24/04/2012 Daily Politics

Afternoon folk, welcome to the Daily Politics. James Murdoch gives

evidence about the hacking scanned toll the Leveson Inquiry and runs

into trouble over what did he know and when did he know it about the

hacking scandal. Tory backbenchers criticise George Osborne's decision

to loan �10 million to the IMF with one saying it is state sponsored

money-laundering. As the London mayoral campaign enters the final

stages we will talk to UKIP's candidate in the latest -- latest

of our the contenders for Boris Johnson's job. Can a bit of

celebrity stardust liven up a party election broadcast? We will ask the

star of Labour's about his leading role. You can vote for the NHS

service, to protect it. To improve it. All that coming up in the next

hour, with us Labour peer, doctor, scientist, broadcast er, PEB star

Robert Winston. Morning. We will come to the James Murdoch testimony

shortly he is being questioned about the Murdoch family's links

with politician in relation to the BSkyB, the attempt to take over all

of BSkyB. We will bring you that and more in the next hour. Let us

kick off with the star turn in Parliament today. Not Theresa May

being questioned by MPs but none other than the comedian and actor

Russell Brand. Ehere he is talking to the Home Affairs Committee this

morning as part of their inquiry into drugs. For me what is more

significant is the way we socially regard the condition of addiction.

It is something that I consider to be an illness and therefore more a

health matter than a criminal or judicial matter. I don't think that

legalisation is something as I said I alqualified to get into. I can

see areas where decriminalisation might be more useful and efficient,

in countries like Portugal and Switzerland where there has been

trials. It seems to have had some efibg si. It is more important we

regard people suffering from addiction with compassion, and

there is a pragmatic rather than symbolic approach to treating it.

That was Russell Brand talking to MPs in the last half hour. It must

be very warm in that Select Committee hearing. Either that or

his acting career is not going so well! And he is struggling to

afford any clothes. It detracted from what he had to say. Let us go

to the substance. Drug policy at the moment in this country, I mean,

in many, when you look at how widespread drugs are in this

country, and the useage and the grief and horrible things they

cause, the war on drugs hasn't really worked has it. No, I don't

think the policy on drug -- drugs is rational. I think globally it

isn't rational. We have roughly the same policy. We do which is to

criminalise them to make it more difficult to obtain them. You push

up the price of the drug, you increase the black market. There is

a strong case for decriminalising drugs. All drugs? Probably all.

mean as I understand it Russell Brand was a heroin addict at one

stage. One of the great things about that is you could start with

the softer drug, for example we know that cannabis which is hugely

controversial are, it is dubious whether they cause serious ill

effects and ex ta -- ecstasy that applies. I thought, our generation

thinks, of cannabis from the 06. I am told that today, it is much

tougher. It is much stronger. And the other argument is that it is a

gateway drug. People start on cannabis and the people feeding

them the cannabis are the ones who say why don't you try some cocaine.

Crack, heroin. I know that and I think that is an argument which is

often put forward, but the fact is, you know, is alcohol a gateway

drug? The truth is alcohol kills far more people, damages more Clive

lives. Alcohol is legal. Yes... the guy push Meg the bottle of

whisky, and he is not pushing me, I go into the off-licence and ask for

it, he is not then saying would you like to have something stronger

under-the-counter? I think this of course is one of the reasons. There

has been this conflict the scientific evidence and the policy

evidence. Ministers have been adviceed by scientists that there

should be a relaxing of some of the drugs while public policy has been

in conflict because there are other issues like the alcohol issue and

the pricing. Politicians run a mile from this, don't they, on the left

and right. There are many occasion in public policy when you take

decisions which aren't necessarily entirely amicable to the population.

Hanging, many people feel they would like to see on it statute

books. Maybe we should be looking more bravely at drug useage. Does

the appearance of someone like Russell Brand, does that matter?

Does it make a difference? I can't believe it helps the Select

Committee to take up a de-- decision like this. We had a Select

Committee where we looked at cannabis and we came to the

conclusion that really it would be quite reasonable to use cannabis as

a prescriptive drug, Because we have to move on, we have the

Murdoch testimony going on what is the difference between

decriminalising drugs and legal ing them. I think there is a difference.

If you decriminalise a drug you can regulate it. If you make it a

criminal offence, then of course it is not regulated in the same way at

all. OK. Jo. On to something different. Time for the quiz. The

question for today is what does David Cameron, the Prime Minister,

often do at 5.45 in the morning sn? At the end of the show Lord Winston

will give us the correct answer. It is just for fun so no need to mail

in your answer. There is no prize. You have to watch on Wednesday to

get a mug. The Leveson Inquiry into the culture practises and ethics of

the media reaches a crucial moment this week, with both Rupert and

James Murdoch being called at witnesses. Murdoch junior is up

today. He is testifying as we speak with five-and-a-half hours devoted

to questions the News Corp executive and his families

relations with British politicians. Top of the list was the extent to

which James Murdoch knew about illegal hacking at his newspapers

and this whole issue which for many years was the defence it was just a

rogue reporter and didn't go beyond that. That is right. The inquiry at

the Royal Courts of Justice is entering what promises to be the

most dramatic phase so far. Leveson was set up in response to the

outrage over allegations that the News of the World had hacked the

mobile phone of murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler. The men who ran the

media empire at the centre of the allegations Rupert and James

Murdoch have already appeared at a memorable Select Committee meeting

last year. At the Leveson Inquiry they will be questioned separately,

for at least a full day each by a single barrister and they will be

under oath. Today, it is James Murdoch's turn. He resigned as

chairman of the news operation in February and is faith facing

detailed questions over what he knew and when. The inquiry is

turning to the relationship between the press and our leading

politicians. Rupert Murdoch has had a front row seat in British

political life for decades and comments suggest he is far from

happy with the Government. So this could be an uncomfortable

experience for Number Ten. James Murdoch has been giving evidence

for the last couple of hours. Let us look at some of what he has been

saying. Weren't you told that the new evidence related to others at

News of the World? What is now known as the for Neville e-mail was

is important for two reasons. One reason was it was a direct link

between the News of the World and Mr Mulcaire's activity with respect

to Gordon Taylor, that is what was told to me. There was another

reason I appreciate that it linked to wider journalists and could have

been the thread to say there was more going on there, and for that,

and that part of it, that part of it's importance was not imparted to

me that day: Did anybody tell you at the meeting, words to this

effect, the, this guy is trying to blackmail us? I don't recall those

words. Or anything like them, is that your evidence Mr Murdoch?

don't remember those words or words like that, it was a short meeting,

and what I can say... Holding us to ransom because although his case is

worth much less, he knows that we know that the reputational harm o

the company would be so great, that a vast overvalue of the claim has

to be made by way of settlement to get rid of it. Was that

communicated? That was not the gist of what was communicated to me.

10th September 2009, you had drinks with Mr Cameron at a place called

the George, the topic of the discussion was the Sun's proposed

endorsement of the Conservative Party. Do you see that? Yes. Was it

made clear to Mr Cameron that the Sun would be endorsing the

Conservative Party? It was made clear to Mr Cameron by me, that

after discussions with the editor and the leadership at News

International and my father, that that autumn, the Sun would either

be endorsing the Conservative Party or you know, moving away from its

traditional or recent support of Labour as it had been through the

summer. This must have been welcome news to Mr Cameron, wasn't it?

seemed that way. James Murdoch, he is still testified and will do so

for the rest of the day after a break for lunch at one clock. We

are joined by the Labour MP Chris Bryant who has been involved in the

whole hacking scandal and the former News of the World deputy

editor Paul con-- conknew. I want to separate two things. First is

James Murdoch's role in hacking scandal. The second his

relationship and that of his father and company with politics at a time

when hay were lobbying to buy all of BSkyB. Let us stick with the

hacking to begin with on this. What do you think we learned this

morning from the forensic questioning of James Murdoch by the

QC? We learned that James Murdoch is sticking to his line but it is

unconvincing. My problem is that James can keep on saying he never

read the newspaper, he never spoke to the editor, he never saw any of

the e-mails. He never investigated whether it was right to spend the

best part of �1 million on paying off Gordon Taylor. That makes him

look incompetent F that is the tkpai, the company was so large,

that he he or his father count know what was going on on the shop floor,

doesn't that suggest that we as politicians in this country allowed

the Murdoch empire to be big to have too much of a stranglehold

over the British media. If it was a construction firm the senior

executives wouldn't be able to say sorry, there has been, a terrible

accident but we did, we weren't able to know whether proper safety

procedures have been pursued. My argument is the corporate

governance at this organisation was shoddy at best. You were talking

about a time when the News International defence and James

Murdoch's defence was it was a rogue reporter, and that rogue

reporter had been the royal correspondent of the News of the

World and he had gone to jail. And so had the private detective that

had been doing the hacking for him, and giving him the reports so it

was done and dusted and justice had been done. Then, inside News

International they come along to James Murdoch and say, Gordon

Taylor is now hack and he is demanding a lot of money to settle

out of court. We have to do it. Surely the fact that it was Gordon

Taylor, who is involved in football, I think some kind of football union

leader, is nothing to do with royalty or the royal correspondent,

that in itself, I will come to the money in a minute that, in itself

should have alerted anybody to the idea so it is more than Mr Goodman

involved. Certainly. Without doubt James Murdoch is falling back on

the one defence open to him, which is that basically I am incompetent,

I didn't ask the right questions, I have a surprising lack of a

questioning mind, but I am not, I am not corrupt, I didn't lie to

Parliament. That is his position. am saying that there is a statement

to make T statement is not a question, the statement is clearly,

well if we are hacking into the phone of people involved in

football, clearly it has gone beyond one rogue reporter, because

Clive Goodman has nothing to do with football. Anybody with a

probing mind, let alone somebody in charge of a major international

company should have actually asked that question. He didn't. He says

he didn't. That is quite unbelievable. I think anybody

sitting there watching that, Joe Public will think that is very hard

to believe. Then you come to the second part of this, which is first

of all clearly Mr Taylor, he isn't royalty so not the royal

correspondent, then the sum of money that News International is

being asked to pay, or is having to pay to get Mr Taylor to settle out

of court. It turns out to be way above any amount ever paid before

in similar cases of involving privacy. Way above the amount of

money that even the News International's own QC said would

be the maximum amount, and it could only be that you pay this sum of

money to avoid further reputational damage, and what can be the only

further damage? But the fact that the rogue reporter defence doesn't

They knew for ages that the rogue reporter line was just that, a line

which they hope they would be able to keep to. Watching James today,

he is on oath, of course. Much more significant than when he was

sitting next to his father... one person questioning him. Exactly

and therefore much more frenzied. It shows up differences between the

parliamentary and judicial system - - much more forensic. It looks like

a man who is not telling the full truth. There is an awful lot of

selective amnesia going on, just as he had wilful blindness previously

when he did not read the whole of the Mail which said, by the way,

there is mass criminality going on, in relation to the payment of

police officers. For me, the most telling moment came from Lord

Leveson, who has a habit of coming in with a really effective, short

and polite questions. It was this. James's stance is to blame, Myler,

the last editor, and the legal manager. But as Lord Leveson said,

what was their motivation for keeping him in the dark? What

logically would it be? Normally, in the circumstances, you want to

spread the blame. In the case of Colin Myler, although he stands

accused of having misled Parliament on his first estimate, is the fact

he was not around in the country. - - his first testimony. He was not

there at the time of the hacking. So it is hard to see what is

motivation would be for withholding things. Let me get Robert Winston's

comment on this part. I think my view is unpopular. I think one of

the things that is missing is that BSkyB and the Murdoch print media

have done an immensely good job at many tyres. Look at the Times'

campaign on bicycling in London. Look at the Arts on BSkyB. Had this

inquiry happened 10 years ago, it would have been much more

significant. Increasingly, young people will be using the internet

anyway, which will be almost impossible to regulate. I am not

quite sure why that is relevant. the real problem is not the

original phone hacking, it is the cover up. It is the perverse and of

the course of justice. -- perversion. It is the biggest

corporate corruption scandal in this country. I am thinking about

how Leveson eventually decides what we do about it, and that is a big

problem. The other issue is more difficult to keep tabs on because

it is going on as we broadcast. There is implication from

questioning from the QC, that the Murdoch organisation swung its

support away from Labour and to the Conservatives, and then started to

use that support to lobby for the right to buy the rest of BSkyB. The

60% of BSkyB they didn't own. think there were three parts of the

contract between the Murdochs and the Conservative Party. We have

learned one thing which Cameron has not owned up to, that he did

expressly discuss these matters with James Murdoch and Rupert

Murdoch. Cameron has never owned up to that. Apparently they did it at

Christmas lunch with Rebekah Brooks. And on another occasion, at the

George pub, I don't know which George pub it is. I think there are

three parts to this. Slash the BBC, that is what happened, although it

was not necessary for the deficit. Secondly, the curtailing of Ofcom.

Just after meeting Rupert Murdoch, David Cameron made a wonderful,

wonderfully bizarre speech about slashing the quangos and the only

one he was going to have a guard was Ofcom. And thirdly, it was

allowing the BSkyB merger to go through. This gets very murky and

difficult for Cameron. The one-time that James lost his head, his

Harvard call, was when Vince Cable's name cropped up. And acute

bias was the turn, in a flash of anger, probably the only real

moment of anger. He may be justified from his particular

position, given we know what Vince Cable thought. There is a lot of

talk going around that this will be a tough week for Jeremy Hunt, the

Culture Minister. Because he was very pro News International before

we got into power. Indeed, he even had some great cheerleading thing

on his website at one stage for the Murdochs. And he is the man who had

to get involved in the BSkyB decision. We got a lot from Mr

James Murdoch on, I don't recall details of my talks with Mr Hunt,

it might have been to update him on the bid. For a young man... Me and

Robert, we have more of an excuse now. You are obsessed with your age

today. It is the third reference. don't remember. No, you don't

recall! What I mean is that not to recall these things is quite...

Unconvincing. I think it is extraordinary and I have never

believed Jeremy Hunt on this. I had a private conversation with Jeremy

Hunt when we were about to do any questions and he said, the only

difference between you and me is that I would allow the BSkyB merger

to go ahead tomorrow and you wouldn't. You are telling us, he

said he was in favour of the full takeover? This was actually when it

was still Vince Cable's responsibility. It appeared as I

was coming in, James's evidence, that a meeting was only cancelled

by Jeremy Hunt, it seems, on legal advice. Which she jests Jeremy Hunt

was willing to still need him during the course of the BSkyB bid.

-- which suggests. Where does this leave us? It has taken us not very

much further forward on phone hacking. I think the revelation

about politics will get stronger. Tomorrow, when Rupert Murdoch

appears, I think a few political bombs will be thrown. I hope the

politicians, in the future, don't do what we have done for 40 years,

which is allow one person to have such a sway. That includes Labour

as much as anybody else. It is longer than 40 years, it has always

gone on. That is why I think how you regulate the press is very

difficult. The bit that is being avoided is the criminal stuff. I

think when people see... I have seen some of the stuff, I think

people will be truly shocked. you very much for that. We will

bring you an update on what James Murdoch has been saying before the

end of the programme. Time for the latest in a series of

interviews with the candidates who hope to become the next Mayor of

London. Today, the turn of UKIP's Lawrence Webb. What is his

platform? He wants to stop any EU legislation impinging on the City

of London. He is proposing zero- tolerance on gangs, knife crime and

anti-social behaviour, with a new role of defender on Saturday, face

court on Monday. -- a new rule of They would restrict the extension

-- and scrap the congestion charge. They would let landlords decide

whether to have smoking in pubs and clubs. They want to make it easier

for people to carry out citizens' arrests. Lawrence Webb has joined

us in the studio. Thank you for coming in. Let's look at some of

those quite eye-catching policies. The main problem is, you wouldn't

have the power to implement them. There's a lot disgust that the

other candidates have been discussing, that they can't do -- a

lot that has been discussed. Part of the mayor's role is to create a

vision for London. In terms of landlords allowing smoking, that

would break the law. Businesses, pubs, have been closing at the rate

of 28 per week. Have we have to create an environment which is good

for business. It is a point that needs to be made. The government

keep coming up with strategies to tackle anti-social behaviour,

drinking and things like that. People don't get drunk in pubs.

They buy cheap alcohol in supermarkets, landlords are they

responsible to their drinkers. admit that many of the things you

propose are not things you can do. They are creating a vision. People

may think, the voters out there, cutting VAT, for example... Boris

can't build an airport in the Thames Estuary but there has been

an awful lot of coverage about it. It is creating a vision and that is

what I am doing. What about some of the things that you could actually

do? What are the leading lights in your manifesto in terms of what you

could actually changed. One of the things people talk about his crime,

people are concerned about crime. What we saw after the riots is that

people were rounded up, brought before the courts and Del very

quickly. Statistics show us that about 200 crimes a day are

committed by people on bail. You only see the headlines with the

murderers and rapists but a lot of those crimes are low-level anti-

social crimes. The sooner people are put away, the less chance they

have got to commit crimes, biting people's lives will stop you have

also suggested the sit -- extension of citizens' arrest powers, how

will that word? It deals with a lot of low-level

crime. -- how will that work? People are afraid to intervene

because they are afraid they will be arrested and charged. Or that

they might get hurt? If a lot of it is a young kids committing crimes,

on some of these estates around London, the perpetrators are

actually quite young, 10, 11, 12, young teenagers. People used to

have respect for adults and if people told them to pack it in,

they would. Now they fear to get -- to intervene in case they get

trouble themselves. Are you advising people to step in?

would support people, if they are intervening to prevent crime, the

law should protect those people that are upholding the law.

don't think it is a dangerous line to cross-question not everyone is

going to do it but where it is done, they should be supported. -- you

don't think it is a dangerous line to cross?

Have you got fresh choice for London as York slogan? Yes, we also

have the logo on the ballot paper. -- as your slogan. We have the logo

and the description is, fresh toys for London. As we were campaigning,

that is what people wanted. You're not running a shy of the party?

ballot paper has got UKIP on it. 2008, UKIP came in 7th place behind

the BNP and the Christian People's around so what are your best hopes?

A lot has happened since then. A recent poll put us less than one

percentage point behind the Liberal Democrats and clearly ahead of the

greens. That is despite the greens getting in all of the debates and

me being resigned to the also-rans afterwards. You are all souk

running for the London Assembly. -- also running. The media have

portrayed this as a two-horse race. If you in the media but explain the

voting system, it would open up the contest. The first vote is a truly

free vote. You can vote for whichever party you want. Your

second preference, your security blanket, if you like. If your

preferred candidate doesn't get through, your second vote counts.

Who would you advise voters to put a second preference? We have said

boroughs because we think Ken would be so disastrous. -- we have said

Boris. Would you consider running for London? I think the idea of the

two-horse race is about right, I think it is one of the problems. I

don't understand how we have arrived at the Labour Party

choosing Ken Livingstone. I think it has been shown to be a tricky

customer. I would have thought we would have had a fresher view about

how London might be led. UKIP is the fresh choice. Forgive me, I

don't think we will be supporting UKIP. We get support from a good

many Labour voters. I think there is a real dilemma for lot of people

in London at the moment. My personal view is a personal view. I

am not sure that the party interest is the key issue here. I think the

person who represents London, their personality is very important.

Labour would argue he was a big enough personality to take on Boris

Johnson. I think he has espoused some disastrous causes and some of

his comments on international politics seem to be extremely

unhealthy. Do you wish you had gone for it? Could you have been the

alternative? Like Andrew, I am too old. I don't think there is an age

barrier. Ken doesn't think there is. I like science. I am quite her

young compared to Ken Livingstone. Did you think about it. It is too

late now. I think you did. I didn't. And thank you very much, Lawrence

Webb. Just over a week to go until the

party's battle it out at the local elections. The race to be Mayor of

London as well. They have many tools in their armoury, like the

door-to-door leaflet drop, the appearances on programmes like this

one, and not to forget, they are still around, the PEB, the party

election broadcast. They come around every year, every time there

is an election. I know all of you have been glued to those thrilling

3 minute chunks of television gold. This year, our very own guest of

the day, Robert Winston, has even starred in one. If you haven't had

Pitch, real people, or should a political party throw a bit of

celebrity into their election broadcast, like say a TV doctor.

The NHS deals with when we are at our most vulnerable. At our most

frightened. When we are naked. is bizarre. It is odd it is the

local election. When does it tell you? OK. I am watching Labour's

offering with man who makes it his business o know what sways if

voters. What they have tried to do is use a professional. They are

using Robert Winston, he is well- known from his work on television

but he is a leading doctor, doctors are some of the most trusted people

in Britain so Labour have gone for broke by having no politicians

whatever in their video. But do politicians do it better? Boris

Johnson and a Pickles Cameron duo take the lead for the Conservatives.

Don't led Labour do to your council what it did to the country. Sach

has been behind many Tory ad campaigns. Its chief executive says

a leader's pitch sometimes doesn't work. Some politicians believe

talking to camera and at people will be memorable. To a point it

can be, but is it seeding in their mind an image thatly sta with them

and change their mind in where they put the tick in the box. There is a

preponderance of men in suits. No men in suits for the Green Party.

We can't vote. I can't vote. But you can. And real people are what

it is all about for many of London's mayoral candidates

although Ken Livingstone got into trouble over this one. This is a

party political broadcast on behalf of ordinary Londoners. It turned

out some of those ordinary Londoners had their lines scripted

and were paid expenses to turn up. There are other ways to connect

with the voter though. Like the faithful election battle bus for

example which seems to be the tool of choice for London's mayoral

hopefuls but you can't get a bus in your living room. Which is where

you might think a party election broadcast on TV would be better.

Seven out of ten said they watched one and one in eight said it had

influenced the way they voted, which is the same as national press,

so in a sense they can have an impact. And viewing figure show

that party political broadcasts were watched by an average of 7

10,000 people last year. A word of advice from the world of marketing?

Effective political advertising is about setting an agenda, you make

sure that the battle is fought on the territory that you want it to

be fought on, not what the other side wants it to be fought on.

Robert Winston who stars in that Labour latest election broadcast.

We are joined by the man who knows everything and more about party

election broadcasts aren't all that goes on round them Michael

Cockerell, welcome back to the programme. Now, Robert you appear

in this Labour broadcast and you talk about the National Health

Service, it won't have escaped your mind it is not about the National

Health Service. Unfortunately I think they are. There is a miscop

shenion the Health and Social Care Bill involves local politics as

more people come into social care and more payment will come from

Local Authorities. That is the problem. You know, I don't see

myself as a celebrity doing this, I had grave misgivings about doing it,

but I feel so strongly this is a moral issue, I sat through this

bill for a year-and-a-half, feeling increasingly uncomfortable and I

felt I ought to speak out. understand that and you have been

on this programme giving your struens health reform, I have no

problem with that, but Local Authorities,, they deliver Health

Service, but what you object to, what you complain about can only be

changed by national Government. think it can be changed by a

general feeling about what will be happening locally to be fair. You

know one of the issues of course is that the health service has been

fragmented, with the new commissioning groups there already

several hundred groups of which they will be local who will be hor

in charge of what happens locally. We will not have a National Health

Service. The risk is we will have a local Health Service which has

health inequalities in different parts, like London. There was a

time some of us vaguely remember when there was no internet, no

bloggers and the party political broadcasts were shown at the same

time. Can you re, it didn't matter which channel you were watching,

there it was. In these days you think if there is no escape they

must have been important. Are they as important? I don't think they

are. It was a captive audience. Now they are two or three minutes they

used to be as long as a quarter of an hour or half an hour. It was

Margaret Thatcher who first said I believe in choice, so you don't all

to to watch me at the same time on the then three channels. She was

the first one to do it and also she was the first one to be told by

Saatchi and Saatchi, anything you can say in half an hour, quarter of

an hour you can say in two or three minutes. They wanted to have spots

like Americans, spots of 30 seconds. Why, Robert, is Ed Miliband not in

the Labour commercial, if I can call it that? That is interesting.

That is why I raised the question. I think you would have to ask him

that question. And also the people who run, you know who run the party

affairs. I am not in that circle. I have no idea. I understand. They

put Robert Winston on as an ordinary person, celebrity,

television doctor. With more credibility. He begins by saying I

never thought I would make party political broadcast, although I had

to suppress a certain smile when you, yes, watching you and talking

extolling the virtues of the health service and attacking David Cameron.

I seem to ren when Alastair Campbell has to put the thumb

screws and gag on you when you attacked Labour's plan tons Health

Service. We as a result of that doubled the investments in the

Health Service, Tony Blair did come true, came through straight away

and... We are not here to talk about Blair's health. Here is a

thought, to get your reaction. We have always been against having

commercials on British television for politicians, as some people

suggest it. Mr Basil get. So Mr Basil get, that why he has been

Robert Winston throughout the show. He is suggesting it. One of the

huge problems is the vast sums of money you need to buy, because the

TV stations always demand the top dollar because you have nowhere

else to go. I don't think many people want to go down that route.

Rupert Murdoch of all people suggested Americans should have

British style party election broadcasts for free in all the

networks. In the age of broadband n internet. The parties can make

their own commercials now and seen by a lot of people. Int There is

still a huge audience on terrestrial television, they won't

naturally use this and switch over, especially if the broadcast is made

engaging, if you saw the David Cameron's one, it was made exactly

like a news report, very much like Nick Robinson's news report. The

same shot, getting on the train, holding his red bag, walking off by

himself. Never gets off a train by himself. Gets off with 20 people.

For a broadcast he gets off by himself. I think we better leave it

there. Nobody cried in the making of these broadcasts were were told.

Unlike Ken Livingstone, nobody cried. The authentic tears or not.

Thank you for being on Michael. On Friday evening, George Osborne

announced that Britain will loan the International Monetary Fund �

10 billion. Yesterday the Chancellor explained his decison to

the House of Commons and faced some criticism from both sides of the

house. We will not turn our back on the IMF or turn our back on the

world: That would be a betrayal of our country's interests and our kun

tri's identity, and it would incidentally at the same time be a

betrayal of my party's history. Mr Speaker, it is because of the

decisive action this Government has taken to deal with our own debts we

can be part of the solution and no longer part of the problem. Would

with the US not contributing this is clearly less than the UK's quota

share. Could it be that if he had contributed a fraction more, he

would have to come to this House and ask for Parliamentary approval?

After the budget shambles of the last few weeks, isn't this

Chancellor running scared of both sides of this snbg The only way

that Spain, Italy Portugal and Greece are to become come petstive

and get their economies growing again, is a return to national

currency. Does not the chancellor agree that it is bonkers of a

policy to pour billions of billions of UK tax payers' money into

supporting to failed euro? When one's friends are trapped in a

burning building, isn't the kindest thing to do to lead them in the

direction of the exits in an ordinary way, rather than give them

billions to stay exactly where they are? It is to make sure that the

Fire Brigade has enough water to deal with the problem. We all know

this is state sponsored money laundering to prop up the failed,

the doomed European project called the euro. It does not come without

a heavy human cost, this deal means that in southern Europe the

imposition of net tightening of 3% per year, without jouf setting

monastery stim louse or demand growth in the rest of Europe or

structural reforms. On that basis why is the Chancellor throwing good

UK tapes money after bad for this - - taxpayers money after bad for

this economic madness? And we are joined by the Conservative MP

Claire Perry and Chris Lesley. Welcome to both of you. Yesterday

George Osborne said that what he was doing was helping countries

including groups of countries, the eurozone who get into trouble. Yet

in October 2010 he said clearly Britain will not be putting money

into the bail out fund directly or through in the IMF the IMF

contributing money, no. It is true. It is not going into the bail out

fund. It is going to... To bail out the euro. Isn't it great we part of

the solution and not the problem. Let us get it right here. The IMF

is putting the had round because it need more money for its number one

consense which is the eurozone. No it is lending to countries not

currencies. Let me finish the question. I am not talking about

currency, I know it doesn't support currencies but your own Chancellor

said including groups of countries it help, that is the eurozone. The

reason why the IMF has done this, and you have to read anything, it

needs a bigger firewall to help if the eurozone needs a bail out and

the eurozone bail out will join with the IMF bail out. That is the

opposite of what the Chancellor told us. What we heard yesterday it

was the right thing to do, it was supported in November by your

shadow cans lo, it was supported yesterday by Alistair Darling and

it is the right thing to do. I go back to the point. We have a fire

burning in Europe. We have euro gedsen, thank goodness we we are in

Britain where the pound is at a high against the euro. You admit it

could well be use for the bail out? We are not putting money into the

bail out fund. What we are doing is supporting the international

institution that will deliver global stability. I am confused

here. Is this money, is there any chance or not in your view, that

this money can be used by the IMF to help with the eurozone bail out?

Will it be lent to Government like Greece, will it be lent to

Government like Spain whose problems are not eurozone problem,

they are the sorts 06 problems we have here. So it will be lent to

them. That is an option for the IMF. So it will be used in eurozone

abilities. It will not go into the eurozone bail out fund. Excuse me,

I am not... Look, I think language is important here. Some honesty

here, you are dancing on the head of a pin. I don't think I am.

are making me angry. I am not asking you if it is going into the

eurozone bail out. I know that is not the case. Every financial

commentator in the world knows that the purpose of this bail out, this

extra money for the IMF is for the IMF to work with the eurozone bail

out fund, to bail out the eurozone together. But not directly. It is

going into Government lending this is the point. Andrew, I think the

reason why Claire and the Chancellor are having so many

problems with their own backbenchers, just a second Claire,

Claire... You are not very good at letting other people have their

word. Not when they are wrong. reason why so many people are angry

is because the Chancellor and in a sense by your own comments you are

treating them like fools, pretending that somehow this ten

billion extra isn't intended for the euro bail out solution and if,

this is money you might well rinse it through the IMF, but to suggest

somehow that this... Just a second Claire, to suggest this isn't going

to be propping up the bail out fund, which in terms of the eurozone

countries themselves we, are talking wealthy country, including

Germany who should have been dipping into their pocket, instead

you are letting them off the hook so we, the rest of the world put

Excuse me, I have got to ask him a question. Excuse me, I want to ask

me -- him a question, would you let somebody else speak for a minute?

Are you in favour of giving more money to the bail-out fund or not.

Let him answer! It is very difficult with Claire in the room

sometimes. The important thing that we have to do is look at the

American position on this, the Canadian position. It is yes or no.

They are saying no money for the euro bail-out, whether it is direct

or indirect. I know what the American position is, what is your

position. We say no and the reason is at this point in time, the

eurozone countries have not been coming up with their own resources.

We are letting them off the hook. My point is if we keep it in this

sticking-plaster in place, it will keep taking the money from the rest

of the world. For the avoidance of doubt, can I get it clear that if

the IMF had come to a Labour government currently in power,

would you have given the money to the IMF? No. Because it is letting

them off the hook. There is a negotiation here. It is a finely

balanced issue. We want the resent to be healthy and get into a state

where it doesn't put the rest of the economy at risk. And where we

have to support an IMF in a general sense. In this set of circumstances

as a negotiation, wealthy eurozone countries and the rest of the world,

to what extent can we make sure they dig into their own pockets. If

we let them off the hook, we are not doing them a favour. This is

the usual level of pathetic, put a full political posturing that you

Alistair Darling, who has come out of your omnishambles of a Labour

government with his reputation intact, said he would agree with

this. Ed Balls said last November he would agree with it. You need to

make up your mind to be a trouble opposition, because frankly, if I

could just speak. Trying to deal with you is so difficult. This sort

of pathetic political posturing has got to stop. Nobody takes you

seriously, you have no economic credibility and the sorts of

ridiculous comments you are making today, and Ed Balls made yesterday,

proved that. Can I ask a final question. If this money is not to

be used in concert with a eurozone bail-out to add to the size of the

firewall for the eurozone, why is it the Americans have said we're

not giving us money to the IMF, because it would be used to add to

the eurozone firewall. We have a choice. I have no idea. The

Americans said we have provided extraordinary amounts of liquidity

through the market. The European Central Bank has provided

extraordinary amount of liquidity, a supercharged programme. It is

time for all sorts of countries including the UK to step up and

deal with this crisis. What is very clear at is that the government

when they are in a whole, they try to become more shrill. Is that

because I am a woman? No, you are refusing to engage in the argument.

You either bail them out now, or you hold back, don't give our money,

UK tax payer's money at a time when they should be digging into their

own pockets. I am not going to make any apologies, it is British money.

Thank you very much. Don't interrupt me.

Nick Clegg wants to scrap it and start it again but what has the

Deputy Prime Minister got against the House of Lords?

Here is a guide to Parliament's upper house.

The Upper House is the second chamber, the House of Lords. It is

independent of the elected Commons but the two houses share

responsibility for checking laws and passing government action.

There are 800 members of the House of Lords, the number is not fixed

as it is in the Commons, and there is, as ever, talk of change.

Basically, they split into three types. There are the life peers,

there for the lifetime. There are 26 bishops of the Church of England

and there are 92 hereditary peers, there until, well, until he knows

when? The -- who knows. Lords are not elected, they are sent here

mainly by the party leaders. They come from assorted fields. Some are

great experts. Had they spent a bit more, we might have had a bill

which would have damaged the health service a great deal less. Quite a

few ex-MPs wash up here too. Debate about the quality of our national

performance, in which we are all involved. This is the Prince's

Chamber, a working ante room which leads into the House of Lords

Chamber. It is a place where peers can come to meet, mingle and maybe

do a little bit of plotting. The role of the Lords is to act as a

body of specialist knowledge. The country's elders, to scrutinise in

greater detail bills that have been approved by the Commons. Bills have

to be approved by the Commons and the Lords. They have here in the

House of Lords, government ministers, too. Not all members of

the House of Lords belong to political parties. You have the

crossbench peers and the bishops. They are neutral. Well, they are

meant to be. The New Testament shows Jesus as having a very

special concern for children. Lords acts as a constitutional

safeguard. The fact it isn't elected is actually rather an

important part of its flavour at the moment. It can challenge the

wishes of the majority when they threaten to steamroller certain

important rights. The Lords can ask the Commons to think again. It is a

bit like having your homework sent back by a politically -- pernickety

Robert Winston is still ask -- with us, he is a Labour member of the

House of Lords. Those in favour of plans to reform the upper chamber

say it is unelected, unaccountable, half the people don't turn up half

the time, it is desperately-needed to be reformed and to have a mainly

elected House. What is wrong with One thing is that you don't hear

arguments like you have just heard in the House of Lords. People tried

to look at the evidence for something and then work out what is

the best solution. People like myself may take a Labour whip, or

even the members of the Labour Party, but I see myself independent

of my party. I often am prepared to vote against it or certainly argue

against it, just as many Conservatives who, with proper

legitimacy, do the same thing. This is rather unusual in a political

chamber. Are you against changing it at all? No, of course not. What

we should be doing is to try to decide what kind of Parliament we

want to serve the best interests of the nation's, rather than to tamper

with one part of the mechanism which is working quite well at the

moment. We have 800 or so, not enough room, too much cost, it

needs to be streamlined. I take the argument about the expertise. You

could still retain an element of that expertise if you are talking

about crossbenchers or even party figures like yourselves who have

had other lives, in the arrangement that the government is putting

forward. I don't have a problem with anything you are saying. The

case for reform is not an issue. There is obviously a need for

reform. But we have a bill produced by Nick Clegg, who has never sat

through a debate in the House of Lords, never been to a committee,

doesn't actually know how the chamber works. He must do. I don't

think he does. A Labour MP said to me, after 20 years in the House of

Commons, tell me, do you wear your robes during debates in the House

of Lords? That shows the ignorance of the Commons. What is your

biggest worry? The elected part, or are you worried about the party

political part? What is your biggest concern? The biggest

objection to the elected bit is you end up with people are not

accountable over 15 years because they don't come back to the

electorate. That is a big flaw in the Clegg bill. Also, there is an

issue that one of the beauties of the place is you don't have a

second-rate Commons. You have an independent chamber which is able,

by looking in detail at legislation, to advise about the best way to go

forward. Would you stand for election? No. That was brief. Well

done. The straightest answer we have had

all day! James Murdoch has been giving evidence to the Leveson

inquiry all morning. In the last half hour he has been questioned

about the bid for the part of BSkyB that the Murdoch organisation does

not own. And about relations between News International and

senior politicians. Would it be fair to say that Mrs Brooks bore

the brunt of the majority of meetings with politicians, because

of their relationship with politicians? -- her relationship.

have seen the skill of the Prime Minister's meetings in that period.

I can't remember exactly, she would have been closer to those issues

than I was. Was it part of the general way of working, as it were,

that Mrs Brooks might report back to you as to the outcome of any

discussions, or the fact of any discussions with politicians, and

then you would report anything important back to your father?

time to time, she would report to me about a discussion that was

relevant but she would also communicate directly with my father,

with some frequency. That was James Murdoch, this is James Landale. We

have done the hacking staff, this has gone on to the relationship

between senior News Corp people and senior government people, including

the Prime Minister, and this whole lobbying for them to buy all of

BSkyB. What do we know? There is no great new smoking gun, no great

document or fact that has emerged that totally changes what we knew

previously. But we do know a bit more detail about the scale of the

meetings that were taking place, the discussions being had. Also

some of the discussions taking place in private. We have heard

about the dinners that members of the Murdoch family had with David

Cameron at Christmas. In the evidence we have got, from the

written evidence and also the oral evidence, we know how much lobbying

was going on by News International, to try to get the government on

side. News International, you are saying, you obviously had superb

links into government by virtue of owning four newspapers. It was

leverage in these links to lobby for the BSkyB bid? That is the line

of questioning that the QC involved in running the questioning has done.

That is what he is trying to gnaw away at and say that his private

conversations, these meetings with George Osborne and David Cameron,

semis social private occasions, they were not just there for fun.

They were there to lobby and pursue. What James Murdoch has been saying

is no, anything he said, to use his phrase, would have been the same as

his public advocacy. Is there feeling the Culture Secretary,

Jeremy Hunt, is in some trouble over this? There are concerns about

the nature of the relationship between Jeremy Hunt and James

Murdoch, that was raised by the Leveson inquiry. Saying, he was

onside, a natural ally. James Murdoch said, no more than anybody

else. There was some humour and Jeremy Hunt saying on his website,

that as any conservative, he thinks the Murdochs have made a great can

go mad as contribution to British television. Teresa May has just

started her defence. She said she had an ambiguous advice, that the

deadline for this appeal was on Monday -- unambiguous advice.

you for that. Thank you to Robert Winston and all of our guests. The

answer is that David Cameron is usually reading through his papers