:00:31. > :00:35.- folks. Welcome to an hour-long special edition of the Daily
:00:35. > :00:42.Politics. Yes, there's just too much to into a piffling 30 minutes
:00:42. > :00:47.today. The rioters were a feral underclass, according to the
:00:47. > :00:52.justice secretary, Ken Clarke. Equally worrying, he said, was the
:00:52. > :00:56.instinctive criminal behaviour of random passers-by. Strong words. In
:00:56. > :01:00.the last hour, the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, has been telling
:01:00. > :01:03.parliament that what he thinks caused the August riots, and he's
:01:03. > :01:07.not a man to hold back, either. other big parliamentary story
:01:07. > :01:10.today: further inquiries into the News of the World and the phone
:01:10. > :01:13.hacking scandal. In the last Daily Politics special but one, we
:01:13. > :01:17.broadcast the evidence to parliament of Rupert Murdoch and
:01:17. > :01:22.his son, James. Today, the same select committee has been hearing
:01:22. > :01:32.from some of their former employees. Did the mur docks' evidence stack
:01:32. > :01:33.
:01:33. > :01:39.We will look back and ask what, if anything, the protesters achieved.
:01:39. > :01:42.That's coming up in the next half- hour. With us for the duration is
:01:42. > :01:46.Freddie Forsyth. Welcome back. Thank you. It's been too long.
:01:46. > :01:49.You're the inviter. I made that bit up! First, today,
:01:49. > :01:54.let's talk about Libya and the apparent extent of the links
:01:54. > :01:58.between Britain and Colonel Gaddafi's intelligence services.
:01:58. > :02:05.Some of it centres on a Libyan rebel commander - you've seen him
:02:05. > :02:09.on television recently - there he is. Evidence suggests that our MI6
:02:09. > :02:12.colludeed with the CIA in transporting him back to Libya in
:02:12. > :02:16.2004 where he was almost certainly tortured, because that's what they
:02:16. > :02:19.do, by the Gaddafi regime. David Cameron yesterday promised that the
:02:19. > :02:26.allegations would be investigated. There is indeed already a committee
:02:26. > :02:31.set up to do that under I think Lord Gibson. Freddie, I can
:02:31. > :02:35.understand the realpolitik of wanting to build better relation
:02:35. > :02:38.was Libya, particularly on within of we're going to get rid of their
:02:38. > :02:42.weapons of mass destruction, but does that mean that we have to hand
:02:42. > :02:46.over people to be tortured by them? I wouldn't have thought it did, no.
:02:46. > :02:52.What happened with Libya was bizarre, because this man Gaddafi
:02:52. > :02:57.has been, for 30 years at at least, a die-hard enemy of the West. One
:02:57. > :03:03.of his apes murdered PC Yvonne Fletcher; another one put the bomb
:03:03. > :03:09.on the Pan Am jet; he funded Baader-Meinhof for the Black
:03:09. > :03:12.September, and gave the IRA five ships of weapons, and we only got
:03:12. > :03:18.the fifth. This has been going on for 30 years. Then suddenly he
:03:18. > :03:21.decides to change, which is most unusual. Normally, dictators either
:03:21. > :03:26.fall or stay the way they were. They don't become better people.
:03:26. > :03:31.This one decides to reform. Bearing in mind he did at the time have a
:03:31. > :03:38.nuclear programme, which was well advanced, and he had, what do you
:03:39. > :03:43.call it, a gas warfare programme. Biological and - Chemical weapons -
:03:43. > :03:46.he had the lot. We cut with with deal with him. We had no choice but
:03:46. > :03:48.to do it saying if you dismantle the lot under our supervision, you
:03:48. > :03:52.can be readmitted into the community of nations, which he
:03:52. > :03:56.accepted, and, it all was dismantled under our supervision.
:03:56. > :04:02.So he didn't keep anything - co- operate keep anything back -
:04:02. > :04:07.because we were there. I understand the diplomacy that that involved.
:04:07. > :04:11.The thing that I don't understand is why didn't we, having done that,
:04:11. > :04:19.still sup with a pretty long spoon with him, but instead we're handing
:04:19. > :04:23.over people to be tortured. It seems from the evidence given. We
:04:23. > :04:33.have got Mr Blair helping Saif Gaddafi with his phd, we've got the
:04:33. > :04:34.
:04:34. > :04:43.second senior figure in MI6, a famous or Rabiest writing friendly
:04:44. > :04:48.letters to mousse Ka to Mousa Cousa. My father spent five years in the
:04:48. > :04:54.like that. Why are we now sending nice letters to them. What went
:04:54. > :04:57.wrong, I think, was that we accepted his expressed desire to
:04:57. > :05:02.reform; we supervised the dismantlement of most of his really
:05:02. > :05:06.nasty stuff, which was much, much more, and worse than Saddam Hussein
:05:06. > :05:10.ever had, who didn't seem to have anything at all anyway. Then
:05:10. > :05:20.someone at the top - I suspect Blair, personally, went over the
:05:20. > :05:20.
:05:20. > :05:24.top. Suddenly, he starts schmoozing, he wants to be best palls. There is
:05:24. > :05:29.no need to do that. You can accept the reformation of a tyrant, a
:05:29. > :05:34.dictator - he went on being a savage bustard internally, and
:05:34. > :05:37.still to treat him with frosty courtesy, nothing more. Why we had
:05:37. > :05:42.to go so far, I don't know. That was really bad form. Thank you,
:05:42. > :05:45.that was the point of my question, thank you. Finally on this, how
:05:45. > :05:52.badly does this damage our intelligence services to be seen to
:05:52. > :05:55.be in cahoots with people like Mous Kousa and the Libyan Gestapo -
:05:55. > :05:59.let's call it what they are. This begs a rather long lecture, but I'm
:05:59. > :06:04.not going to give it to you. Basically, the entire intelligence
:06:04. > :06:08.world out there beyond our shores is one ever-changing kaleidoscope,
:06:08. > :06:13.and most of those who participated in it, whether they're the Russians,
:06:13. > :06:19.the Chechens, or the dictators of the Arab world, the dictators of
:06:19. > :06:22.the black African world, are bustards, OK? And we have to deal
:06:22. > :06:27.with them as best we can. Sometimes they rise, sometimes they fall,
:06:27. > :06:30.sometimes they rarely convert, sometimes they are toppled,
:06:30. > :06:35.sometimes they're assassinated - not usually by us, the Israelis are
:06:35. > :06:38.rather good at that - we leave them to it. Klabation: yes. We have to
:06:38. > :06:43.collaborate. It's the only way. All our intelligence services have got
:06:43. > :06:50.one job, and that's one job, and that is to protect our country from
:06:50. > :06:54.its citizens and enemies whatever it takes. If they go to a minister
:06:54. > :06:57.- and you'll hear some ministers laying what they call moral law
:06:57. > :07:00.down - if they go to a minister and say this is going to happen, a
:07:00. > :07:05.major bomb has been planned for this country, what do we do? The
:07:05. > :07:10.answer would be "whatever it takes", and then the second sentence would
:07:10. > :07:14.be "but we didn't have this conversation," in other words - and
:07:15. > :07:21.there is nothing you can do about it, unless you want to say we butt
:07:21. > :07:27.out of it in which case there can probably be a 7/7 every six months.
:07:27. > :07:32.Is that what you want? No. It's not what we want. I remember Robin Cook
:07:33. > :07:36.talking about an ethical foreign policy. In a was way back at the
:07:36. > :07:40.beginning of Tony Blair's - learn quickly. There's no such
:07:40. > :07:44.thing. Two big developments today in the whole News of the World
:07:44. > :07:49.phone hacking scandal. Lord leave son is beginning the judicial
:07:49. > :07:54.inquiry into the whole matter. There is another development in the
:07:54. > :07:57.Commons too which we will come to in a minute. Ross Hawkins is there
:07:57. > :08:00.for us. Tell us what's happening at the Royal Courts of Justice. At the
:08:00. > :08:03.moment, those people who think they should have a special status in the
:08:03. > :08:07.inquiry, their lawyers are standing up and making the case. When you
:08:07. > :08:11.listen to them, you get a sense of just how big the range of people
:08:11. > :08:14.there are just waiting to try to explain what the press and the
:08:14. > :08:20.media did to them. There are lawyers in there representing over
:08:20. > :08:25.a hundred phone hacking victims, politicians like criticises Bryant,
:08:25. > :08:30.Tessa Jowell, Lord Prescott, Dennis McShane, representing people like
:08:30. > :08:34.Kate and Jerry McCann, even the son of Harold Shipman and Max Mosley,
:08:34. > :08:38.all very much wanting to have their say. The second point of what we
:08:38. > :08:41.heard today is the sheer size and scale of what this man has got to
:08:41. > :08:44.do. He's got an enormous amount to get through. He's going to start
:08:44. > :08:47.with sessions trying to learn about how the media works and what it
:08:47. > :08:52.does, including one behind closed doors - probably sensibly, Andrew -
:08:52. > :08:56.on how you intercept e-mails and phone calls. When is he going to
:08:56. > :09:00.finish this report, then? By 2020, do you think? He's got two stages
:09:01. > :09:04.to do it in. He's got a latter stage where after the police
:09:04. > :09:07.investigations, he will look at what happened in the News of the
:09:07. > :09:10.World. This one, the Prime Minister only gave him a year. If you look
:09:10. > :09:15.at his opening statement, he has said well, we will do our best to
:09:15. > :09:20.stick to that but we're not going to do that at all costs. He kept on
:09:20. > :09:22.he's got to look at: the relationship between the public and
:09:23. > :09:26.the press, between politicians and the press; regulation; the way the
:09:26. > :09:30.whole legal structure is set up. These are big, big questions with,
:09:30. > :09:33.on the one side, all sorts of special interest groups trying to
:09:33. > :09:38.stop change from happening, cluck the media, and, on the other side,
:09:38. > :09:41.a bunch of hurt, angry and upset victims. It is going to be quite a
:09:42. > :09:46.series of hearings and it is going to take some time. Because, if you
:09:46. > :09:49.want to know how to phone hack, you only have to read Piers Morgan's
:09:49. > :09:55.memoirs where he explains how - I'm not saying he did it - but he
:09:55. > :09:59.explains how to do it. I don't understand why that is in camera.
:09:59. > :10:05.Will anything else be in camera or will we get to see stuff being
:10:05. > :10:08.played out? He referred to learning sessions and seminars which all
:10:08. > :10:12.sounded terribly pleasant. Most of it will be exposed. He also
:10:12. > :10:16.referred to in that private session about e-mail interceptions. When
:10:16. > :10:20.you you speak to some people around this story, you think maybe there
:10:20. > :10:23.is technologically more than that than that old trick of trying to
:10:23. > :10:27.get in someone's voice mail which, as you say, has been fairly
:10:27. > :10:29.widelyert roed. This is a judge who takes a lot to learn before he
:10:29. > :10:34.takes a single bit of evidence and long before he reaches a single
:10:34. > :10:39.final public decision. Sounds like you'll be standing outside that
:10:39. > :10:42.building for quite a while in the weeks and months ahead! I would
:10:42. > :10:44.find the nearest coffee bar and open an account with them. Over
:10:44. > :10:48.there! Now, within the last hour, there
:10:48. > :10:52.have been developments in the other inquiry into what went on at the
:10:52. > :10:55.Murdoch newspapers, this one being carried out by the culture select
:10:55. > :11:01.committee. Last month, you may remember, we carried it live here
:11:01. > :11:07.on the Daily Politics in another special when Rupert and James
:11:07. > :11:16.Murdoch went went in front of the MPs. That was of course the foam
:11:16. > :11:19.pie incident and Mrs Murdoch becoming a heroine. Joe, who is in
:11:19. > :11:24.the spotlight today? The four people appearing may not have the
:11:24. > :11:26.star quality of Rupert and James Murdoch, or even Mrs Murdoch, but
:11:26. > :11:33.their evidence promised to be explosive. First up this morning
:11:34. > :11:39.was former legal adviser, Jonathan Chapman, and Daniel Cloke, who was
:11:39. > :11:42.News International's HR director. Following them was Colin Myler, and
:11:42. > :11:48.tomorrow kroepb, another legal adviser. One of the big issues for
:11:48. > :11:52.these two is a document which has been dubbed the "for Nev I am" e-
:11:52. > :11:54.mail, this not only implicates another journalist in the scandal,
:11:54. > :12:01.but it also contains detailed evidence of hacking at the paper.
:12:01. > :12:04.When asked if he was aware of the document in July, James Murdoch
:12:04. > :12:08.replied, "I was not aware of that at the time." In a joint statement,
:12:08. > :12:11.both Colin Myler and Tom kroepb dispute this claim. James Murdoch
:12:12. > :12:15.has since issued a statement saying he stands by his evidence. The
:12:15. > :12:19.committee are also expected to try to get to the bottom of both Rupert
:12:19. > :12:22.and James Murdoch's assertion that they believe phone hacking was
:12:22. > :12:29.limited to just one rowing reporter, because they were relying on a
:12:29. > :12:32.review of staff e-mails by the legal firm Harbottle and Lewis.
:12:32. > :12:37.However, Jonathan Chapman disputes this evidence as very misleading
:12:37. > :12:40.and said that inquiry had a very restricted remit. The law firm has
:12:40. > :12:44.also issued a statement saying the the scope of their inquiry was very
:12:44. > :12:49.specific. So what really went on at Britain's Sunday newspaper
:12:49. > :12:53.according to its executives? The committee starting off questioning
:12:53. > :12:58.the head of legal affairs Jonathan Chapman and the former head of
:12:58. > :13:03.resources at the company Daniel Cloke. Phillip Davies pressed them
:13:03. > :13:07.on the circumstances surrounding Clive good man who was jailed for
:13:07. > :13:11.phone hacking in 2007. Committed a criminal offence and bringing the
:13:11. > :13:15.company to shame, it seems the group HR director would have had no
:13:15. > :13:21.involvement at all in the decision to sack him or the decision to -
:13:21. > :13:27.can I just go back. It seems that, during his trial, when he was
:13:27. > :13:31.pleading guilty, he employed the services of John Kelsey-Fry to
:13:31. > :13:35.represent him in court, one of the most expensive lawyers in the
:13:35. > :13:39.country - if not the most expensive lawyer in the country - and it
:13:39. > :13:45.appears News International paid for his legal representation at that
:13:45. > :13:48.case. Who authorised News International to pay for Clive
:13:48. > :13:51.Goodman's legal costs at a trial when this is a chap pleading guilty
:13:51. > :13:56.to a criminal offence that's a summary dismissal and is bringing
:13:56. > :14:03.the company to shame? Who authorised that News International
:14:03. > :14:09.would pay his legal fees? I don't know. I think, Mr Davis, you'll
:14:09. > :14:14.have to ask Mr Kroepb that because it's a matter for the newspaper
:14:14. > :14:19.lawyer that. Even though the company were not obliged to do
:14:19. > :14:23.anything at all, in lieu of his previous work for the company, they
:14:23. > :14:28.would as a gesture of goodwill pay a year's salary to him which
:14:29. > :14:33.appeared to be in the region of �90,000. Who decided that that was
:14:33. > :14:39.a good course of action to pay him a year's salary based on the fact
:14:39. > :14:43.that he had committed a criminal offence? I think that is a a
:14:43. > :14:47.question you will have to ask Mr Hinton. Decisive said, I was not
:14:47. > :14:52.involved until the appeals pro-set. Mr Chapman, were you not involved
:14:52. > :14:57.at all? Mr Hinton asked me to help him with that letter, indicated he
:14:57. > :15:01.was going to pay 12 months' salary, and he said that he wanted to do it
:15:01. > :15:06.on compassionate grounds because of the family situation of Mr Goodman.
:15:06. > :15:10.That's all I can recall on that. It is a question for Mr Hinton.
:15:10. > :15:14.you not express any surprise that this was a strange resident for the
:15:14. > :15:17.company wanting to be set in to pay a year's salary for the committing
:15:17. > :15:21.of a criminal offence? It could be seen on the outside as a strange
:15:21. > :15:27.thing to do, but it was Mr Hinton's decision. Would it not seem a
:15:27. > :15:30.strange thing to you on the inside? I can see it - I can see both sides
:15:30. > :15:36.of it. I can see viewed externally, it looks strange, but I can also
:15:36. > :15:39.see that if you have someone who has got a hitherto unblemished
:15:40. > :15:43.record and they have family to throw them straight out with no
:15:43. > :15:46.financial support leaving the family is a tough thing to do, so I
:15:46. > :15:50.can do both sides. You didn't raise any objections to this as a
:15:50. > :15:55.strategy? Mr Hinton had decided to do it. According to James Murdoch,
:15:55. > :16:02.you two took the decision not to defend yourselves at a tribunal,
:16:02. > :16:12.but to pay off Clive Goodman not to the tune of �60,000, but to the
:16:12. > :16:15.tune of �140,000 plus �130,000 of costs. Now, if you had made the -
:16:15. > :16:19.�13,000 of costs. If you had made the decision and there was no basis
:16:19. > :16:24.for Clive Goodman's allegations, what on earth were you doing paying
:16:24. > :16:28.him a 40 �140,000 on top of the �90,000 he had already been given
:16:28. > :16:32.as a year's salary. May I answer that? Please do. We didn't take the
:16:32. > :16:36.decision. The decision was taken by Mr Hinton that it should be settled
:16:36. > :16:42.following our work on it, and recommendation having been told to
:16:42. > :16:46.try to get a reasonable settlementor him - settlement for
:16:46. > :16:51.him. Within the last few minutes, it has started hearing from the
:16:52. > :16:58.former News of the World editor Colin Myler and the paper's chief
:16:58. > :17:02.lawyer, Tom Crone. Can I start with asking you about what has become
:17:02. > :17:07.known as the "for Neville" e-mail which is essentially the same
:17:07. > :17:10.reason why we first wished to ask you to come since you made a
:17:10. > :17:15.statement following this committee's session with Rupert
:17:15. > :17:22.Murdoch and James Murdoch in which, essentially, you gave a different
:17:22. > :17:28.account of what had occurred. Can I first of all establish that both of
:17:28. > :17:33.you are certainly, in your mind, you told James Murdoch about that
:17:33. > :17:40.e-mail when you came to discuss the terms of the settlement with Gordon
:17:40. > :17:44.Taylor? I'm certain. You're certain. It was never referred to as a "for
:17:44. > :17:51.Neville" e-mail. That was quite significant. And me too. I'm as
:17:51. > :17:55.certain as I can be, yes. Perhaps I can just explore that. I think, Mr
:17:55. > :18:02.Cone, you essentially have said it was the sole reason for settling
:18:02. > :18:06.with Gordon Taylor? That's correct. So, in your mind, this changes the
:18:06. > :18:11.picture entirely. Until you were made aware of this e-mail, there
:18:11. > :18:18.wasn't reason to settle, and this "Right, everything is now different,
:18:18. > :18:23.we're going to have to settle"? that was the decision or the advice
:18:23. > :18:30.that was sort of formulated in consultation with the outside
:18:30. > :18:34.lawyers after sight of that e-mail transcript, yes. Well, Tom Crone
:18:34. > :18:39.there giving evidence. For the latest, our political correspondent
:18:39. > :18:45.Vicky Young joins us. What strikes us here is the evidence we've heard,
:18:45. > :18:49.this insistence from Tom Crone in Tom Myler, the former editor, that
:18:49. > :18:53.James Murdoch seemed to indicate that phone hacking was more
:18:53. > :18:57.widespread than they initially thought. As you say, this is still
:18:57. > :19:00.going on. Tom Cone has talked more about that e-mail. He said he did
:19:00. > :19:04.have a conversation with James Murdoch about it which he said
:19:04. > :19:09.lasted for 50 minutes; he he said there were no notes made about it,
:19:09. > :19:13.and he can't recall all the details. He twhas then pushed further and
:19:13. > :19:18.asked "Did James Murdoch show you a copy of that e-mail?" He said,
:19:18. > :19:23."I've been reminded recently it had very restricted access." He was
:19:23. > :19:27.told he was not allowed to make copies of it - this was by Gordon
:19:27. > :19:32.Taylor's lawyers who said they wanted it to have restricted access
:19:32. > :19:35.- and he was limited what he could Murdoch is ever called to this
:19:35. > :19:38.committee, because it's clear the committee felt they haven't got to
:19:38. > :19:41.the bottom of this, and that is a possibility of course. Then he will
:19:41. > :19:44.have that defence that he didn't see the e-mail itself although he
:19:45. > :19:49.was made aware of it. I think we've seen today in past committees, a
:19:49. > :19:54.lot of people saying, "I don't recall this." It struck me clearly
:19:54. > :19:57.you've got a bank of lawyers sitting behind the lawyers, saying,
:19:57. > :20:00."I haven't got any notes" and able to say I can't recall the details
:20:00. > :20:04.of one thing or another. I don't think the committee will be happy
:20:04. > :20:09.with some of the answers they've been getting.
:20:09. > :20:14.He's now the former News of the World political editor David
:20:14. > :20:18.Wooding and criticises Bryant was - Chris Bryant a victim of is phone
:20:18. > :20:21.hacking. Chris Bryant, I suggest to you given the testimony we've just
:20:21. > :20:24.heard there which directly contradicts the testimony that
:20:24. > :20:29.James Murdoch gave to the same select committee in July that there
:20:29. > :20:31.is no doubt that James Murdoch will be recalled. I would be amazed if
:20:31. > :20:33.he's not recalled. I think one of the problems that we faced in this
:20:33. > :20:36.whole process is there was the original criminality which was
:20:36. > :20:41.scandalous enough, but then on top of that, there's been this
:20:41. > :20:44.sustained cover-up. It's gone on and on and on, and anybody knows
:20:44. > :20:48.that once you're found out, the first thing to do is to put your
:20:48. > :20:50.hands up and get all the facts out there, tell the truth. That's not
:20:50. > :20:53.what has happened. I think parliament needs to learn a 11.
:20:53. > :20:58.I've been going through all the evidence that people have given.
:20:58. > :21:04.I'm up to 53 lies to parliament to parliament so far - direct lies,
:21:05. > :21:09.not just casual evasions. You mean by Murdoch organisation people?
:21:09. > :21:13.News International, by police, by a variety of different people.
:21:13. > :21:22.Four more, and you'll have 57 varieties. I think I might get up
:21:22. > :21:25.to 77 trombones or is it 76! The point is of course the courts can't
:21:25. > :21:31.deal with that as perjury because of parliamentary privilege. If we
:21:31. > :21:35.are to deal with the powers in the land, whether that is Murdoch or
:21:35. > :21:37.Tesco, or BP or whoever else, we need to know that the evidence that
:21:37. > :21:41.is being given to parliament is true and honest, the whole truth
:21:41. > :21:46.and nothing but the truth. As they do in major congressional
:21:46. > :21:49.committees on Capitol Hill. Indeed, and I think we should move to a
:21:49. > :21:56.system where we have all evidence being given on oath. They can't lie
:21:56. > :22:01.to Lord Leveson, can they? Exactly. That's why, when you see the
:22:01. > :22:04.Murdochs giving evidence on oath and being probed I think very, very
:22:04. > :22:06.carefully, and for that matter when the police complete their
:22:06. > :22:13.investigations, I think we'll see that we're still only at act three
:22:13. > :22:20.in a five-act play. Are we seeing a cover-up unravelling here in that
:22:20. > :22:25.the News International used to form a pretty solid united phalanx on
:22:25. > :22:29.most issues. It was more united on the invasion of Iraq Iraq than the
:22:29. > :22:33.Blair or Bush governments, for example. Now they seem to be more
:22:33. > :22:38.like a circular firing squad. Is that what we're seeing? We had
:22:38. > :22:44.James Murdoch saying, "I did not see this crucial e-mail", the
:22:45. > :22:48.crucial mart of it would have expanded it, and former employees
:22:48. > :22:53.saying, "We told him about it." What has been clear this morning,
:22:53. > :22:58.and I will try not to add to Chris's tally in your answers to
:22:58. > :23:00.your questions today, is that this investigation they had we heard
:23:00. > :23:05.this morning from the human resources directorate and the legal
:23:05. > :23:10.manager, that it wasn't quite as thorough as we thought it would be.
:23:10. > :23:14.The question we're asking now was it covered up or was it just not
:23:14. > :23:17.unearthed because they didn't do a proper inquiry? It's going to be
:23:17. > :23:23.one or the other. The senior people at News International pretended
:23:23. > :23:27.that inquiry into the 2,500 e-mails had given News International help.
:23:27. > :23:32.That's completely and utterly untrue. The other thing is that
:23:32. > :23:37.when James Murdoch said they had to pay Gordon Taylor �700,000 because
:23:37. > :23:41.the lawyers had told them they would have to pay �100,000 if it
:23:41. > :23:45.went to court and then you would have to add on all the legal fees,
:23:45. > :23:49.that's not how it works. They're either stupid or got really, really
:23:49. > :23:52.bad lawyers or just just lying. In truth, they were trying to buy his
:23:52. > :23:55.silence. You see, that is one conclusion that you can take from
:23:55. > :24:00.this morning's hearings. The question was asked was Clive
:24:00. > :24:05.Goodman who was the Royal correspondent went to jail for
:24:05. > :24:09.criminal behaviour in the employ of News of the World. Why, given that
:24:09. > :24:13.he went to jail, and they are all contracts, if you bring this
:24:13. > :24:17.company into disrepute, you're subject to summary dismissal - why
:24:17. > :24:23.did he have to be paid anything? That was quite shocking this
:24:23. > :24:26.morning that he was paid nearly �250,000, a year's salary twice. I
:24:26. > :24:29.think some of the 280 people who lost their jobs, many of them, the
:24:29. > :24:33.vast imagine order of them innocent, who had nothing to do with any of
:24:33. > :24:36.this, will be wondering why this man is getting such a large amount.
:24:36. > :24:43.So what is the answer other than a cover-up? I do understand, I do
:24:43. > :24:48.take the point that was made this morning that a company tries to aan
:24:48. > :24:52.industrial tribunal if it can. if you're dealing with an employer
:24:52. > :24:56.who's been stuck in the slammer for four months. They said they didn't
:24:56. > :24:59.want to go to a an industrial tribunal was because they didn't
:24:59. > :25:03.want it to go to the public. That's backfired completely. Did you know
:25:03. > :25:09.that the phone hacking was widespread? No, I've never hacked a
:25:09. > :25:12.phone in my life. You knew something was going on? We knew
:25:12. > :25:16.something was going on because two people were jailed five years ago
:25:16. > :25:21.and then it was talked about some people were doing it. We didn't
:25:21. > :25:23.have an idea it was as widespread as - You thought it was more
:25:23. > :25:27.widespread than a rowing reporter in We thought some people were
:25:27. > :25:31.doing it into celebrities once or twice, that's all. You think, I'm
:25:31. > :25:38.told, by our team of researchers, that this is Much Ado About Nothing.
:25:38. > :25:43.I do. Why is that? Minority view. Not for the first time in my life!
:25:43. > :25:47.Well, firstly, two adjectives: one is surprising, one is shocking. No,
:25:47. > :25:50.it's not surprising, as far as I'm concerned. Call it hacking, but
:25:50. > :25:57.it's actually evesdropping. It has been going on sips the Old
:25:57. > :26:04.Testament. It was going on in the days of Sir Francis Walsingham, and
:26:04. > :26:10.when we were young, it was called bugging. In the Old Testament, the
:26:10. > :26:14.story of Hannah in the elders, that's evesdropping and the elders
:26:14. > :26:17.got it in the neck. I'm sure people will get it in the neck here. The
:26:17. > :26:20.other thing -. It's not surprising. We're on the word surprising. There
:26:20. > :26:23.is nothing surprising about people listening to other people's
:26:23. > :26:30.conversations. But it is illegal, is it not? Yes, of course it is.
:26:30. > :26:35.What is surprising to me is that anybody should be so naive, so
:26:35. > :26:38.gullible, so irretrieveably thick to think that an e-mail is a
:26:39. > :26:43.confidential document. I think Freddie's view is a record by the
:26:43. > :26:48.wider public. I would take it most people didn't care about this until
:26:48. > :26:55.the Milly Dowleer revelation, then it was a game change. What do you
:26:55. > :27:01.say - They didn't give a dam until it came out with Milly Dowler,
:27:01. > :27:06.listening to the relatives of Helmand, and the relatives of the
:27:06. > :27:08.girls in Soham. I think that's true. One element of it that is been
:27:09. > :27:11.profoundly damaging to British society is the involvement of the
:27:11. > :27:14.Metropolitan Police and their failure to investigate for whatever
:27:14. > :27:18.reasons, whether that is collusion or just laziness or incompetence,
:27:18. > :27:23.or whatever, but their systematic lies to parliament as well I think
:27:23. > :27:26.are problematic, and for my constituents the problem is about
:27:26. > :27:30.Murdoch owning TV. Do you think people listening toe phone
:27:30. > :27:32.conversations has never happened before in this country? It's been
:27:33. > :27:38.going on for decades. That doesn't make it a good and right thing.
:27:38. > :27:41.Part of the problem is actually not so much obviously the original act
:27:42. > :27:45.had become illegal, but they've got themselves into a real mess because
:27:45. > :27:50.of the cover-up. Of course, as usual. It's a Watergate situation.
:27:50. > :27:54.It's what happened with nickson. think the maximum you can get for
:27:54. > :27:57.hacking is two years. The The maximum you can get for perverting
:27:57. > :28:02.the course of justice is ten. That's the territory we're now in.
:28:02. > :28:07.Let me ask you this question we're now in. A lot of it has been put on
:28:07. > :28:14.this "for Neville" e-mail because it's meant to show that glen mull
:28:14. > :28:18.care, the private - Glen Mucrare was hacking for more than Clive
:28:18. > :28:20.Goodman. Given this refers to a case involving Mr Taylor who was
:28:20. > :28:23.the head of the professional footballers' association or
:28:23. > :28:27.something like that, why would anybody think that Clive Goodman
:28:27. > :28:31.who want to hack his phone in the first place? This was a point that
:28:31. > :28:34.was made systematically and regularly but nonetheless News
:28:34. > :28:37.International came back time and again there is one rowing reporter.
:28:37. > :28:43.I've got 32 instances of them relying on that. They knew,
:28:43. > :28:49.including James Murdoch, knew that that was not true. Gentlemen, thank
:28:49. > :28:52.you for that. I would like to point out, as far as we're concerned, our
:28:52. > :29:00.family think we are slim, young and irresistable!
:29:00. > :29:06.Before we came on air, we had the former MP for Luton South. She is
:29:06. > :29:13.called Margaret Moran, who will face charges to her expenses claim.
:29:13. > :29:18.She will face 21 charges. Our correspondent Robin Brant joins us.
:29:18. > :29:26.Remind us what has happened now. Margtd jirbgts moran who is no
:29:26. > :29:32.longer an MP, is facing a whopping 21 charges twice as many as other
:29:32. > :29:34.suspects others have faced. They are charges of theft and forgery.
:29:34. > :29:39.It's the forgery that will be looked upon by the court as far
:29:39. > :29:43.more serious. This is a relation between a a period between November
:29:43. > :29:47.2004 and November 2008 when it is alleged that the Labour MP as she
:29:47. > :29:51.was at the time made a series of claims for expenses relating to
:29:51. > :29:55.�60,000, �20,000 for that for dry rot in a property in Southampton.
:29:55. > :29:58.That property a hundred miles or so from her Lieutenant son South
:29:58. > :30:03.constituency, claims also relating to other properties in Luton and
:30:03. > :30:10.London, so, in total, claims for �60,000 over a four-year period,
:30:10. > :30:14.and 21 charges in all, so she's in court on 19 cement, and as I said I
:30:14. > :30:17.think it's the forgery accusation that could be most serious for
:30:17. > :30:21.Margaret Moran if found true because she could find herself in
:30:21. > :30:25.jail for several years over that. She has now been charged. I think
:30:25. > :30:28.it's probably legally wise that we leave it there.
:30:28. > :30:32.The other committee, the home affairs select committee, has also
:30:32. > :30:37.been holding a hearing this morning, and they've been looking at the
:30:37. > :30:41.summer riots. No doubt they'll be aware of the justice secretary Ken
:30:41. > :30:44.Clarke's comments in the Guardian. Mr Clarke argues what he calls the
:30:45. > :30:47.appalling social deficit as well as the financial deficit should be
:30:47. > :30:51.addressed, saying a rocket booster needs to be put on to plans to fix
:30:51. > :30:54.not just the criminal justice system but education, welfare, and
:30:54. > :30:57.family policy. The justice secretary adds that the
:30:57. > :31:01.hard-core of the rioters were in fact known criminals, and claims
:31:01. > :31:06.that is the legacy of a broken penal system. Mr Clarke writes that
:31:06. > :31:11.as well as the need for tough sentencing, more must be done to
:31:11. > :31:15.reduce reoffending, and calls for the paying of those who
:31:15. > :31:17.rehabilitate offenders by the results they achieve. The home
:31:17. > :31:20.affairs committee has been hearing evidence for much of this morning
:31:20. > :31:25.from both senior police officers and senior London politicians.
:31:25. > :31:35.Starting with the Mayor of London himself. I think he's called Boris
:31:35. > :31:36.
:31:36. > :31:39.Johnson. I think, obviously, with Twenty20 hind - 2020 hindsight, and
:31:39. > :31:43.you'll have your opportunity in a minute to talk to the commissioner
:31:43. > :31:47.on the night - people think it might have been wiser to upscale
:31:47. > :31:50.the police presence. This is the Prime Minister. When you look
:31:50. > :31:53.overall at the police which is what you want to get out of us, when you
:31:53. > :31:57.look at what the police did on that night, on successive nights, and
:31:57. > :32:04.what they're doing now in their detect work, which is - detective
:32:04. > :32:08.work, which is quite remarkable, arrested 288 people, and be in no
:32:08. > :32:11.doubt, more and more people will be arrested and charged. The CCTV is
:32:11. > :32:16.still being gone through. They're doing an exceptional process. And,
:32:16. > :32:21.in spite of everything, these riots were contained, there was the very
:32:21. > :32:28.tragic death of Mr Boews in Ealing, but otherwise, there were
:32:28. > :32:31.remarkably few casualties. I just remind the committee that - We will
:32:31. > :32:34.come on to all this detail. people of London, my impression,
:32:34. > :32:39.they have the the very strong support and respect for the way the
:32:39. > :32:41.police were able to handle these riots. The issue for this this
:32:41. > :32:45.committee is do you agree with the Prime Minister in his statement to
:32:45. > :32:49.parliament when parliament was recalled that the tactics were not
:32:49. > :32:57.working, and too few police officers were deployed? Do you
:32:57. > :33:01.agree with him or not? It is self- evident, Mr Vaz, that there was a
:33:01. > :33:05.difficulty, there was a crisis on the Saturday, then the Sunday, then
:33:05. > :33:10.the Monday, which caught everybody unawares, and there is no doubt
:33:10. > :33:15.about that. I think when people come to aopblise this event, they
:33:15. > :33:20.will want to pay particular attention to the role of social
:33:20. > :33:24.media, the black berry messaging, all of that, and how that allowed
:33:24. > :33:34.the dispersal of this disorder. That's from Boris Johnson. Next up,
:33:34. > :33:36.
:33:36. > :33:43.it was the turn of the acting Met commissioner, Tim Godwin. He asked
:33:43. > :33:47.how the death of Mark Duggan started the riots. It's one of the
:33:47. > :33:51.things we're looking into now in terms of what actually went on.
:33:51. > :33:54.There was some confusion in terms of who was going to tell Mr
:33:54. > :33:59.Duggan's family, and that we deeply regret, and our commander has been
:33:59. > :34:03.round to see the family to actually apologise for those errors, albeit
:34:03. > :34:07.I can understand why those errors occurred, but they were errors I've
:34:07. > :34:11.apologised for. I think one of the things we need to look at is the
:34:11. > :34:15.whole whole management that took place at Tottenham so that we can
:34:15. > :34:18.learn from it. I think there were some good decisions taken, and
:34:18. > :34:24.additionally, there were some misunderstandings. We need to get
:34:24. > :34:30.to the bottom of that. Lynn Owens sitting next to me has been tasked
:34:30. > :34:33.by me to pick up those issues, causeiality, et cetera, and those
:34:33. > :34:38.conclusions, and this is so important, and we want to be
:34:38. > :34:46.transparent, those conclusions will be shared with this committee.
:34:46. > :34:50.Nothing possibly can justify what occurred with the looting and the
:34:50. > :34:58.rioting - certainly not myself in any way is trying to find some
:34:58. > :35:02.justification. But coming to the actual event that some considered
:35:02. > :35:06.triggered off, we read in the past that the partner of Mark Duggan
:35:06. > :35:09.went to the police station waiting hours before any information was
:35:09. > :35:16.given, and even then, she considered it unsatisfactory. I'm
:35:16. > :35:20.just wondering how far you as the most senior person, the most senior
:35:20. > :35:24.officer of the Met looked into this? We've got, as I say, the
:35:24. > :35:31.review going through in terms of what went on at Tottenham during
:35:31. > :35:36.that period following the death of Mark Duggan, and it is fair to say,
:35:36. > :35:41.as in all investigations, there are different views and interpretations
:35:41. > :35:49.of what and wasn't said and we need to get to the bottom of that. There
:35:49. > :35:51.is an issue for us how we look at and relate with the IPPC. That is
:35:51. > :35:55.the learning that will come out of this. That is a critical one we
:35:55. > :36:01.have to get done speedily so we can make sure we don't make those
:36:01. > :36:04.mistakes again. Can I ask you about techniques used by the police in
:36:04. > :36:09.dealing with the disturbances. Are there any lessons to be learned? Do
:36:09. > :36:13.you feel other techniques could have been used initially which
:36:13. > :36:17.could have helped the situation to restore order? I think the - again,
:36:17. > :36:21.that's part of our review process. One of the things that impressed me
:36:21. > :36:27.was the use of vehicle-borne tactics in terms of moving people
:36:27. > :36:31.forward and keeping cordons. I think for us initially, though, we
:36:31. > :36:37.had a fuel ring of tactics that we could deploy. It was purely numbers
:36:37. > :36:41.that was the inhibitor, so we got to look at that. The point about
:36:41. > :36:44."where are all the cops?" Is an issue we're going to be addressing
:36:44. > :36:48.in the next few months in terms of maximising our footprint and
:36:48. > :36:52.getting the numbers out there. I think there are a number of the
:36:53. > :36:57.levels we've got that are public- order trained. All of that of
:36:57. > :37:00.course has a cost. We're joined now by Conservative MP David Davis, the
:37:00. > :37:06.Labour MP David Lammy, whose Tottenham constituency was blighted
:37:06. > :37:09.by the riots. David Davis, David Cameron characterised the riots as
:37:09. > :37:16.criminality pure and simple. Do you agree with that? Yes, I do, really.
:37:16. > :37:18.What was clear, certainly by day two - not on day one - was these
:37:18. > :37:21.riots were occurring where there was a lot of gang activity in
:37:21. > :37:25.London, a lot of basic criminality there, and then from that you had a
:37:25. > :37:33.sweep of all sorts of - - suite of all sorts of people getting
:37:33. > :37:36.involved, and we heard today 75% of people they've taken on board so
:37:36. > :37:40.far have previous criminal records. David Lammy, does that surprise
:37:40. > :37:44.you? Three-quarters of those aged 18 or over charged with rioting
:37:44. > :37:48.offences already had a prior conviction. On the gang-related bit,
:37:48. > :37:50.they said it was 19%, perhaps not as high. It's difficult to get the
:37:50. > :37:53.figures completely straight but those initial figures are three-
:37:53. > :37:56.quarters of those who already have prior convictions. Pretty shocking,
:37:56. > :38:02.isn't it? It was clear on the Saturday night when things started
:38:02. > :38:06.in Tottenham that half of those who were caught up in this were not
:38:06. > :38:09.from Tottenham, and I said that on Sunday morning. I think the second
:38:09. > :38:12.thing was this rioting went on throughout the night. Many people
:38:12. > :38:16.stayed up watching the images well into the early hours. You then had
:38:16. > :38:21.looting in another part of London, in Wood Green, with no police there
:38:21. > :38:25.at all. It was a red rag to any criminal in and across London to
:38:25. > :38:29.arrive and to cause criminal damage and to take goods away. So it's not
:38:29. > :38:34.surprising, of course, that criminals were caught up in this.
:38:34. > :38:39.You do point the finger at the police. Tim Godwin was asked could
:38:39. > :38:42.the police have shut it down in Tottenham? He said, "I don't know,
:38:42. > :38:46.I'll have to look at all the evidence." I was with the victims,
:38:46. > :38:49.the homeless people who have lost everything they own. They said
:38:49. > :38:53.standing around their flats, where were the police? Where were the
:38:53. > :38:56.fire? Why were they down the road outside the police station not
:38:56. > :39:01.supporting my my flat? Why did I have to set the alarm to get out of
:39:01. > :39:05.my building? There was and has been another point of view presented
:39:05. > :39:08.which is actually if they had gone in in a hard, tough way in
:39:08. > :39:13.Tottenham, it could have made it worse, but it could have been more
:39:13. > :39:17.or looting or "going shopping" it could have been really violent.
:39:17. > :39:22.can understand that fear after the Mark Duggan episode and the fear
:39:22. > :39:25.that would cause some Brixton-type riot, but I don't think that excuse
:39:25. > :39:28.applies to anything that happened later. The next day, we had riots
:39:28. > :39:35.pretty much all over London. There was no excuse whatsoever. There was
:39:36. > :39:39.some excuse on the first day. None by day two. Ken Clarke used pretty
:39:39. > :39:42.strident language for Ken Clarke. He talked about the appalling
:39:42. > :39:46.social deficit. Which do you think the government should concentrate
:39:46. > :39:49.on? Stopping people reoffending on the criminal side of it, or the
:39:49. > :39:55.social side? You can't do one or other. You've got to do both,
:39:55. > :39:59.actually. Ken and I don't agree on prison policy. Surprise, surprise!
:39:59. > :40:03.And I think we should have more people in prison I'm afraid.
:40:03. > :40:05.Prisons have gone off the rails in the last ten years with very, very
:40:05. > :40:08.high reoffending rates. It wasn't always so. You've got to put that
:40:08. > :40:13.right. You've got to do something about that, but you've also got to
:40:13. > :40:16.deal with the gangs. The 19% number shows what the police don't know e
:40:16. > :40:20.there are a lot of areas, estates around London, some in Tottenham,
:40:20. > :40:25.some in Hackney, some in Brixton, where the gangs rule, and where
:40:25. > :40:28.youngsters growing up have no choice. They're forced into and
:40:28. > :40:31.become reluctant gangsters, if you like,. How do you see it in those
:40:31. > :40:36.terms that actually we have this gang culture that's grown up, they
:40:36. > :40:41.took an an opportunity and this is what what occurred. I think that is
:40:41. > :40:45.self-evident. What surprised me was the speed of the conteenage young.
:40:45. > :40:49.99.9% of people had never heard of Mark Duggan, that he didn't know
:40:49. > :40:52.who he was, whether he threatened to pull a gun on the police, they
:40:52. > :40:57.might have heard he was dead, but that wasn't the concern at all. It
:40:57. > :41:01.spread to the Midlands and then north of England. We have had riots
:41:01. > :41:05.before: Toxteth, Brixton, Broadwater Farm, but never sort of
:41:05. > :41:12.suddenly bursting out in Manchester or Birmingham, or Nottingham. Again,
:41:12. > :41:17.the one - the new factor which we've touched on already in another
:41:17. > :41:20.subject: cyberspace. They're able to see it all on this gizmo they
:41:20. > :41:25.carry. Yes, it's contagious. can't pull that back. People have
:41:25. > :41:28.argued what what can you do about social media. Can something be
:41:28. > :41:34.done? I don't know the technology well enough whether you can close
:41:34. > :41:39.it down? You can't. It's there. It's oddly enough also fuelling the
:41:39. > :41:44.Arab spring, actually. All it's done is accelerate what happened
:41:44. > :41:49.before. In the mid-1980s, not the first riots, but in the made 1980s
:41:49. > :41:54.Brixton riots, there were two phases where it was a demonstration,
:41:54. > :42:00.and the second phase it was straightforwardly criminal, people
:42:00. > :42:05.selecting shops and helping themselves, and planning to do so.
:42:05. > :42:07.There's People looking ahead and forward as to what actually can be
:42:07. > :42:12.done. The police have said one of the questions that's got to be
:42:12. > :42:15.raised is where are all the cops? There a view about where they're
:42:15. > :42:19.deployed, how many are deployed? That to a certain extent was passed
:42:19. > :42:22.aside because of the view it was pure criminality or would you like
:42:22. > :42:26.a proper review of where the cops are? Absolutely. Boris is proposing
:42:26. > :42:32.to get rid of 600 srjents. We've got a reduction in police numbers
:42:32. > :42:36.after the Olympics. People in London want to see officers, not
:42:36. > :42:39.less, and clearly on a Saturday night in August, the officers there
:42:39. > :42:45.were not able to contain young people who started burning a car,
:42:45. > :42:51.then a second car, and then a bus. Will they realistically ever be
:42:51. > :42:56.able to contain the wildfire that spread? Yes, we pay our taxes.
:42:56. > :43:00.People are entitled to be policed. Let's be clear on this. In my
:43:00. > :43:05.constituency, ordinary people - not the rioters, not the looters -
:43:05. > :43:09.ordinary people do not feel policed. They saw young criminals outfox our
:43:09. > :43:14.police officers. Two stark facts: number one, there are 32,000 police
:43:14. > :43:17.in London. Only 3,000 were turned out as it were in in Tottenham
:43:17. > :43:21.eventually. Number two, when they were turned out the next day, there
:43:21. > :43:26.were lots of heroic actions by individual policemen, but what was
:43:26. > :43:32.clearly the case was they were told to stand back. You could see
:43:32. > :43:34.policemen watching arson, theft. They hated it themselves but the
:43:34. > :43:37.leadership, there was a massive police leadership failure. That's
:43:38. > :43:40.the point we have to understand. One final thing, the Prime Minister
:43:41. > :43:43.is going to say this this afternoon, views on televising court
:43:43. > :43:49.proceedings. Will that make a difference? I think we need to
:43:49. > :43:55.televise the courts. People need to see justice done. They want to see
:43:55. > :44:00.the sentences. We absolutely need to get past this business of behind
:44:00. > :44:05.closed doors. I'm I'm happy about seeing the sentencing and I've
:44:05. > :44:09.watched the American court cases. The theeate kalt of it is - the
:44:09. > :44:14.theatre of it is different from the sober justice we're used to. Look
:44:14. > :44:18.at the OJ case. They said this about the House of Commons. The
:44:18. > :44:22.same Conservatives, let's not televise the House of Commons,
:44:22. > :44:26.people see their democracy in front of them, whether they like it or
:44:26. > :44:30.not. We now need that with the courts. To be respected or admired,
:44:30. > :44:38.probably not? That's the sense of the time, if you've got MPs on the
:44:38. > :44:43.take, of course it's not admired! It could be to do with the quality
:44:43. > :44:49.of MPs of course! It might have been lousy in the 1950s, and we
:44:49. > :44:53.didn't see them. And so ends the discussion, but stay with us.
:44:53. > :44:56.Now, speaking of seeing MPs, we've seen quite a lot of backbenchers
:44:56. > :44:59.today questioning all sorts of witnesses at those select committee
:44:59. > :45:02.inquiries, select committees often being more important than what
:45:02. > :45:07.happens on the floor of the House. Usually, it's the government that
:45:07. > :45:11.sets the agenda in terms of what gets debated in the floor. What has
:45:11. > :45:14.been a new development, however, is something called the backbench
:45:14. > :45:18.business committee which can get the odd item on to the agenda, run
:45:18. > :45:24.by MPs, and it's meeting this lunchtime. Not only that, but we
:45:24. > :45:26.can also try and influence what subjects they pick for debate by
:45:26. > :45:30.signing E-petitions, which is online. So, what have you been
:45:30. > :45:36.getting cross about recently online? Giles has been taking a
:45:36. > :45:42.look. 8 E-petitions - an exercise in 21
:45:42. > :45:45.century digital democracy or a handy way of plaibgt people feel
:45:46. > :45:49.like they have a voice but actually don't. It doesn't matter what you
:45:49. > :45:53.think because it's no doubt people are signing them, but only those
:45:53. > :45:58.with 100,000 signatories will be considered for debate, and so far,
:45:58. > :46:06.that is just two. Over the summer, Twitter fans may have seen an
:46:06. > :46:12.online campaign to get the death penalty to return. A counter E-
:46:12. > :46:21.petition to keep the status qo had 26,000 signatures and came six.
:46:21. > :46:23.What are in the top five? At five, 36,000 signed to ask the
:46:23. > :46:28.government's change public sector pension increases to be reversed.
:46:28. > :46:33.At four, 57,000 agreed financial education should be a compulsory
:46:33. > :46:42.part of the school curriculum. At three, an E-petition for cheaper
:46:42. > :46:45.petrol and diesel attracted 67,500 but as yet, all of those are still
:46:45. > :46:49.short of the magic 100,000. Which were the two which cleared the
:46:50. > :46:58.threshold? At two, a request for full disclosure of all government
:46:58. > :47:02.documents relating to the 1989 Hillsborough disaster. This got
:47:02. > :47:08.13137,600 signatories, and some publicity from a well-known
:47:08. > :47:15.footballer. Last week, the government suggested it wasn't - at
:47:15. > :47:17.one, normally 212,000 agreed MPs debate whether convicted London
:47:18. > :47:21.rioters should lose all their benefits. Will the backbench
:47:21. > :47:25.business committee look at scheduling a debate for that? Since
:47:25. > :47:30.every E-petition is open for a year, will those currently under the
:47:30. > :47:34.100,000 make the magic marker? Incidently, there are two others
:47:34. > :47:40.running: one saying 100,000 is too much, and another saying 100,000 is
:47:40. > :47:45.too little. Neither of them has significant support.
:47:45. > :47:48.David Lammy and David Davis are still with us. Is it a gimmick?
:47:48. > :47:52.it's a good idea, actually. I think the whole backbench business
:47:52. > :47:57.committee thing has been an astounding success. You've heard
:47:57. > :48:00.about one change of government policy on Hillsborough, prisoner
:48:01. > :48:05.votes, the government was driven off its own policy, changed on that.
:48:05. > :48:08.I think it's a very good idea. it really make a difference?
:48:08. > :48:11.think we're seeing a far more assertive group of backbenchers.
:48:11. > :48:15.Select committees are working, and I think that the public need to
:48:15. > :48:19.find ways to influence what they see as a political elite and a
:48:19. > :48:24.political class removed from them. So things like Hillsborough, a huge
:48:24. > :48:28.huge development Thai don't think you could have left to parliament
:48:28. > :48:31.itself. The committee will presumably select select one of
:48:31. > :48:37.these E-petitions for debate, debate it, and then what? Then the
:48:37. > :48:39.government will have to respond. They've first of all got to decide
:48:39. > :48:43.what they should do about whipping. They shouldn't really whip these
:48:43. > :48:45.things at all. We had this with the prisoner votes, they tried to whip
:48:45. > :48:50.various proposals and the Conservative Party wouldn't play so
:48:50. > :48:53.they then had to give in it and change their line. The petition to
:48:53. > :48:57.take away welfare benefits from rioters, that's something the
:48:57. > :49:00.political parties are going to have a view on, that would have to be
:49:00. > :49:04.whipped, I thought have thought. Not necessarily. Just because we
:49:04. > :49:07.have a view, it's not we're all of the same view. That's something
:49:07. > :49:10.frankly the Prime Minister put into the public domain when he made his
:49:10. > :49:14.statement after the riots. There are very, very different views in
:49:14. > :49:19.both main parties, all three parties, about whether it is a good
:49:19. > :49:24.or a bad bad idea. This is the sort of debate that parliament August to
:49:24. > :49:28.be able to assert its view. Throughout the Blair/Brown years,
:49:28. > :49:32.there were complaints that the legislature was not holding the
:49:32. > :49:35.executive to account. Do you really think that's improved? I think
:49:35. > :49:39.that's a fair saemt, to be honest, about backbench activity in the
:49:39. > :49:45.first two terms that certainly I was in parliament. I do think we're
:49:45. > :49:47.seeing a more robust parliamentary system. You're concentrating on
:49:47. > :49:54.select committees where frankly a show like this would have regarded
:49:54. > :50:00.them previously. Not this kind of show! Maybe Panorama or Newsnight
:50:00. > :50:03.or these other downmarket programmes! And there there is -
:50:03. > :50:07.there is a sense of there is action back in the House of Commons after
:50:07. > :50:11.a period where the action was in other places. Do you buy this?
:50:11. > :50:13.approve of just about anything, any measure whereby backbenchers can
:50:13. > :50:23.hold the government to account because it's their job. I've spent,
:50:23. > :50:24.
:50:24. > :50:34.as we both know, I think, 15 years watching virtual an obsequious
:50:34. > :50:39.
:50:39. > :50:42.backbench entrepreneurial lafrpbgs grant them a debate or a change of
:50:42. > :50:46.policy that they don't wish. They can see Hillsborough but they're
:50:46. > :50:51.not going to concede a referendum - They had to on prisoner votes. They
:50:51. > :50:56.had no choice on that one. Explain that. The government was going to
:50:56. > :51:01.grant them? Because everybody under a four-year sentence, and then -
:51:01. > :51:05.They didn't want to do it. often do you hear governments say
:51:05. > :51:08.we don't want to do this but we have to because of Europe. It's
:51:09. > :51:11.four years, then one years, then six years, then magistrates, and
:51:11. > :51:16.then they gave in. The other thing that is altered all this is the
:51:16. > :51:19.existence of the coalition itself. If Simon Hughes jumps up and says
:51:19. > :51:24.he doesn't like what the government is doing, they can hardly turn
:51:24. > :51:28.round to me and say you can't jump up and say you don't like - the
:51:28. > :51:33.coalition has caused a new debate as well. Coalition may have
:51:33. > :51:38.liberated the backbenches? In a way. We shall have to say goodbye to
:51:38. > :51:41.these two not so obsequious backbenchers! Thank you! 30 years
:51:41. > :51:45.ago, a group much women took a stand, protesting about the arrival
:51:45. > :51:54.of American nuclear missiles at an air base in Berkshire and stay
:51:54. > :52:00.outside the gates of Greenham Common in all weathers for 19 years.
:52:00. > :52:04.# God save our gracious Queen... # Thatcher was Prime Minister, the
:52:04. > :52:13.Cold War reaching a new peak, and a group of Welsh women had marched to
:52:13. > :52:18.Berkshire. They were concerned because the air
:52:18. > :52:22.base at Greenham Common was soon to become home to a new kind of
:52:22. > :52:26.nuclear weapon belonging to the US: the cruise missile. Women from
:52:26. > :52:30.across the country and around the world joined the all-female, all-
:52:30. > :52:34.hours peace camp. Living conditions were rudimentary, and especially
:52:34. > :52:38.tough during winter. At one point, 35,000 women linked arms around the
:52:38. > :52:42.place, although some of their stunts got some of them imprisoned,
:52:42. > :52:45.as one veteran explained to me. Well, of course, if you have a
:52:45. > :52:54.group of women who occupy the century box at the opening of a
:52:54. > :52:57.nuclear weapons base, or go - seentry box, dance on the nuclear
:52:57. > :53:01.weapons silos or climb up the outside and get into the air
:53:01. > :53:06.traffic control tower, hang a big banner saying, "Peace on earth",
:53:06. > :53:09.this technically is considered illegal. But we did it entirely
:53:09. > :53:15.with non-violence, always. That's not how it was seen by some
:53:15. > :53:20.sections of the media. "They suspect the nuclear issue here has
:53:20. > :53:23.been hijacked by radical feminists who tend to give the majority a bad
:53:23. > :53:29.image." Or by the governments of the day. What they tried to do was
:53:29. > :53:33.give a very clear image of peace- loving people, very reasonable, et
:53:33. > :53:37.cetera, but when I went to Greenham Common, it turned out that they
:53:37. > :53:40.were violent mob on the streets, and I think that completely cut the
:53:40. > :53:47.ground from underneath them. But it was this that eventually brought
:53:47. > :53:51.the protest to an end: the agreement between Reagan and
:53:51. > :53:55.Gorbachev in 1987 that began the drawdown of stocks of nuclear
:53:55. > :53:59.weapons which meant the missiles of Greenham Common were loaded on to a
:53:59. > :54:03.plane and taken home. A smaller group of women remained until the
:54:03. > :54:07.year 2000 after the base had been dismantled.
:54:07. > :54:13.This weekend, some of them were back there, the site of their 19-
:54:13. > :54:19.year protest now an industrial estate and country park. There's a
:54:19. > :54:22.herd of Exmoor ponies, there are cows, people people take their dogs
:54:22. > :54:28.and toddlers for walks on that base. It's beautiful, how, in the deepest
:54:28. > :54:31.darkest days when I wondered if it was worth it, that's how I imagined
:54:31. > :54:36.Greenham Common could be restored to common land and it has been.
:54:36. > :54:42.We're joined now by one of the ladies of Greenham Common, Joan
:54:42. > :54:45.Ruddock, who was the former chair of CND. Picking up there what
:54:45. > :54:50.Michael Heseltine said, he characterised them as a violent mob
:54:50. > :54:54.on the streets. Obviously not true in your view? Entirely not true. If
:54:54. > :54:58.there was any violence going, it was in his own mind. We saw some of
:54:58. > :55:01.the pictures indicating - There really wasn't. The whole purpose of
:55:01. > :55:06.the women's protest, and the whole reason that the peace movement gave
:55:06. > :55:12.the space to women and didn't invade them and get involved was to
:55:12. > :55:19.remove aggression, so that it was seen to be a women's-only event,
:55:19. > :55:22.and it was actually non-violent and always was non-violent. I never saw
:55:22. > :55:25.any violence at that base. People say it brought worldwide attention
:55:25. > :55:29.perhaps to the issue. It didn't actually achieve anything, did it?
:55:30. > :55:33.We saw those pictures of Gorbachev and President Regan. They made
:55:33. > :55:36.those decisions. It wasn't as a result of the women at Greenham
:55:36. > :55:40.Common. It's very difficult to know what actually motivates leaders,
:55:40. > :55:45.and when you've got huge public protest on both sides of what was
:55:45. > :55:50.then the Iron Curtain, this certainly was likely to have have
:55:50. > :55:53.had some effect. What we saw from the women was was a symbolism that
:55:53. > :55:57.ordinary people could challenge authority, that they were not
:55:57. > :56:02.afraid, and that nuclear weapons which were things that respect
:56:02. > :56:07.going to kill millions, hundreds of millions of people, did not have
:56:07. > :56:11.any part in a reasonable society. The arguments were all about reason,
:56:11. > :56:15.and the reason prevailed. One of the most significant things, I
:56:15. > :56:18.think, that was said to me, because I dealt quite a lot with Gorbachev
:56:18. > :56:23.advisers, and one of them said to me one day, "You know, we learned
:56:23. > :56:28.by your example." We have many contacts with the police movement
:56:28. > :56:35.with dissidents in the east, and we were part of that growing democracy
:56:35. > :56:38.movement across eastern Europe that was challenging the old hegemoy of
:56:38. > :56:42.the eastern states. One of the Gorbachev advisers said it had an
:56:42. > :56:47.influence, it was symbolic. think it brought Gorbachev to
:56:47. > :56:50.power? Not the Greenham Common women. Emphatically not. No-one is
:56:50. > :56:53.suggesting that for a moment. rather closer to the coal face
:56:53. > :56:57.because I was a foreign correspondent for East Germany,
:56:58. > :57:01.Czechoslovakia and Hungary at the height of the Cold War. I watched
:57:01. > :57:06.the brutality of the communist regime, this so-called protest
:57:06. > :57:10.movement both sides. Come on, the only way you got a protest protest
:57:10. > :57:17.movement on the other side of the Iron Curtain was you got a one-way
:57:17. > :57:21.ticket to Siberia. But them protest. I've been in Moscow trying to visit
:57:21. > :57:25.protesters in Moscow. I've been arrested by the KGB. You weren't
:57:25. > :57:30.imprisoned, were you? I was visiting them in flats that respect
:57:30. > :57:34.surrounded by the KGB. Of course they were under enormous pressure.
:57:34. > :57:38.Where do you think they got the inspiration, both from themselves
:57:38. > :57:43.and their own ideas of what might be different, but also because
:57:43. > :57:47.people in the West challenged the whole idea of nuclear weapons
:57:47. > :57:55.maintaining the so-called peace. Nuclear weapons wra danger to all
:57:55. > :57:59.of us, people in the East and West understood that. People generally,
:57:59. > :58:06.as populations, not just behind the Iron Curtain, do you think they
:58:06. > :58:09.were affected?. What caused finally the Politburo to lose its nerve and
:58:09. > :58:13.the man they knew was going to change things in the form of
:58:13. > :58:17.Gorbachev was the fact that they economically they were going broke.
:58:17. > :58:24.Communism had failed economically. It was failing socially, and it was
:58:24. > :58:29.failing militarily largely because we were deploying weapons like per
:58:29. > :58:39.shinning two and Cruise that they couldn't match with SS20s. We put
:58:39. > :58:40.
:58:40. > :58:45.up more More pershingIIs, then the voice of people like Gorbachev
:58:45. > :58:50.prevailed. It's got nothing to do with ladies sitting - We were
:58:50. > :58:54.certainly proud of. He needed to find some support. He needed