by a judge, and the judge will

eventually agree the terms of reference, set out the terms it is

going to work, and be responsible In recent days, the whole country

has been shocked by the revelations of the phone hacking scandal. What

this country and this house has to confront is an episode that is

frankly disgraceful. Accusations of widespread law-breaking by parts of

our press, alleged corruption by police officers and as we have just

discussed, a failure of our political system over many years,

to tackle a problem that has been getting worse. We must, I think, at

all times, keep front and centre, the real victims of this. Relatives

of those who died at the hands of terrorism, war heroes, murder

victims, people who have already suffered in ways that we can barely

imagine. They have been made to suffer all over again. I believe we

all want the same thing. We want press, police and politicians that

serve the public. Last night, the Deputy Prime Minister and I met

with the Leader of the Opposition. I also met with the chairs of

Culture, Media and Sport, home affairs and justice and select

committees to discuss the best way forward. I want to set out how we

intend to proceed. First on the public inquiry, second on the

issues surrounding News International's proposed takeover

of BSkyB, and third on ethics in the police service and its

relationship with the press. Before I do that, let me update the house

on the current criminal investigation into phone hacking. I

met with Sir Paul Stevenson last night. Be assured me the

investigation is fully resourced, it is one of the largest currently

under way in this country and it is being carried out by a completely

different team than the one that carried out the original

investigation. It is being led by Sue Akers, who I believe impress

the select committee yesterday. Her team is looking through 11,000

pages containing 3870 names, including around 4,000 mobile and

5,000 landline phone numbers. They have contracted 170 people so far

and they will contact every person named in those documents. The

commissioner's office informed me that the team have made eight

arrests and undertaken numerous interviews. Let me turn to the

action that the government is taking. I set out our intention to

establish an independent public inquiry into phone hacking and

other illegal practices in the British press. We have looked

carefully at what the nature of this inquiry should be. We want it

to be one that is as robust as possible, that can get to the truth

fastest, and get to work the quickest. And one that vitally

commands the full confidence of the public. There are two pieces of

work that have to be done. First, we need a full investigation into

wrong doing in the press and police, including the failure of the first

police investigation. Second, we need a review of regulation of the

press. We would like to get on with both of these elements as quickly

as possible, while being mindful of the ongoing criminal investigations.

After listening carefully, we have decided the best way to proceed is

with one inquiry, but in two parts. This inquiry will be led by one of

the most senior judges in our country, Lord Justice leavers and.

He will report to both the Home Secretary and the Secretary for

Culture, Media and Sport. The inquiry will be established under

the 2005 inquiries Act, which means it will have the power to summon

witnesses including newspaper reporters, management, proprietors,

policemen and politicians of all parties, to give evidence under

oath. Starting as soon as possible, Lord Justice leaders and, assisted

by a panel with relevant expertise in media, broadcasting, regulation

and government, will inquire into the culture, practices and ethics

of the press, their relationship with the police, the failure of the

current system of regulation, the contacts made and discussions had

between national newspapers and politicians. Why previous warnings

about press misconduct were not heeded. And the issue of cross-

media ownership. He will make recommendations for a new, more

effective way of regulating the press, one that supports their

freedom, plurality and independence from government, but which also

demands the highest ethical and professional standards. He will

also make recommendations about the future conduct of relations between

politicians and the press. This part of the inquiry, we hope will

report within 12 months. The second part of the inquiry will examine

the extent of unlawful or improper conduct at the News of the World or

other newspapers. And the way in which management failures may have

allowed this to happen. This part of the inquiry will look into the

original police investigation and the issue of corrupt payments to

police officers. And it will consider the implications for the

relationships between newspapers and the police. Lord Justice has

agreed to these draft terms of reference. I am placing them in the

library today and we will send them to the devolved administrations. No

one should be in any doubt of our intentions to get to the bottom of

the truth and learn the lessons of the future. Next, the issue of News

International's bid to take over BSkyB. By the day, we are hearing

shocking allegations. Allegations that royal protection officers were

in the pay of the News of the World and they handed over the contact

details of the Royal Family for profit. Allegations that the former

prime minister, Gordon Brown, had his personal details black by

another News International title. - Serious questions must be asked

about News Corporation's proposed takeover of BSkyB. News Corporation

has withdrawn his proposed undertakings in lieu of reference

to the Competition Commission. That is why on Monday, my right

honourable friend, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport,

referred their bit to the Competition Commission. The

relevant independent authorities will have the time to take an

exhaustive look at all the relevant issues and come to an consider

decision on whether this takeover should proceed. -- considered

decision. It will be up to the Secretary of State to make the

final decision, in his quasi- judicial capacity. We must follow

the law in respect of News International's proposed

acquisition of BSkyB. Let me repeat what I said on Monday. In my view,

this business should not be focused on mergers and takeovers but on

tearing up the mess and getting their house in order. That is what

the house will be voting on tonight -- Clearing up. The people involved,

whether they were directly responsible for wrong doing,

whether they sanctioned it all covered it up, however high or low

they go, they must not only be brought to justice but also have no

future role in running a media company in our country. Now let me

turn to the issue of ethics in the police and their relationship with

the press. Of course, it is important that there is a good

relationship between the media and the police. Police often used

newspapers and other media to hunt down wanted criminals and appeal

for information. However, allegations have been made that

some corrupt police officers may have taken payments from newspapers.

There are wider concerns that the relationship between the police and

the press can also be too close. When I spoke to Sir Paul Stephenson

yesterday, he made clear that he is as determined as I am to -- that

all aspects of the police Russia should with the media should be

beyond reproach. Want -- police relationship. On the issue of

improper payments, the Met Police immediately referred the case to

the Independent Police Complaints Commission. Since then, the IPCC's

most senior commissioner has been supervising the Met's work to

identify officers we may have taken payments. As soon as any officers

are identified, the commission has made clear that it will move to

wear full independent investigation, drawing on all the available

expertise necessary, so the public is reassured. -- moved to a full.

It has the resources and full powers to investigate any

wrongdoing they might uncover. The Home Secretary has commissioned a

report from the IPCC on their experience of investigating

corruption in the police service, and any lessons that can be learned.

Their initial findings will be delivered by the end of the summer.

I can also tell the House that in addition to the work of the

judicial requiring, the -- inquiry, Sir Paul Stephenson is looking to

invite a senior figure to advise him on the ethics that should

underpin the relationship for his own force, the Metropolitan Police.

This figure will advise him on how to ensure maximum transparency in

public confidence on how the arrangement works. If we are

calling for greater transparency from the police, it is only right

we provide it in government and too. As I have said, one of the reasons

we got into this situation, is that over the decades, politicians and

the press have spent time courting support, not confronting the

problems. I will be consulting the Cabinet Secretary on an amendment

to the ministerial code, to require ministers to record all meetings

with newspapers and proprietors, senior editors and executives,

regardless of the nature of the meeting. Permanent secretaries and

special advisers will also be required to record such meetings.

This information should be published quarterly. It is a first

for our country and alongside the other steps we are taking, will

help make the UK Government one of the most transparent in the world.

I will also discuss this with the opposition and perhaps we can adopt

this on a cross-party basis. After this statement, I will be meeting

the family of Milly Dowler. None of us can imagine what they have gone

through, but I do know this. They, like everyone else in this country,

want their politicians, all of us, to bring this ugly chapter to a

close and ensured that nothing like it can never happen again. It is in

that spirit that I commend this Can I start by thanking the Prime

Minister for his statement, and the meeting last night? The revelations

of the past week have shocked the whole country. The public now

rightly expects those of us in this house that represent them, to

provide not just an echo for that shock but the leadership necessary

to start putting things right. That is why it is in the interest of the

whole house that we move forward swiftly, comprehensively and

wherever possible, on an agreed basis. Let me ask him about the

timing, the nature and scope of the inquiry. Can I welcome the

establishment of the inquiry today, and can the Prime Minister

confirmed it will be staffed, and up and running, before the recess?

Can he also confirm that from the moment the judge is appointed today,

it will be an offence to destroy documents relating to this inquiry,

and can he tell us was that he will be taken to preserve documents at

Downing Street which might be relevant to the judge's inquiry. We

welcome a number of aspects of the announcement today that we have

been clearly dealing -- calling for. It must be judged lead if it is to

get to the bottom of what happened, and when. Can he confirm it has

been set up under the inquiries Act 2005, and will have the power to

compel witnesses? Can he explain how he envisages the judge and the

panel operating together? Turning to the scope of the inquiry, the

Prime Minister set out a number of areas he envisaged being covered in

his press conference last Friday, and he has gone further today. A

think it is right the government had decided to follow our advice,

and the Curia views... -- the Clear the use of the hacked off campaign

and the Dowler inquiry in acting And we come out of that exchange at

the House of Commons. You can continue to follow it on the BBC

Parliament shall. On a day where British politics is now totally

dominated by what happened at the News of the World and the fall-out

from that. Prime Minister's Questions, the front bench exchange

was all about that subject. And the Prime Minister has just made a

statement which means that for the foreseeable future, although it may

not be in the headlines to the extent it is now, this issue will

continue to rumble on for two, three, possibly four years as the

inquiries that the Prime Minister has announced into the behaviour of

the press over hacking and the police, and then they brought some

inquiry into the nature of press regulation and press standards in

this country takes place. -- a broad. One that will take place

under a judge, under oath and in public with proprietors having to

turn up as well as everybody else. Legal obligations to do so. We have

15 minutes on this programme to go. These are big events. Your reaction

first and then that of our panel. Strong reactions from you. John

from Garden City: "Ed Miliband started with a strong hand but now

he seems to be concentrating solely on Andy Coulson. He is in danger of

posturing. The key issue is standards. It looks like David

Cameron made just begin to start leading on this issue." Annie in

Manchester: "David Cameron has demonstrated he will throw anyone

to the wolves to say his -- save his own face.'s another

viewer,"Presumably Andy Coulson was vetted before taking his position.

Interesting to know whether the betting was completely done. If it

was, did the Prime Minister ignored the advice? If not completely done,

it needs to be looked into."Jacqueline Korn"David Cameron

has been forthright. If Ed Miliband tries to make a with this, he

should be demoted."Another one,"I wonder why Mr Clegg and Mr Osborne

are not joining in the roars of the backbenches."And it would not be

PMQs if we did not have a comment on the Speaker. Andrew:"The Speaker

needs to come down."A full advice. I'm sure the Speaker will help it -

- helpful advice. I'm sure the Speaker will take it. When are we

now, Nick Robinson? On the one hand, we have the Prime Minister urging

the opposition to come with him, saying that any future meeting

between senior politicians and not only -- not ordinary journalists

but their editors, managers or proprietors will have to be

recorded. We do not know how. I suspect that they will give us the

dates -- they will not give us the Danes, but I expect they will say

that there were two meetings in the last quarter or so on. When you say

recorded, not take it? It will be published, entered into the log

book. Later, not bad day, but we will be told that the Prime

Minister had a meeting with the likes of Rebekah Brooks, Rupert or

James Murdoch or their equivalents in other organisations including

the BBC. That is a very significant change. If you speak to the Prime

Minister, will bat now be -- well that's now be out? I think he means

the people who run the newspapers, so whether it would be the BBC's

head of news or the Director General, who knows? It is not yet

clear but it seems to me those meetings would be recorded along

with those from newspapers as well. There does not seem to be a great

problem with that but it is an important change. We will be able

to see a pattern of whether politicians are seeing a particular

paper or a particular -- particular proprietor in advance of important

news stories and business decisions. In addition, we will get under off

from a judge the exposure of what happened in the past between

politicians and the media. And both Ed Miliband and David Cameron have

now publicly said that there is quite a lot in their party's pasts

that they regret and in David Cameron's case, his personal past.

As it happens, Ed Miliband has had rather limited contact, something

that was seen as a problem two weeks ago. Suddenly, having no

friends and the media comes -- becomes an asset. That process of

exposing who did what, who knew what. One other thing was not said

in the statement, which are thought was terribly important. The Prime

Minister said"We must look at amending the laws. The fit and

proper test, the test that can be applied by the media regulator as

to whether anyone is a fit and proper holder of the and

broadcasting licence."The problem with that, politicians tell me, is

that until there is a conviction, you cannot say someone is not fit

and proper. The problem in this case is that the timetable for the

takeover of BSkyB is quicker than the timetable for any prosecutions.

Therefore, the decision has to be taken before you know whether they

are fit and proper. One other thing, he suggested that competition law

might have to be changed. The law was set up precisely to stop

politicians picking and choosing between which businessmen they

liked and which they did not like. Yet it leaves the Prime Minister

and the Culture Secretary in a problem, saying, we do not want

this to happen but we cannot stop it happening. That leaves

Parliament in the extraordinary situation of voting, if there is

every vote, and there may not be a vote because of procedural things,

voting to stop things happening, but being unable to do so. Margaret

Beckett, it looks like the Government has given Mr Miliband

what he wanted. It sounds like it. If you go back a week or 10 days,

we were calling for evidence on oath and a judge-led inquiry. You

name it, and it appears to be all there. If there are any nooks and

crannies, it will no doubt come out later. There may be an argument

about Heinen -- timing issues. looks as though we have got 80 or

90% of what we asked for. Were you struck by what I was struck by?

thought there was a personal thing and will the Prime Minister

said."The search your bins,"He said,"And you do not complain

because you want a good relationship."I thought that was

something that anybody on any side of the Commons could have agreed

with. It seemed to go beyond the political. I was muttering that

that was completely right. We have heard these changes. David Miliband

-- Ed Miliband challenged David Cameron to publish retrospective

details of meetings with newspaper proprietors. I expect that is

because he is assuming that Mr Cameron has had more than Mr

Miliband has had. It is confession day. Some people watching this will

say that we are effectively in war -- at war in Libya, there is a

European sovereign debt crisis gathering momentum and perhaps

coming to the boil, and that there is no sign that growth is returning

any time soon to this economy. But our political system is going to be

dominated by investigations into the media. It is the wrong priority,

some people will say. I do not think it is the wrong priority. It

is clear the public feels a sense of outrage about what has happened.

Listening to Nick, My senses that there is two parts to this. There

is looking at the relationship between the police and the media

and there is looking at the hacking episode. But there is also a

broader context, the relationship between the media and the

politicians, going back into the past. I expect that that will give

you and your colleagues in the media many, many hours of copy and

interview time over the years. It will dominate the political agenda

far more than the Iraq Inquiry did. There is also we reason why it is

not irrelevant when it comes to talking about Libby and the economy.

Nick Robinson made the point about the thing of people going through

bins, but the fact is that in any government, for as long as I can

remember, making the right decisions about your policy choices

is also influenced by how well the meatier -- influenced by how the

media treats it and you. Anything that makes that healthier is good

for politics. Well that every change, do you seriously think it

will? Does it not happen in every democracy in the world you might

yes, but it might become less poisonous. In a way, your policy

was hijacked by Mr Murdoch and News International. Perhaps that will

come out. I would suggest, Nick Robinson, that in the nest -- Nick

Robinson, but in the rest of the media, the non National newspapers,

they will be saying to Mr Murdoch, look what you have done to us, look

what your behaviour has done. agree. I have a personal view, if

you permit me. I have met people who were not in the News

International empire who have been saying,"Isn't this great?". I have

said, be careful what you wish for. This is an investigation that will

expose practices that could empower people who want to hamper the press

and the media, which could mean that people come for other people

in the media. It is all that well to say, let us open it out, but no

one knows quite where it will end. What is interesting is that when

you go back to wide this was not reopened, John Yates has had lot of

criticism but let us be honest, journalists like myself have had

criticism for not taking it seriously enough a few months ago.

Part of why I believe the police did not reopen the case, as well as

other things that may be exposed, it comes to the root of your

question, which is, or do not better things to be doing? There

was a frustration that the political classes were dragging the

police into dealing with their own dirty business and the view of the

police was, sort yourself out, politicians. I have to stop you

there because I have news for more important than anything you have

been talking about. Far more important and rather sad. Sad for

us and our regular viewers. After three years, Anita is departing.

She leaves behind a treasure trove of memories and great times but we

have enjoyed together with the team. Here are some of them. -- that we

have enjoyed. Let us see if you can remember when

this happened. Bon jour! That is French, don't you

know? Repeat after me, argued David

Lambie, happy to share a platform with me, Jo Swinson? Why you, David

Lambie, happy to share a platform with me, Jo Swinson? -- are you,

David Lambie. A healthy body needs a healthy mind.

A healthy body, needs a healthy mind.

I will do it again. Take two! I am talking nonsense.

Are you taking over this interview, David? Let me answer another

question. Don't do that, it is not nice.

Salut! How can you not be sad after seeing

all of that. The flowers on the film was when Anita went off to

have a baby. These are flowers for you, my darling. For our last

programme. Thank you.

What are you going to do now? I have a new show on Radio 5 Live

and I will be popping up on Radio 4. You get to pick a winner.

It is Josie. You were getting a mug. -- a Daily Politics mug.

1945, the Euro was born. We will be back tomorrow night. I will be

joined by Michael Portillo, Quentin Letts, Diane Abbott and Jon Snow.