:00:41. > :00:45.Afternoon folk, welcome to the Daily Politics. James Murdoch gives
:00:45. > :00:50.evidence about the hacking scanned toll the Leveson Inquiry and runs
:00:50. > :00:54.into trouble over what did he know and when did he know it about the
:00:54. > :01:02.hacking scandal. Tory backbenchers criticise George Osborne's decision
:01:02. > :01:05.to loan �10 million to the IMF with one saying it is state sponsored
:01:05. > :01:11.money-laundering. As the London mayoral campaign enters the final
:01:11. > :01:16.stages we will talk to UKIP's candidate in the latest -- latest
:01:16. > :01:22.of our the contenders for Boris Johnson's job. Can a bit of
:01:22. > :01:29.celebrity stardust liven up a party election broadcast? We will ask the
:01:29. > :01:39.star of Labour's about his leading role. You can vote for the NHS
:01:39. > :01:47.service, to protect it. To improve it. All that coming up in the next
:01:47. > :01:51.hour, with us Labour peer, doctor, scientist, broadcast er, PEB star
:01:51. > :01:56.Robert Winston. Morning. We will come to the James Murdoch testimony
:01:56. > :02:00.shortly he is being questioned about the Murdoch family's links
:02:00. > :02:03.with politician in relation to the BSkyB, the attempt to take over all
:02:04. > :02:07.of BSkyB. We will bring you that and more in the next hour. Let us
:02:07. > :02:12.kick off with the star turn in Parliament today. Not Theresa May
:02:12. > :02:16.being questioned by MPs but none other than the comedian and actor
:02:16. > :02:21.Russell Brand. Ehere he is talking to the Home Affairs Committee this
:02:21. > :02:26.morning as part of their inquiry into drugs. For me what is more
:02:26. > :02:30.significant is the way we socially regard the condition of addiction.
:02:30. > :02:39.It is something that I consider to be an illness and therefore more a
:02:39. > :02:45.health matter than a criminal or judicial matter. I don't think that
:02:45. > :02:50.legalisation is something as I said I alqualified to get into. I can
:02:50. > :02:52.see areas where decriminalisation might be more useful and efficient,
:02:52. > :02:59.in countries like Portugal and Switzerland where there has been
:02:59. > :03:03.trials. It seems to have had some efibg si. It is more important we
:03:03. > :03:07.regard people suffering from addiction with compassion, and
:03:07. > :03:11.there is a pragmatic rather than symbolic approach to treating it.
:03:11. > :03:14.That was Russell Brand talking to MPs in the last half hour. It must
:03:14. > :03:20.be very warm in that Select Committee hearing. Either that or
:03:20. > :03:25.his acting career is not going so well! And he is struggling to
:03:25. > :03:29.afford any clothes. It detracted from what he had to say. Let us go
:03:29. > :03:32.to the substance. Drug policy at the moment in this country, I mean,
:03:32. > :03:37.in many, when you look at how widespread drugs are in this
:03:37. > :03:43.country, and the useage and the grief and horrible things they
:03:43. > :03:49.cause, the war on drugs hasn't really worked has it. No, I don't
:03:49. > :03:53.think the policy on drug -- drugs is rational. I think globally it
:03:53. > :03:56.isn't rational. We have roughly the same policy. We do which is to
:03:56. > :04:00.criminalise them to make it more difficult to obtain them. You push
:04:00. > :04:06.up the price of the drug, you increase the black market. There is
:04:06. > :04:09.a strong case for decriminalising drugs. All drugs? Probably all.
:04:09. > :04:12.mean as I understand it Russell Brand was a heroin addict at one
:04:12. > :04:18.stage. One of the great things about that is you could start with
:04:18. > :04:22.the softer drug, for example we know that cannabis which is hugely
:04:22. > :04:29.controversial are, it is dubious whether they cause serious ill
:04:29. > :04:34.effects and ex ta -- ecstasy that applies. I thought, our generation
:04:34. > :04:42.thinks, of cannabis from the 06. I am told that today, it is much
:04:42. > :04:45.tougher. It is much stronger. And the other argument is that it is a
:04:45. > :04:50.gateway drug. People start on cannabis and the people feeding
:04:50. > :04:53.them the cannabis are the ones who say why don't you try some cocaine.
:04:53. > :04:58.Crack, heroin. I know that and I think that is an argument which is
:04:58. > :05:02.often put forward, but the fact is, you know, is alcohol a gateway
:05:02. > :05:08.drug? The truth is alcohol kills far more people, damages more Clive
:05:08. > :05:12.lives. Alcohol is legal. Yes... the guy push Meg the bottle of
:05:12. > :05:17.whisky, and he is not pushing me, I go into the off-licence and ask for
:05:17. > :05:22.it, he is not then saying would you like to have something stronger
:05:22. > :05:25.under-the-counter? I think this of course is one of the reasons. There
:05:25. > :05:30.has been this conflict the scientific evidence and the policy
:05:30. > :05:35.evidence. Ministers have been adviceed by scientists that there
:05:35. > :05:39.should be a relaxing of some of the drugs while public policy has been
:05:39. > :05:43.in conflict because there are other issues like the alcohol issue and
:05:43. > :05:47.the pricing. Politicians run a mile from this, don't they, on the left
:05:47. > :05:57.and right. There are many occasion in public policy when you take
:05:57. > :05:57.
:05:58. > :06:02.decisions which aren't necessarily entirely amicable to the population.
:06:02. > :06:07.Hanging, many people feel they would like to see on it statute
:06:07. > :06:10.books. Maybe we should be looking more bravely at drug useage. Does
:06:10. > :06:15.the appearance of someone like Russell Brand, does that matter?
:06:15. > :06:18.Does it make a difference? I can't believe it helps the Select
:06:18. > :06:21.Committee to take up a de-- decision like this. We had a Select
:06:21. > :06:26.Committee where we looked at cannabis and we came to the
:06:26. > :06:31.conclusion that really it would be quite reasonable to use cannabis as
:06:31. > :06:37.a prescriptive drug, Because we have to move on, we have the
:06:37. > :06:42.Murdoch testimony going on what is the difference between
:06:42. > :06:47.decriminalising drugs and legal ing them. I think there is a difference.
:06:47. > :06:52.If you decriminalise a drug you can regulate it. If you make it a
:06:52. > :06:56.criminal offence, then of course it is not regulated in the same way at
:06:56. > :06:59.all. OK. Jo. On to something different. Time for the quiz. The
:06:59. > :07:09.question for today is what does David Cameron, the Prime Minister,
:07:09. > :07:14.
:07:15. > :07:19.often do at 5.45 in the morning sn? At the end of the show Lord Winston
:07:19. > :07:23.will give us the correct answer. It is just for fun so no need to mail
:07:23. > :07:27.in your answer. There is no prize. You have to watch on Wednesday to
:07:27. > :07:32.get a mug. The Leveson Inquiry into the culture practises and ethics of
:07:32. > :07:35.the media reaches a crucial moment this week, with both Rupert and
:07:35. > :07:40.James Murdoch being called at witnesses. Murdoch junior is up
:07:40. > :07:46.today. He is testifying as we speak with five-and-a-half hours devoted
:07:46. > :07:51.to questions the News Corp executive and his families
:07:51. > :07:55.relations with British politicians. Top of the list was the extent to
:07:55. > :08:00.which James Murdoch knew about illegal hacking at his newspapers
:08:00. > :08:05.and this whole issue which for many years was the defence it was just a
:08:05. > :08:09.rogue reporter and didn't go beyond that. That is right. The inquiry at
:08:09. > :08:13.the Royal Courts of Justice is entering what promises to be the
:08:13. > :08:17.most dramatic phase so far. Leveson was set up in response to the
:08:17. > :08:21.outrage over allegations that the News of the World had hacked the
:08:21. > :08:24.mobile phone of murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler. The men who ran the
:08:24. > :08:28.media empire at the centre of the allegations Rupert and James
:08:28. > :08:32.Murdoch have already appeared at a memorable Select Committee meeting
:08:32. > :08:35.last year. At the Leveson Inquiry they will be questioned separately,
:08:35. > :08:41.for at least a full day each by a single barrister and they will be
:08:41. > :08:45.under oath. Today, it is James Murdoch's turn. He resigned as
:08:46. > :08:50.chairman of the news operation in February and is faith facing
:08:50. > :08:54.detailed questions over what he knew and when. The inquiry is
:08:54. > :08:58.turning to the relationship between the press and our leading
:08:58. > :09:01.politicians. Rupert Murdoch has had a front row seat in British
:09:01. > :09:04.political life for decades and comments suggest he is far from
:09:04. > :09:06.happy with the Government. So this could be an uncomfortable
:09:06. > :09:12.experience for Number Ten. James Murdoch has been giving evidence
:09:12. > :09:17.for the last couple of hours. Let us look at some of what he has been
:09:17. > :09:22.saying. Weren't you told that the new evidence related to others at
:09:22. > :09:28.News of the World? What is now known as the for Neville e-mail was
:09:28. > :09:32.is important for two reasons. One reason was it was a direct link
:09:32. > :09:36.between the News of the World and Mr Mulcaire's activity with respect
:09:36. > :09:39.to Gordon Taylor, that is what was told to me. There was another
:09:39. > :09:42.reason I appreciate that it linked to wider journalists and could have
:09:42. > :09:47.been the thread to say there was more going on there, and for that,
:09:47. > :09:52.and that part of it, that part of it's importance was not imparted to
:09:52. > :09:58.me that day: Did anybody tell you at the meeting, words to this
:09:58. > :10:04.effect, the, this guy is trying to blackmail us? I don't recall those
:10:04. > :10:10.words. Or anything like them, is that your evidence Mr Murdoch?
:10:10. > :10:15.don't remember those words or words like that, it was a short meeting,
:10:15. > :10:19.and what I can say... Holding us to ransom because although his case is
:10:19. > :10:24.worth much less, he knows that we know that the reputational harm o
:10:24. > :10:28.the company would be so great, that a vast overvalue of the claim has
:10:28. > :10:33.to be made by way of settlement to get rid of it. Was that
:10:33. > :10:38.communicated? That was not the gist of what was communicated to me.
:10:38. > :10:42.10th September 2009, you had drinks with Mr Cameron at a place called
:10:42. > :10:49.the George, the topic of the discussion was the Sun's proposed
:10:49. > :10:53.endorsement of the Conservative Party. Do you see that? Yes. Was it
:10:53. > :10:58.made clear to Mr Cameron that the Sun would be endorsing the
:10:58. > :11:02.Conservative Party? It was made clear to Mr Cameron by me, that
:11:02. > :11:08.after discussions with the editor and the leadership at News
:11:08. > :11:12.International and my father, that that autumn, the Sun would either
:11:12. > :11:16.be endorsing the Conservative Party or you know, moving away from its
:11:16. > :11:23.traditional or recent support of Labour as it had been through the
:11:23. > :11:28.summer. This must have been welcome news to Mr Cameron, wasn't it?
:11:28. > :11:31.seemed that way. James Murdoch, he is still testified and will do so
:11:31. > :11:36.for the rest of the day after a break for lunch at one clock. We
:11:36. > :11:41.are joined by the Labour MP Chris Bryant who has been involved in the
:11:41. > :11:46.whole hacking scandal and the former News of the World deputy
:11:46. > :11:51.editor Paul con-- conknew. I want to separate two things. First is
:11:51. > :11:55.James Murdoch's role in hacking scandal. The second his
:11:55. > :11:59.relationship and that of his father and company with politics at a time
:11:59. > :12:03.when hay were lobbying to buy all of BSkyB. Let us stick with the
:12:03. > :12:09.hacking to begin with on this. What do you think we learned this
:12:09. > :12:14.morning from the forensic questioning of James Murdoch by the
:12:14. > :12:17.QC? We learned that James Murdoch is sticking to his line but it is
:12:17. > :12:23.unconvincing. My problem is that James can keep on saying he never
:12:23. > :12:27.read the newspaper, he never spoke to the editor, he never saw any of
:12:27. > :12:32.the e-mails. He never investigated whether it was right to spend the
:12:32. > :12:36.best part of �1 million on paying off Gordon Taylor. That makes him
:12:36. > :12:41.look incompetent F that is the tkpai, the company was so large,
:12:41. > :12:46.that he he or his father count know what was going on on the shop floor,
:12:46. > :12:50.doesn't that suggest that we as politicians in this country allowed
:12:50. > :12:54.the Murdoch empire to be big to have too much of a stranglehold
:12:54. > :12:57.over the British media. If it was a construction firm the senior
:12:57. > :13:02.executives wouldn't be able to say sorry, there has been, a terrible
:13:02. > :13:07.accident but we did, we weren't able to know whether proper safety
:13:07. > :13:10.procedures have been pursued. My argument is the corporate
:13:10. > :13:13.governance at this organisation was shoddy at best. You were talking
:13:13. > :13:16.about a time when the News International defence and James
:13:16. > :13:19.Murdoch's defence was it was a rogue reporter, and that rogue
:13:19. > :13:22.reporter had been the royal correspondent of the News of the
:13:22. > :13:27.World and he had gone to jail. And so had the private detective that
:13:27. > :13:31.had been doing the hacking for him, and giving him the reports so it
:13:31. > :13:36.was done and dusted and justice had been done. Then, inside News
:13:36. > :13:40.International they come along to James Murdoch and say, Gordon
:13:40. > :13:44.Taylor is now hack and he is demanding a lot of money to settle
:13:44. > :13:48.out of court. We have to do it. Surely the fact that it was Gordon
:13:48. > :13:51.Taylor, who is involved in football, I think some kind of football union
:13:51. > :13:56.leader, is nothing to do with royalty or the royal correspondent,
:13:56. > :14:01.that in itself, I will come to the money in a minute that, in itself
:14:01. > :14:04.should have alerted anybody to the idea so it is more than Mr Goodman
:14:04. > :14:10.involved. Certainly. Without doubt James Murdoch is falling back on
:14:10. > :14:16.the one defence open to him, which is that basically I am incompetent,
:14:16. > :14:20.I didn't ask the right questions, I have a surprising lack of a
:14:20. > :14:25.questioning mind, but I am not, I am not corrupt, I didn't lie to
:14:25. > :14:29.Parliament. That is his position. am saying that there is a statement
:14:29. > :14:33.to make T statement is not a question, the statement is clearly,
:14:33. > :14:37.well if we are hacking into the phone of people involved in
:14:37. > :14:41.football, clearly it has gone beyond one rogue reporter, because
:14:41. > :14:45.Clive Goodman has nothing to do with football. Anybody with a
:14:45. > :14:50.probing mind, let alone somebody in charge of a major international
:14:50. > :14:54.company should have actually asked that question. He didn't. He says
:14:54. > :14:57.he didn't. That is quite unbelievable. I think anybody
:14:58. > :15:02.sitting there watching that, Joe Public will think that is very hard
:15:02. > :15:06.to believe. Then you come to the second part of this, which is first
:15:06. > :15:09.of all clearly Mr Taylor, he isn't royalty so not the royal
:15:09. > :15:14.correspondent, then the sum of money that News International is
:15:14. > :15:19.being asked to pay, or is having to pay to get Mr Taylor to settle out
:15:19. > :15:26.of court. It turns out to be way above any amount ever paid before
:15:26. > :15:30.in similar cases of involving privacy. Way above the amount of
:15:30. > :15:35.money that even the News International's own QC said would
:15:35. > :15:40.be the maximum amount, and it could only be that you pay this sum of
:15:40. > :15:44.money to avoid further reputational damage, and what can be the only
:15:44. > :15:54.further damage? But the fact that the rogue reporter defence doesn't
:15:54. > :15:56.
:15:56. > :16:02.They knew for ages that the rogue reporter line was just that, a line
:16:02. > :16:06.which they hope they would be able to keep to. Watching James today,
:16:06. > :16:13.he is on oath, of course. Much more significant than when he was
:16:13. > :16:16.sitting next to his father... one person questioning him. Exactly
:16:16. > :16:21.and therefore much more frenzied. It shows up differences between the
:16:21. > :16:25.parliamentary and judicial system - - much more forensic. It looks like
:16:25. > :16:29.a man who is not telling the full truth. There is an awful lot of
:16:29. > :16:33.selective amnesia going on, just as he had wilful blindness previously
:16:33. > :16:36.when he did not read the whole of the Mail which said, by the way,
:16:36. > :16:41.there is mass criminality going on, in relation to the payment of
:16:41. > :16:47.police officers. For me, the most telling moment came from Lord
:16:47. > :16:55.Leveson, who has a habit of coming in with a really effective, short
:16:55. > :16:59.and polite questions. It was this. James's stance is to blame, Myler,
:16:59. > :17:03.the last editor, and the legal manager. But as Lord Leveson said,
:17:03. > :17:07.what was their motivation for keeping him in the dark? What
:17:07. > :17:11.logically would it be? Normally, in the circumstances, you want to
:17:11. > :17:15.spread the blame. In the case of Colin Myler, although he stands
:17:15. > :17:20.accused of having misled Parliament on his first estimate, is the fact
:17:20. > :17:25.he was not around in the country. - - his first testimony. He was not
:17:25. > :17:30.there at the time of the hacking. So it is hard to see what is
:17:30. > :17:35.motivation would be for withholding things. Let me get Robert Winston's
:17:35. > :17:39.comment on this part. I think my view is unpopular. I think one of
:17:39. > :17:45.the things that is missing is that BSkyB and the Murdoch print media
:17:45. > :17:50.have done an immensely good job at many tyres. Look at the Times'
:17:50. > :17:54.campaign on bicycling in London. Look at the Arts on BSkyB. Had this
:17:54. > :17:57.inquiry happened 10 years ago, it would have been much more
:17:57. > :18:02.significant. Increasingly, young people will be using the internet
:18:02. > :18:08.anyway, which will be almost impossible to regulate. I am not
:18:08. > :18:11.quite sure why that is relevant. the real problem is not the
:18:11. > :18:16.original phone hacking, it is the cover up. It is the perverse and of
:18:16. > :18:19.the course of justice. -- perversion. It is the biggest
:18:19. > :18:23.corporate corruption scandal in this country. I am thinking about
:18:23. > :18:29.how Leveson eventually decides what we do about it, and that is a big
:18:29. > :18:32.problem. The other issue is more difficult to keep tabs on because
:18:33. > :18:38.it is going on as we broadcast. There is implication from
:18:38. > :18:42.questioning from the QC, that the Murdoch organisation swung its
:18:42. > :18:47.support away from Labour and to the Conservatives, and then started to
:18:47. > :18:53.use that support to lobby for the right to buy the rest of BSkyB. The
:18:53. > :18:57.60% of BSkyB they didn't own. think there were three parts of the
:18:57. > :19:01.contract between the Murdochs and the Conservative Party. We have
:19:01. > :19:04.learned one thing which Cameron has not owned up to, that he did
:19:04. > :19:09.expressly discuss these matters with James Murdoch and Rupert
:19:09. > :19:12.Murdoch. Cameron has never owned up to that. Apparently they did it at
:19:12. > :19:17.Christmas lunch with Rebekah Brooks. And on another occasion, at the
:19:17. > :19:22.George pub, I don't know which George pub it is. I think there are
:19:22. > :19:27.three parts to this. Slash the BBC, that is what happened, although it
:19:28. > :19:33.was not necessary for the deficit. Secondly, the curtailing of Ofcom.
:19:33. > :19:36.Just after meeting Rupert Murdoch, David Cameron made a wonderful,
:19:36. > :19:41.wonderfully bizarre speech about slashing the quangos and the only
:19:41. > :19:44.one he was going to have a guard was Ofcom. And thirdly, it was
:19:44. > :19:52.allowing the BSkyB merger to go through. This gets very murky and
:19:52. > :19:57.difficult for Cameron. The one-time that James lost his head, his
:19:57. > :20:02.Harvard call, was when Vince Cable's name cropped up. And acute
:20:02. > :20:07.bias was the turn, in a flash of anger, probably the only real
:20:07. > :20:13.moment of anger. He may be justified from his particular
:20:13. > :20:17.position, given we know what Vince Cable thought. There is a lot of
:20:17. > :20:21.talk going around that this will be a tough week for Jeremy Hunt, the
:20:21. > :20:25.Culture Minister. Because he was very pro News International before
:20:25. > :20:30.we got into power. Indeed, he even had some great cheerleading thing
:20:30. > :20:35.on his website at one stage for the Murdochs. And he is the man who had
:20:35. > :20:39.to get involved in the BSkyB decision. We got a lot from Mr
:20:39. > :20:46.James Murdoch on, I don't recall details of my talks with Mr Hunt,
:20:46. > :20:52.it might have been to update him on the bid. For a young man... Me and
:20:52. > :20:57.Robert, we have more of an excuse now. You are obsessed with your age
:20:57. > :21:02.today. It is the third reference. don't remember. No, you don't
:21:03. > :21:07.recall! What I mean is that not to recall these things is quite...
:21:07. > :21:10.Unconvincing. I think it is extraordinary and I have never
:21:10. > :21:16.believed Jeremy Hunt on this. I had a private conversation with Jeremy
:21:17. > :21:20.Hunt when we were about to do any questions and he said, the only
:21:20. > :21:24.difference between you and me is that I would allow the BSkyB merger
:21:24. > :21:32.to go ahead tomorrow and you wouldn't. You are telling us, he
:21:32. > :21:37.said he was in favour of the full takeover? This was actually when it
:21:37. > :21:42.was still Vince Cable's responsibility. It appeared as I
:21:42. > :21:47.was coming in, James's evidence, that a meeting was only cancelled
:21:47. > :21:53.by Jeremy Hunt, it seems, on legal advice. Which she jests Jeremy Hunt
:21:53. > :21:58.was willing to still need him during the course of the BSkyB bid.
:21:58. > :22:02.-- which suggests. Where does this leave us? It has taken us not very
:22:02. > :22:05.much further forward on phone hacking. I think the revelation
:22:05. > :22:15.about politics will get stronger. Tomorrow, when Rupert Murdoch
:22:15. > :22:15.
:22:15. > :22:18.appears, I think a few political bombs will be thrown. I hope the
:22:18. > :22:23.politicians, in the future, don't do what we have done for 40 years,
:22:23. > :22:27.which is allow one person to have such a sway. That includes Labour
:22:27. > :22:31.as much as anybody else. It is longer than 40 years, it has always
:22:31. > :22:37.gone on. That is why I think how you regulate the press is very
:22:37. > :22:43.difficult. The bit that is being avoided is the criminal stuff. I
:22:43. > :22:47.think when people see... I have seen some of the stuff, I think
:22:47. > :22:50.people will be truly shocked. you very much for that. We will
:22:50. > :22:54.bring you an update on what James Murdoch has been saying before the
:22:54. > :22:57.end of the programme. Time for the latest in a series of
:22:57. > :23:02.interviews with the candidates who hope to become the next Mayor of
:23:02. > :23:07.London. Today, the turn of UKIP's Lawrence Webb. What is his
:23:07. > :23:13.platform? He wants to stop any EU legislation impinging on the City
:23:13. > :23:16.of London. He is proposing zero- tolerance on gangs, knife crime and
:23:16. > :23:26.anti-social behaviour, with a new role of defender on Saturday, face
:23:26. > :23:28.
:23:28. > :23:37.court on Monday. -- a new rule of They would restrict the extension
:23:37. > :23:40.-- and scrap the congestion charge. They would let landlords decide
:23:40. > :23:45.whether to have smoking in pubs and clubs. They want to make it easier
:23:45. > :23:48.for people to carry out citizens' arrests. Lawrence Webb has joined
:23:48. > :23:52.us in the studio. Thank you for coming in. Let's look at some of
:23:52. > :23:56.those quite eye-catching policies. The main problem is, you wouldn't
:23:56. > :24:00.have the power to implement them. There's a lot disgust that the
:24:00. > :24:04.other candidates have been discussing, that they can't do -- a
:24:04. > :24:12.lot that has been discussed. Part of the mayor's role is to create a
:24:12. > :24:17.vision for London. In terms of landlords allowing smoking, that
:24:17. > :24:22.would break the law. Businesses, pubs, have been closing at the rate
:24:22. > :24:26.of 28 per week. Have we have to create an environment which is good
:24:26. > :24:30.for business. It is a point that needs to be made. The government
:24:30. > :24:34.keep coming up with strategies to tackle anti-social behaviour,
:24:34. > :24:37.drinking and things like that. People don't get drunk in pubs.
:24:37. > :24:44.They buy cheap alcohol in supermarkets, landlords are they
:24:44. > :24:48.responsible to their drinkers. admit that many of the things you
:24:48. > :24:53.propose are not things you can do. They are creating a vision. People
:24:53. > :24:56.may think, the voters out there, cutting VAT, for example... Boris
:24:56. > :24:59.can't build an airport in the Thames Estuary but there has been
:24:59. > :25:02.an awful lot of coverage about it. It is creating a vision and that is
:25:02. > :25:07.what I am doing. What about some of the things that you could actually
:25:07. > :25:11.do? What are the leading lights in your manifesto in terms of what you
:25:11. > :25:16.could actually changed. One of the things people talk about his crime,
:25:16. > :25:19.people are concerned about crime. What we saw after the riots is that
:25:19. > :25:23.people were rounded up, brought before the courts and Del very
:25:23. > :25:27.quickly. Statistics show us that about 200 crimes a day are
:25:27. > :25:31.committed by people on bail. You only see the headlines with the
:25:31. > :25:35.murderers and rapists but a lot of those crimes are low-level anti-
:25:35. > :25:40.social crimes. The sooner people are put away, the less chance they
:25:40. > :25:43.have got to commit crimes, biting people's lives will stop you have
:25:43. > :25:47.also suggested the sit -- extension of citizens' arrest powers, how
:25:47. > :25:52.will that word? It deals with a lot of low-level
:25:52. > :25:56.crime. -- how will that work? People are afraid to intervene
:25:56. > :26:00.because they are afraid they will be arrested and charged. Or that
:26:00. > :26:04.they might get hurt? If a lot of it is a young kids committing crimes,
:26:04. > :26:09.on some of these estates around London, the perpetrators are
:26:09. > :26:12.actually quite young, 10, 11, 12, young teenagers. People used to
:26:12. > :26:19.have respect for adults and if people told them to pack it in,
:26:19. > :26:23.they would. Now they fear to get -- to intervene in case they get
:26:23. > :26:26.trouble themselves. Are you advising people to step in?
:26:26. > :26:29.would support people, if they are intervening to prevent crime, the
:26:29. > :26:33.law should protect those people that are upholding the law.
:26:33. > :26:39.don't think it is a dangerous line to cross-question not everyone is
:26:39. > :26:42.going to do it but where it is done, they should be supported. -- you
:26:42. > :26:47.don't think it is a dangerous line to cross?
:26:47. > :26:53.Have you got fresh choice for London as York slogan? Yes, we also
:26:53. > :26:58.have the logo on the ballot paper. -- as your slogan. We have the logo
:26:58. > :27:08.and the description is, fresh toys for London. As we were campaigning,
:27:08. > :27:15.that is what people wanted. You're not running a shy of the party?
:27:15. > :27:19.ballot paper has got UKIP on it. 2008, UKIP came in 7th place behind
:27:19. > :27:23.the BNP and the Christian People's around so what are your best hopes?
:27:23. > :27:26.A lot has happened since then. A recent poll put us less than one
:27:27. > :27:32.percentage point behind the Liberal Democrats and clearly ahead of the
:27:32. > :27:36.greens. That is despite the greens getting in all of the debates and
:27:36. > :27:40.me being resigned to the also-rans afterwards. You are all souk
:27:40. > :27:44.running for the London Assembly. -- also running. The media have
:27:44. > :27:49.portrayed this as a two-horse race. If you in the media but explain the
:27:49. > :27:52.voting system, it would open up the contest. The first vote is a truly
:27:52. > :27:56.free vote. You can vote for whichever party you want. Your
:27:56. > :28:00.second preference, your security blanket, if you like. If your
:28:00. > :28:03.preferred candidate doesn't get through, your second vote counts.
:28:03. > :28:08.Who would you advise voters to put a second preference? We have said
:28:08. > :28:13.boroughs because we think Ken would be so disastrous. -- we have said
:28:13. > :28:18.Boris. Would you consider running for London? I think the idea of the
:28:18. > :28:21.two-horse race is about right, I think it is one of the problems. I
:28:21. > :28:25.don't understand how we have arrived at the Labour Party
:28:25. > :28:28.choosing Ken Livingstone. I think it has been shown to be a tricky
:28:29. > :28:34.customer. I would have thought we would have had a fresher view about
:28:34. > :28:38.how London might be led. UKIP is the fresh choice. Forgive me, I
:28:38. > :28:42.don't think we will be supporting UKIP. We get support from a good
:28:43. > :28:49.many Labour voters. I think there is a real dilemma for lot of people
:28:49. > :28:54.in London at the moment. My personal view is a personal view. I
:28:54. > :28:59.am not sure that the party interest is the key issue here. I think the
:28:59. > :29:02.person who represents London, their personality is very important.
:29:02. > :29:08.Labour would argue he was a big enough personality to take on Boris
:29:08. > :29:10.Johnson. I think he has espoused some disastrous causes and some of
:29:10. > :29:15.his comments on international politics seem to be extremely
:29:15. > :29:20.unhealthy. Do you wish you had gone for it? Could you have been the
:29:20. > :29:26.alternative? Like Andrew, I am too old. I don't think there is an age
:29:26. > :29:31.barrier. Ken doesn't think there is. I like science. I am quite her
:29:31. > :29:36.young compared to Ken Livingstone. Did you think about it. It is too
:29:36. > :29:41.late now. I think you did. I didn't. And thank you very much, Lawrence
:29:41. > :29:46.Webb. Just over a week to go until the
:29:46. > :29:50.party's battle it out at the local elections. The race to be Mayor of
:29:50. > :29:54.London as well. They have many tools in their armoury, like the
:29:54. > :30:00.door-to-door leaflet drop, the appearances on programmes like this
:30:00. > :30:03.one, and not to forget, they are still around, the PEB, the party
:30:03. > :30:07.election broadcast. They come around every year, every time there
:30:07. > :30:12.is an election. I know all of you have been glued to those thrilling
:30:12. > :30:17.3 minute chunks of television gold. This year, our very own guest of
:30:18. > :30:25.the day, Robert Winston, has even starred in one. If you haven't had
:30:25. > :30:30.Pitch, real people, or should a political party throw a bit of
:30:30. > :30:35.celebrity into their election broadcast, like say a TV doctor.
:30:35. > :30:42.The NHS deals with when we are at our most vulnerable. At our most
:30:42. > :30:46.frightened. When we are naked. is bizarre. It is odd it is the
:30:46. > :30:52.local election. When does it tell you? OK. I am watching Labour's
:30:52. > :30:55.offering with man who makes it his business o know what sways if
:30:55. > :30:58.voters. What they have tried to do is use a professional. They are
:30:58. > :31:03.using Robert Winston, he is well- known from his work on television
:31:03. > :31:08.but he is a leading doctor, doctors are some of the most trusted people
:31:08. > :31:15.in Britain so Labour have gone for broke by having no politicians
:31:15. > :31:19.whatever in their video. But do politicians do it better? Boris
:31:19. > :31:26.Johnson and a Pickles Cameron duo take the lead for the Conservatives.
:31:26. > :31:31.Don't led Labour do to your council what it did to the country. Sach
:31:31. > :31:36.has been behind many Tory ad campaigns. Its chief executive says
:31:36. > :31:41.a leader's pitch sometimes doesn't work. Some politicians believe
:31:41. > :31:47.talking to camera and at people will be memorable. To a point it
:31:47. > :31:57.can be, but is it seeding in their mind an image thatly sta with them
:31:57. > :31:57.
:31:57. > :32:03.and change their mind in where they put the tick in the box. There is a
:32:03. > :32:07.preponderance of men in suits. No men in suits for the Green Party.
:32:07. > :32:11.We can't vote. I can't vote. But you can. And real people are what
:32:12. > :32:15.it is all about for many of London's mayoral candidates
:32:15. > :32:18.although Ken Livingstone got into trouble over this one. This is a
:32:18. > :32:22.party political broadcast on behalf of ordinary Londoners. It turned
:32:22. > :32:25.out some of those ordinary Londoners had their lines scripted
:32:25. > :32:30.and were paid expenses to turn up. There are other ways to connect
:32:30. > :32:34.with the voter though. Like the faithful election battle bus for
:32:34. > :32:38.example which seems to be the tool of choice for London's mayoral
:32:38. > :32:41.hopefuls but you can't get a bus in your living room. Which is where
:32:41. > :32:46.you might think a party election broadcast on TV would be better.
:32:46. > :32:49.Seven out of ten said they watched one and one in eight said it had
:32:49. > :32:55.influenced the way they voted, which is the same as national press,
:32:55. > :33:00.so in a sense they can have an impact. And viewing figure show
:33:00. > :33:05.that party political broadcasts were watched by an average of 7
:33:05. > :33:09.10,000 people last year. A word of advice from the world of marketing?
:33:09. > :33:13.Effective political advertising is about setting an agenda, you make
:33:13. > :33:18.sure that the battle is fought on the territory that you want it to
:33:18. > :33:23.be fought on, not what the other side wants it to be fought on.
:33:23. > :33:29.Robert Winston who stars in that Labour latest election broadcast.
:33:29. > :33:32.We are joined by the man who knows everything and more about party
:33:32. > :33:36.election broadcasts aren't all that goes on round them Michael
:33:36. > :33:40.Cockerell, welcome back to the programme. Now, Robert you appear
:33:40. > :33:44.in this Labour broadcast and you talk about the National Health
:33:44. > :33:50.Service, it won't have escaped your mind it is not about the National
:33:50. > :33:53.Health Service. Unfortunately I think they are. There is a miscop
:33:53. > :33:56.shenion the Health and Social Care Bill involves local politics as
:33:56. > :33:59.more people come into social care and more payment will come from
:33:59. > :34:04.Local Authorities. That is the problem. You know, I don't see
:34:04. > :34:08.myself as a celebrity doing this, I had grave misgivings about doing it,
:34:08. > :34:12.but I feel so strongly this is a moral issue, I sat through this
:34:12. > :34:15.bill for a year-and-a-half, feeling increasingly uncomfortable and I
:34:15. > :34:19.felt I ought to speak out. understand that and you have been
:34:19. > :34:25.on this programme giving your struens health reform, I have no
:34:25. > :34:29.problem with that, but Local Authorities,, they deliver Health
:34:29. > :34:32.Service, but what you object to, what you complain about can only be
:34:32. > :34:35.changed by national Government. think it can be changed by a
:34:35. > :34:40.general feeling about what will be happening locally to be fair. You
:34:40. > :34:43.know one of the issues of course is that the health service has been
:34:43. > :34:46.fragmented, with the new commissioning groups there already
:34:46. > :34:51.several hundred groups of which they will be local who will be hor
:34:51. > :34:57.in charge of what happens locally. We will not have a National Health
:34:57. > :35:00.Service. The risk is we will have a local Health Service which has
:35:00. > :35:04.health inequalities in different parts, like London. There was a
:35:05. > :35:08.time some of us vaguely remember when there was no internet, no
:35:08. > :35:11.bloggers and the party political broadcasts were shown at the same
:35:11. > :35:15.time. Can you re, it didn't matter which channel you were watching,
:35:15. > :35:20.there it was. In these days you think if there is no escape they
:35:20. > :35:24.must have been important. Are they as important? I don't think they
:35:24. > :35:28.are. It was a captive audience. Now they are two or three minutes they
:35:28. > :35:31.used to be as long as a quarter of an hour or half an hour. It was
:35:31. > :35:36.Margaret Thatcher who first said I believe in choice, so you don't all
:35:36. > :35:41.to to watch me at the same time on the then three channels. She was
:35:41. > :35:44.the first one to do it and also she was the first one to be told by
:35:44. > :35:50.Saatchi and Saatchi, anything you can say in half an hour, quarter of
:35:50. > :35:58.an hour you can say in two or three minutes. They wanted to have spots
:35:58. > :36:02.like Americans, spots of 30 seconds. Why, Robert, is Ed Miliband not in
:36:02. > :36:07.the Labour commercial, if I can call it that? That is interesting.
:36:07. > :36:12.That is why I raised the question. I think you would have to ask him
:36:12. > :36:21.that question. And also the people who run, you know who run the party
:36:21. > :36:26.affairs. I am not in that circle. I have no idea. I understand. They
:36:26. > :36:30.put Robert Winston on as an ordinary person, celebrity,
:36:30. > :36:34.television doctor. With more credibility. He begins by saying I
:36:34. > :36:41.never thought I would make party political broadcast, although I had
:36:41. > :36:44.to suppress a certain smile when you, yes, watching you and talking
:36:44. > :36:48.extolling the virtues of the health service and attacking David Cameron.
:36:48. > :36:52.I seem to ren when Alastair Campbell has to put the thumb
:36:52. > :36:56.screws and gag on you when you attacked Labour's plan tons Health
:36:56. > :37:01.Service. We as a result of that doubled the investments in the
:37:01. > :37:10.Health Service, Tony Blair did come true, came through straight away
:37:10. > :37:16.and... We are not here to talk about Blair's health. Here is a
:37:16. > :37:21.thought, to get your reaction. We have always been against having
:37:21. > :37:31.commercials on British television for politicians, as some people
:37:31. > :37:32.
:37:32. > :37:35.suggest it. Mr Basil get. So Mr Basil get, that why he has been
:37:35. > :37:40.Robert Winston throughout the show. He is suggesting it. One of the
:37:40. > :37:43.huge problems is the vast sums of money you need to buy, because the
:37:43. > :37:48.TV stations always demand the top dollar because you have nowhere
:37:48. > :37:52.else to go. I don't think many people want to go down that route.
:37:52. > :37:55.Rupert Murdoch of all people suggested Americans should have
:37:55. > :38:00.British style party election broadcasts for free in all the
:38:00. > :38:06.networks. In the age of broadband n internet. The parties can make
:38:06. > :38:10.their own commercials now and seen by a lot of people. Int There is
:38:10. > :38:15.still a huge audience on terrestrial television, they won't
:38:15. > :38:19.naturally use this and switch over, especially if the broadcast is made
:38:19. > :38:25.engaging, if you saw the David Cameron's one, it was made exactly
:38:25. > :38:30.like a news report, very much like Nick Robinson's news report. The
:38:31. > :38:35.same shot, getting on the train, holding his red bag, walking off by
:38:35. > :38:41.himself. Never gets off a train by himself. Gets off with 20 people.
:38:41. > :38:47.For a broadcast he gets off by himself. I think we better leave it
:38:48. > :38:52.there. Nobody cried in the making of these broadcasts were were told.
:38:52. > :38:59.Unlike Ken Livingstone, nobody cried. The authentic tears or not.
:38:59. > :39:05.Thank you for being on Michael. On Friday evening, George Osborne
:39:05. > :39:07.announced that Britain will loan the International Monetary Fund �
:39:07. > :39:10.10 billion. Yesterday the Chancellor explained his decison to
:39:10. > :39:20.the House of Commons and faced some criticism from both sides of the
:39:20. > :39:21.
:39:21. > :39:26.house. We will not turn our back on the IMF or turn our back on the
:39:26. > :39:29.world: That would be a betrayal of our country's interests and our kun
:39:29. > :39:36.tri's identity, and it would incidentally at the same time be a
:39:36. > :39:39.betrayal of my party's history. Mr Speaker, it is because of the
:39:39. > :39:44.decisive action this Government has taken to deal with our own debts we
:39:44. > :39:48.can be part of the solution and no longer part of the problem. Would
:39:48. > :39:53.with the US not contributing this is clearly less than the UK's quota
:39:53. > :39:59.share. Could it be that if he had contributed a fraction more, he
:39:59. > :40:04.would have to come to this House and ask for Parliamentary approval?
:40:04. > :40:11.After the budget shambles of the last few weeks, isn't this
:40:11. > :40:15.Chancellor running scared of both sides of this snbg The only way
:40:15. > :40:20.that Spain, Italy Portugal and Greece are to become come petstive
:40:20. > :40:24.and get their economies growing again, is a return to national
:40:24. > :40:31.currency. Does not the chancellor agree that it is bonkers of a
:40:31. > :40:38.policy to pour billions of billions of UK tax payers' money into
:40:38. > :40:41.supporting to failed euro? When one's friends are trapped in a
:40:41. > :40:45.burning building, isn't the kindest thing to do to lead them in the
:40:45. > :40:55.direction of the exits in an ordinary way, rather than give them
:40:55. > :40:56.
:40:56. > :41:01.billions to stay exactly where they are? It is to make sure that the
:41:01. > :41:05.Fire Brigade has enough water to deal with the problem. We all know
:41:05. > :41:09.this is state sponsored money laundering to prop up the failed,
:41:09. > :41:15.the doomed European project called the euro. It does not come without
:41:15. > :41:20.a heavy human cost, this deal means that in southern Europe the
:41:20. > :41:24.imposition of net tightening of 3% per year, without jouf setting
:41:24. > :41:29.monastery stim louse or demand growth in the rest of Europe or
:41:29. > :41:35.structural reforms. On that basis why is the Chancellor throwing good
:41:35. > :41:40.UK tapes money after bad for this - - taxpayers money after bad for
:41:40. > :41:46.this economic madness? And we are joined by the Conservative MP
:41:46. > :41:50.Claire Perry and Chris Lesley. Welcome to both of you. Yesterday
:41:50. > :41:55.George Osborne said that what he was doing was helping countries
:41:56. > :41:59.including groups of countries, the eurozone who get into trouble. Yet
:41:59. > :42:08.in October 2010 he said clearly Britain will not be putting money
:42:08. > :42:12.into the bail out fund directly or through in the IMF the IMF
:42:12. > :42:18.contributing money, no. It is true. It is not going into the bail out
:42:18. > :42:24.fund. It is going to... To bail out the euro. Isn't it great we part of
:42:24. > :42:28.the solution and not the problem. Let us get it right here. The IMF
:42:28. > :42:33.is putting the had round because it need more money for its number one
:42:33. > :42:37.consense which is the eurozone. No it is lending to countries not
:42:37. > :42:41.currencies. Let me finish the question. I am not talking about
:42:41. > :42:45.currency, I know it doesn't support currencies but your own Chancellor
:42:45. > :42:54.said including groups of countries it help, that is the eurozone. The
:42:54. > :42:59.reason why the IMF has done this, and you have to read anything, it
:42:59. > :43:04.needs a bigger firewall to help if the eurozone needs a bail out and
:43:04. > :43:07.the eurozone bail out will join with the IMF bail out. That is the
:43:07. > :43:13.opposite of what the Chancellor told us. What we heard yesterday it
:43:13. > :43:15.was the right thing to do, it was supported in November by your
:43:15. > :43:19.shadow cans lo, it was supported yesterday by Alistair Darling and
:43:19. > :43:25.it is the right thing to do. I go back to the point. We have a fire
:43:25. > :43:31.burning in Europe. We have euro gedsen, thank goodness we we are in
:43:31. > :43:36.Britain where the pound is at a high against the euro. You admit it
:43:36. > :43:41.could well be use for the bail out? We are not putting money into the
:43:41. > :43:43.bail out fund. What we are doing is supporting the international
:43:43. > :43:48.institution that will deliver global stability. I am confused
:43:48. > :43:54.here. Is this money, is there any chance or not in your view, that
:43:54. > :43:58.this money can be used by the IMF to help with the eurozone bail out?
:43:58. > :44:01.Will it be lent to Government like Greece, will it be lent to
:44:01. > :44:06.Government like Spain whose problems are not eurozone problem,
:44:06. > :44:11.they are the sorts 06 problems we have here. So it will be lent to
:44:11. > :44:15.them. That is an option for the IMF. So it will be used in eurozone
:44:15. > :44:21.abilities. It will not go into the eurozone bail out fund. Excuse me,
:44:21. > :44:25.I am not... Look, I think language is important here. Some honesty
:44:25. > :44:29.here, you are dancing on the head of a pin. I don't think I am.
:44:29. > :44:33.are making me angry. I am not asking you if it is going into the
:44:33. > :44:37.eurozone bail out. I know that is not the case. Every financial
:44:37. > :44:43.commentator in the world knows that the purpose of this bail out, this
:44:43. > :44:47.extra money for the IMF is for the IMF to work with the eurozone bail
:44:47. > :44:53.out fund, to bail out the eurozone together. But not directly. It is
:44:53. > :44:56.going into Government lending this is the point. Andrew, I think the
:44:56. > :45:00.reason why Claire and the Chancellor are having so many
:45:00. > :45:05.problems with their own backbenchers, just a second Claire,
:45:05. > :45:09.Claire... You are not very good at letting other people have their
:45:09. > :45:12.word. Not when they are wrong. reason why so many people are angry
:45:12. > :45:17.is because the Chancellor and in a sense by your own comments you are
:45:17. > :45:22.treating them like fools, pretending that somehow this ten
:45:22. > :45:28.billion extra isn't intended for the euro bail out solution and if,
:45:28. > :45:32.this is money you might well rinse it through the IMF, but to suggest
:45:32. > :45:36.somehow that this... Just a second Claire, to suggest this isn't going
:45:36. > :45:39.to be propping up the bail out fund, which in terms of the eurozone
:45:39. > :45:43.countries themselves we, are talking wealthy country, including
:45:43. > :45:47.Germany who should have been dipping into their pocket, instead
:45:47. > :45:57.you are letting them off the hook so we, the rest of the world put
:45:57. > :45:58.
:45:58. > :46:04.Excuse me, I have got to ask him a question. Excuse me, I want to ask
:46:04. > :46:09.me -- him a question, would you let somebody else speak for a minute?
:46:09. > :46:14.Are you in favour of giving more money to the bail-out fund or not.
:46:14. > :46:18.Let him answer! It is very difficult with Claire in the room
:46:18. > :46:23.sometimes. The important thing that we have to do is look at the
:46:23. > :46:27.American position on this, the Canadian position. It is yes or no.
:46:27. > :46:30.They are saying no money for the euro bail-out, whether it is direct
:46:30. > :46:37.or indirect. I know what the American position is, what is your
:46:37. > :46:39.position. We say no and the reason is at this point in time, the
:46:39. > :46:45.eurozone countries have not been coming up with their own resources.
:46:45. > :46:48.We are letting them off the hook. My point is if we keep it in this
:46:48. > :46:54.sticking-plaster in place, it will keep taking the money from the rest
:46:54. > :46:59.of the world. For the avoidance of doubt, can I get it clear that if
:46:59. > :47:04.the IMF had come to a Labour government currently in power,
:47:04. > :47:09.would you have given the money to the IMF? No. Because it is letting
:47:09. > :47:13.them off the hook. There is a negotiation here. It is a finely
:47:14. > :47:17.balanced issue. We want the resent to be healthy and get into a state
:47:17. > :47:21.where it doesn't put the rest of the economy at risk. And where we
:47:21. > :47:25.have to support an IMF in a general sense. In this set of circumstances
:47:25. > :47:30.as a negotiation, wealthy eurozone countries and the rest of the world,
:47:30. > :47:35.to what extent can we make sure they dig into their own pockets. If
:47:35. > :47:39.we let them off the hook, we are not doing them a favour. This is
:47:39. > :47:45.the usual level of pathetic, put a full political posturing that you
:47:45. > :47:48.Alistair Darling, who has come out of your omnishambles of a Labour
:47:48. > :47:52.government with his reputation intact, said he would agree with
:47:52. > :47:56.this. Ed Balls said last November he would agree with it. You need to
:47:56. > :48:01.make up your mind to be a trouble opposition, because frankly, if I
:48:01. > :48:05.could just speak. Trying to deal with you is so difficult. This sort
:48:06. > :48:10.of pathetic political posturing has got to stop. Nobody takes you
:48:10. > :48:13.seriously, you have no economic credibility and the sorts of
:48:13. > :48:21.ridiculous comments you are making today, and Ed Balls made yesterday,
:48:21. > :48:25.proved that. Can I ask a final question. If this money is not to
:48:26. > :48:30.be used in concert with a eurozone bail-out to add to the size of the
:48:30. > :48:34.firewall for the eurozone, why is it the Americans have said we're
:48:34. > :48:40.not giving us money to the IMF, because it would be used to add to
:48:40. > :48:44.the eurozone firewall. We have a choice. I have no idea. The
:48:44. > :48:48.Americans said we have provided extraordinary amounts of liquidity
:48:48. > :48:51.through the market. The European Central Bank has provided
:48:51. > :48:54.extraordinary amount of liquidity, a supercharged programme. It is
:48:55. > :49:03.time for all sorts of countries including the UK to step up and
:49:03. > :49:09.deal with this crisis. What is very clear at is that the government
:49:09. > :49:14.when they are in a whole, they try to become more shrill. Is that
:49:14. > :49:22.because I am a woman? No, you are refusing to engage in the argument.
:49:22. > :49:27.You either bail them out now, or you hold back, don't give our money,
:49:27. > :49:34.UK tax payer's money at a time when they should be digging into their
:49:34. > :49:38.own pockets. I am not going to make any apologies, it is British money.
:49:38. > :49:42.Thank you very much. Don't interrupt me.
:49:42. > :49:47.Nick Clegg wants to scrap it and start it again but what has the
:49:47. > :49:56.Deputy Prime Minister got against the House of Lords?
:49:56. > :50:00.Here is a guide to Parliament's upper house.
:50:00. > :50:04.The Upper House is the second chamber, the House of Lords. It is
:50:04. > :50:08.independent of the elected Commons but the two houses share
:50:08. > :50:12.responsibility for checking laws and passing government action.
:50:12. > :50:16.There are 800 members of the House of Lords, the number is not fixed
:50:16. > :50:20.as it is in the Commons, and there is, as ever, talk of change.
:50:20. > :50:24.Basically, they split into three types. There are the life peers,
:50:24. > :50:29.there for the lifetime. There are 26 bishops of the Church of England
:50:29. > :50:35.and there are 92 hereditary peers, there until, well, until he knows
:50:35. > :50:40.when? The -- who knows. Lords are not elected, they are sent here
:50:40. > :50:45.mainly by the party leaders. They come from assorted fields. Some are
:50:45. > :50:49.great experts. Had they spent a bit more, we might have had a bill
:50:49. > :50:57.which would have damaged the health service a great deal less. Quite a
:50:57. > :51:01.few ex-MPs wash up here too. Debate about the quality of our national
:51:01. > :51:05.performance, in which we are all involved. This is the Prince's
:51:05. > :51:09.Chamber, a working ante room which leads into the House of Lords
:51:09. > :51:13.Chamber. It is a place where peers can come to meet, mingle and maybe
:51:13. > :51:18.do a little bit of plotting. The role of the Lords is to act as a
:51:18. > :51:22.body of specialist knowledge. The country's elders, to scrutinise in
:51:22. > :51:27.greater detail bills that have been approved by the Commons. Bills have
:51:27. > :51:30.to be approved by the Commons and the Lords. They have here in the
:51:30. > :51:34.House of Lords, government ministers, too. Not all members of
:51:34. > :51:37.the House of Lords belong to political parties. You have the
:51:37. > :51:41.crossbench peers and the bishops. They are neutral. Well, they are
:51:41. > :51:44.meant to be. The New Testament shows Jesus as having a very
:51:44. > :51:47.special concern for children. Lords acts as a constitutional
:51:47. > :51:51.safeguard. The fact it isn't elected is actually rather an
:51:51. > :51:55.important part of its flavour at the moment. It can challenge the
:51:55. > :52:01.wishes of the majority when they threaten to steamroller certain
:52:01. > :52:07.important rights. The Lords can ask the Commons to think again. It is a
:52:07. > :52:16.bit like having your homework sent back by a politically -- pernickety
:52:16. > :52:19.Robert Winston is still ask -- with us, he is a Labour member of the
:52:19. > :52:23.House of Lords. Those in favour of plans to reform the upper chamber
:52:23. > :52:27.say it is unelected, unaccountable, half the people don't turn up half
:52:27. > :52:33.the time, it is desperately-needed to be reformed and to have a mainly
:52:34. > :52:37.elected House. What is wrong with One thing is that you don't hear
:52:37. > :52:40.arguments like you have just heard in the House of Lords. People tried
:52:40. > :52:46.to look at the evidence for something and then work out what is
:52:46. > :52:50.the best solution. People like myself may take a Labour whip, or
:52:50. > :52:55.even the members of the Labour Party, but I see myself independent
:52:55. > :52:58.of my party. I often am prepared to vote against it or certainly argue
:52:58. > :53:02.against it, just as many Conservatives who, with proper
:53:02. > :53:08.legitimacy, do the same thing. This is rather unusual in a political
:53:08. > :53:11.chamber. Are you against changing it at all? No, of course not. What
:53:11. > :53:15.we should be doing is to try to decide what kind of Parliament we
:53:15. > :53:18.want to serve the best interests of the nation's, rather than to tamper
:53:18. > :53:26.with one part of the mechanism which is working quite well at the
:53:26. > :53:31.moment. We have 800 or so, not enough room, too much cost, it
:53:31. > :53:36.needs to be streamlined. I take the argument about the expertise. You
:53:36. > :53:40.could still retain an element of that expertise if you are talking
:53:40. > :53:43.about crossbenchers or even party figures like yourselves who have
:53:43. > :53:49.had other lives, in the arrangement that the government is putting
:53:49. > :53:52.forward. I don't have a problem with anything you are saying. The
:53:52. > :53:57.case for reform is not an issue. There is obviously a need for
:53:57. > :54:00.reform. But we have a bill produced by Nick Clegg, who has never sat
:54:00. > :54:05.through a debate in the House of Lords, never been to a committee,
:54:05. > :54:10.doesn't actually know how the chamber works. He must do. I don't
:54:10. > :54:14.think he does. A Labour MP said to me, after 20 years in the House of
:54:15. > :54:19.Commons, tell me, do you wear your robes during debates in the House
:54:20. > :54:26.of Lords? That shows the ignorance of the Commons. What is your
:54:26. > :54:31.biggest worry? The elected part, or are you worried about the party
:54:31. > :54:35.political part? What is your biggest concern? The biggest
:54:35. > :54:37.objection to the elected bit is you end up with people are not
:54:37. > :54:43.accountable over 15 years because they don't come back to the
:54:43. > :54:47.electorate. That is a big flaw in the Clegg bill. Also, there is an
:54:47. > :54:50.issue that one of the beauties of the place is you don't have a
:54:50. > :54:55.second-rate Commons. You have an independent chamber which is able,
:54:55. > :55:02.by looking in detail at legislation, to advise about the best way to go
:55:02. > :55:05.forward. Would you stand for election? No. That was brief. Well
:55:05. > :55:09.done. The straightest answer we have had
:55:09. > :55:14.all day! James Murdoch has been giving evidence to the Leveson
:55:14. > :55:18.inquiry all morning. In the last half hour he has been questioned
:55:18. > :55:24.about the bid for the part of BSkyB that the Murdoch organisation does
:55:24. > :55:28.not own. And about relations between News International and
:55:28. > :55:32.senior politicians. Would it be fair to say that Mrs Brooks bore
:55:32. > :55:38.the brunt of the majority of meetings with politicians, because
:55:38. > :55:42.of their relationship with politicians? -- her relationship.
:55:42. > :55:46.have seen the skill of the Prime Minister's meetings in that period.
:55:46. > :55:52.I can't remember exactly, she would have been closer to those issues
:55:52. > :55:56.than I was. Was it part of the general way of working, as it were,
:55:56. > :56:00.that Mrs Brooks might report back to you as to the outcome of any
:56:00. > :56:04.discussions, or the fact of any discussions with politicians, and
:56:04. > :56:07.then you would report anything important back to your father?
:56:07. > :56:10.time to time, she would report to me about a discussion that was
:56:10. > :56:15.relevant but she would also communicate directly with my father,
:56:16. > :56:21.with some frequency. That was James Murdoch, this is James Landale. We
:56:21. > :56:23.have done the hacking staff, this has gone on to the relationship
:56:23. > :56:29.between senior News Corp people and senior government people, including
:56:29. > :56:34.the Prime Minister, and this whole lobbying for them to buy all of
:56:34. > :56:38.BSkyB. What do we know? There is no great new smoking gun, no great
:56:38. > :56:42.document or fact that has emerged that totally changes what we knew
:56:42. > :56:46.previously. But we do know a bit more detail about the scale of the
:56:46. > :56:49.meetings that were taking place, the discussions being had. Also
:56:49. > :56:53.some of the discussions taking place in private. We have heard
:56:53. > :56:57.about the dinners that members of the Murdoch family had with David
:56:57. > :57:00.Cameron at Christmas. In the evidence we have got, from the
:57:00. > :57:05.written evidence and also the oral evidence, we know how much lobbying
:57:05. > :57:11.was going on by News International, to try to get the government on
:57:11. > :57:16.side. News International, you are saying, you obviously had superb
:57:16. > :57:21.links into government by virtue of owning four newspapers. It was
:57:21. > :57:26.leverage in these links to lobby for the BSkyB bid? That is the line
:57:26. > :57:31.of questioning that the QC involved in running the questioning has done.
:57:31. > :57:38.That is what he is trying to gnaw away at and say that his private
:57:38. > :57:41.conversations, these meetings with George Osborne and David Cameron,
:57:41. > :57:45.semis social private occasions, they were not just there for fun.
:57:45. > :57:51.They were there to lobby and pursue. What James Murdoch has been saying
:57:51. > :57:55.is no, anything he said, to use his phrase, would have been the same as
:57:55. > :57:59.his public advocacy. Is there feeling the Culture Secretary,
:57:59. > :58:02.Jeremy Hunt, is in some trouble over this? There are concerns about
:58:02. > :58:06.the nature of the relationship between Jeremy Hunt and James
:58:07. > :58:11.Murdoch, that was raised by the Leveson inquiry. Saying, he was
:58:11. > :58:15.onside, a natural ally. James Murdoch said, no more than anybody
:58:15. > :58:19.else. There was some humour and Jeremy Hunt saying on his website,
:58:19. > :58:26.that as any conservative, he thinks the Murdochs have made a great can
:58:26. > :58:30.go mad as contribution to British television. Teresa May has just
:58:30. > :58:37.started her defence. She said she had an ambiguous advice, that the
:58:37. > :58:42.deadline for this appeal was on Monday -- unambiguous advice.
:58:42. > :58:49.you for that. Thank you to Robert Winston and all of our guests. The
:58:49. > :58:55.answer is that David Cameron is usually reading through his papers