:00:42. > :00:45.Good afternoon, folks. Welcome to the Daily Politics. European
:00:45. > :00:49.leaders and another summit in Brussels deciding they will
:00:49. > :00:53.postpone any decisions until yet another summit next month. The line
:00:53. > :00:56.is that they want Greece to stay in the eurozone but behind closed
:00:56. > :01:01.doors they are making preparations for an exit and squabbling over
:01:01. > :01:04.what they will do to get growth. Culture secretary Jeremy Hunt is
:01:04. > :01:08.back in the spotlight at the Leveson Inquiry today, with
:01:08. > :01:13.evidence being heard from his former special adviser over News
:01:14. > :01:21.Corp's bid for BSkyB. Petrol prices are still sky-high.
:01:21. > :01:26.Short George Osborne plan -- should George Osborne postpone any planned
:01:26. > :01:36.increase in fuel duty? New Government plans to block porn
:01:36. > :01:37.
:01:37. > :01:41.sites. Our parents or internet providers responsible for what we
:01:41. > :01:44.see online? The alternative is that the Government decides what we all
:01:44. > :01:49.see online, which is a very dangerous step to take.
:01:49. > :01:54.That is coming up in the next hour. For the duration, part-time judge,
:01:54. > :01:58.barrister, writer, Constance Briscoe is with us. Welcome back.
:01:58. > :02:01.Before we get back to the latest from the Leveson Inquiry, let's
:02:01. > :02:05.start on a story that was supposed to have happened today but has been
:02:05. > :02:09.postponed until next week. Justice Secretary Ken Clarke was supposed
:02:09. > :02:14.to publish the new security and justice bill today, which would
:02:14. > :02:19.include plans to allow some civil court hearings and crucial inquests
:02:19. > :02:23.to be held in secret, behind closed doors, where material considered
:02:23. > :02:26.could be damaging to national security. But we are told there has
:02:26. > :02:34.been some last-minute wrangling inside the coalition. Who would
:02:34. > :02:37.have thought of that?! Where do you stand on this? Is there a case for
:02:37. > :02:41.some things involving security services where secret information
:02:41. > :02:46.is going to be presented to the court, that it should happen behind
:02:46. > :02:51.closed doors? Well, I'm not quite sure what is being proposed at the
:02:51. > :02:56.moment. Certainly in the criminal courts, we have a system whereby if
:02:56. > :03:01.there is sensitive material, it can be heard with a judge. We have a
:03:01. > :03:07.public interest immunity system, so if there is an issue that might
:03:07. > :03:13.affect national security or compromise a criminal trial of the
:03:13. > :03:17.investigation, the judge can here that material. What is proposed at
:03:17. > :03:20.the moment is quite different. What is being proposed is that instead
:03:20. > :03:25.of the judge saying that this material is sensitive and I am
:03:25. > :03:29.going to look at it, in the comfort of his room or whatever, the
:03:29. > :03:35.proposal at the moment is that it is the minister who will be closing
:03:35. > :03:39.the doors of the court. We need to be very clear in relation to what
:03:39. > :03:44.is going on. We have a public interest immunity system and it
:03:44. > :03:48.works perfectly well. And I am not entirely sure whether what is
:03:48. > :03:51.proposed is really a way of preventing embarrassment to the
:03:51. > :03:55.Government or closing the doors when they don't like the material
:03:55. > :03:59.that is available. And the responsibility really should remain
:03:59. > :04:03.with judges, who are completely impartial and used to the procedure
:04:03. > :04:08.that we have at the moment. I think some people are suspicious because
:04:08. > :04:11.they said it would involve inquests, and it has been through inquests,
:04:11. > :04:16.particularly coroner's inquests, that we found out things of
:04:16. > :04:21.soldiers dying in Afghanistan, equipment not being right, things
:04:21. > :04:28.that the establishment did not want us to know. Absolutely. This all
:04:28. > :04:34.developed because the Government is absolutely clear that they do not
:04:34. > :04:40.want MI5 or MI6 persons to be able to give evidence in court. And
:04:40. > :04:46.there is pressure from the state that secret intelligence remains
:04:46. > :04:50.secret. You can understand that. do. But I recall that it was the
:04:50. > :04:55.information from the state, last week or the week before, about the
:04:55. > :05:01.double agent, the English double agent with the special... In the
:05:01. > :05:08.Yemen, yes, absolutely. I do think it is a fundamental principle in
:05:08. > :05:13.this country that justice must be open, and we are entitled to know
:05:13. > :05:19.who our accuses art and why it is, for example, that we are behind
:05:19. > :05:23.bars. -- who accuses us. And the judge can take immunity into
:05:23. > :05:27.account? It works perfectly well and we do not need what is now
:05:27. > :05:31.proposed. Namely that the minister closes the door of the court, that
:05:31. > :05:36.is unacceptable. Thank you. That is clear and we will see what happens
:05:36. > :05:40.as they are still fighting. For a change! We will not fight about the
:05:40. > :05:47.daily quiz. Who described the Prime Minister as quite volatile
:05:47. > :05:50.yesterday? Ed Balls, Vince Cable, at Norman Lamont, or Nick Clegg? At
:05:50. > :05:57.the end of the show, Constance Briscoe will give us the correct
:05:57. > :06:02.answer, I hope. I heard him say it. From the horse's mouth? I heard it
:06:02. > :06:07.live but I don't think you should call him a horse! The 18th Brussels
:06:07. > :06:12.summit of European leaders in two years, excluding a separate ones
:06:12. > :06:15.that they have just had with the eurozone leaders, 18 in two years.
:06:16. > :06:20.Mr Cameron has gone to them but there is still no sign of a
:06:20. > :06:24.concrete plan for sorting out the eurozone. Last night's meeting in
:06:24. > :06:27.Brussels, six hours with dinner, of course, produced another bland
:06:27. > :06:31.statement that Greece should stay in. But Germany and France cannot
:06:31. > :06:35.agree on how to get the eurozone growing again. There were
:06:35. > :06:38.skirmishes between David Cameron and Francois Hollande over attacks
:06:38. > :06:43.on the City, which the French President wants to use to raise
:06:43. > :06:49.extra funds to pay for his growth measures. Bring us up to speed, Jo,
:06:49. > :06:53.if there was any speed. You cannot do the summer on an empty stomach!
:06:53. > :06:56.The euro saga rolls on. The latest instalment was yesterday evening
:06:56. > :06:59.when European leaders met during an informal summit to discuss the
:06:59. > :07:04.crisis. The new French President Francois Hollande is trying to push
:07:04. > :07:07.the leaders away from austerity measures and move towards spending
:07:07. > :07:11.on infrastructure projects to try to kick-start growth. There is
:07:11. > :07:15.disagreement on how to pay for it. Angela Merkel is under pressure to
:07:15. > :07:19.agree to eurobonds, which were basically mean borrowing would be
:07:19. > :07:24.collectively guaranteed by all the eurozone countries. This would
:07:24. > :07:28.lower the cost for most countries, but increase it for Germany. Angela
:07:28. > :07:34.Merkel is also worried it would let those that spent too much of the
:07:34. > :07:38.hot, and stop them getting their finances in order. -- off the hook.
:07:38. > :07:41.David Cameron says that he supports the idea of eurobonds but he is
:07:41. > :07:48.under some pressure himself. There are reports that European leaders
:07:48. > :07:52.tried to push the Prime Minister to implement a financial transactions
:07:52. > :07:57.tax, and he has reacted angrily to the proposals, saying it will put
:07:57. > :08:01.up the cost of insurance, pensions, and will cost many jobs. These
:08:01. > :08:04.issues will be looked at further during a formal summit in June.
:08:04. > :08:08.However, the prospect of Greece having to leave the euro is being
:08:08. > :08:13.openly discussed by the leaders now. This afternoon, the Deputy Prime
:08:13. > :08:18.Minister will give a speech in Germany. He will say that Greece
:08:19. > :08:22.exiting the euro is something that no rational person would want. He
:08:22. > :08:26.argues that as Europeans, our response to this growing crisis has
:08:26. > :08:30.been woefully fragmented and we have failed on a number of fronts.
:08:30. > :08:37.Thank you. We are joined by the shadow Europe minister, Emma
:08:37. > :08:40.Reynolds. And from Strasbourg, the Conservative MEP, Martin Callanan,
:08:40. > :08:47.who leads the Conservatives and the reformists group in the European
:08:47. > :08:53.Parliament. Welcome to you both. David Cameron seems to support the
:08:53. > :08:58.idea of eurobonds. Do? I think it is a matter for the eurozone
:08:58. > :09:03.countries themselves to decide. What is your opinion? I don't think
:09:03. > :09:06.they will ever agree to it. As yourself the question, can you see
:09:06. > :09:11.the Germans agreeing to spend another �40 billion a year on
:09:11. > :09:14.interest payments alone, having their credit rating downgraded, to
:09:14. > :09:19.support Greece and Portugal? I certainly can't. I don't think they
:09:19. > :09:24.will agree to it, having spoken to senior politicians. Anna Reynolds,
:09:24. > :09:29.does Labour support the idea of eurobonds for the eurozone? -- Emma
:09:29. > :09:32.Reynolds. We are in favour of eurobonds. It is clear that the
:09:32. > :09:36.German economy has benefited from exchange rates, meaning that
:09:36. > :09:39.exports have been cheaper and more successful. Germany has benefited
:09:39. > :09:43.and at some stage I think they might change their position because
:09:43. > :09:48.the Social Democrats in Germany, he was doing very well in regional
:09:48. > :09:52.elections, are more favourable to the eurobonds. They are more
:09:52. > :09:57.favourable but rather in favour of them? Well, they are, the
:09:57. > :10:02.leadership is in favour of them. I heard another voice against, so
:10:02. > :10:07.that is an open question. Saying that Germany would underwrite the
:10:07. > :10:15.dead of Italy, Greece, Portugal, Ireland, Spain. How would that
:10:15. > :10:19.work? Pooling of risk. Det neutralisation. Can you win an
:10:19. > :10:23.election on that? We have to admit that it is difficult for any German
:10:23. > :10:27.politician. But they have benefited from the single currency. The
:10:27. > :10:31.German Government has to do more to recognise what Francois Hollande
:10:31. > :10:37.has been saying since the got elected and before, that there has
:10:37. > :10:40.to be an emphasis on growth. -- since he got elected. But people
:10:40. > :10:46.are talking about growth in different terms. It is not likely
:10:46. > :10:50.to happen. Do you support Nick Clegg's view that no rational
:10:50. > :10:56.person would support Greece leaving the euro? In other words, if you
:10:56. > :11:01.think Greece should leave the euro, you are bonkers! I did, actually, I
:11:01. > :11:04.think he is wrong. I think he was wrong when he supported the UK
:11:04. > :11:10.joining the euro in the first place, it so we cannot take his advice
:11:10. > :11:13.right now. Across the European Parliament, an increasing number of
:11:13. > :11:17.people are now accepting that Greece will leave the euro. They
:11:17. > :11:23.cannot put up with another eight years of grinding austerity, and
:11:23. > :11:26.even then they will only have a debt pile the same as Italy. There
:11:26. > :11:31.has to be massive fiscal transfer, which will not happen, I don't
:11:31. > :11:35.think. We have to get on with it. The uncertainty is damaging for
:11:35. > :11:38.business, Britain, and the rest of Europe. I think the markets have
:11:38. > :11:42.priced in a Greek exit. I think it is better for them in the long run.
:11:42. > :11:44.In the short term it will be painful but in the long run it is
:11:44. > :11:47.better for the European economy and we should get the difficult
:11:47. > :11:52.decisions over with now. The council should be talking about how
:11:52. > :11:55.this can be done in an orderly and progressive manner. Does Labour
:11:55. > :12:02.support group staying in or leaving? We would prefer that
:12:02. > :12:06.Greece stay in the euro. There are great risks. In Spain, borrowing
:12:06. > :12:12.costs are already going up. And not at all certain that if Greece were
:12:12. > :12:17.to leave, that there would not be a contagion effect. Spain is the 4th
:12:17. > :12:24.largest eurozone economy. banking systems are in trouble.
:12:24. > :12:30.So if they stay in, it should we do the deal with severe conditions for
:12:30. > :12:38.the bail-out, which is the price of membership? Right fully, they are
:12:38. > :12:41.conditions to a bail-out. We think there should have been more
:12:41. > :12:48.influenza early on to help them get back to growth and cut down the
:12:48. > :12:52.deficit. -- more influence. should Greece pay the price of that
:12:52. > :12:56.membership, or do you agree with the left-wing politicians in Greece,
:12:56. > :13:01.saying that they want to stay in but they will not pay that price?
:13:01. > :13:05.think they do have to pay a price of membership of the euro. I think
:13:05. > :13:10.that is clear. I think what the hard Left leader is doing, is
:13:10. > :13:13.saying to Angela Merkel and others, if he wins and forms a Government,
:13:13. > :13:19.that they want some renegotiation. It remains to be seen whether
:13:19. > :13:22.Chancellor Merkel will go anywhere near that. It is not even clear
:13:22. > :13:28.that Hollande is prepared to renegotiate with Greece. No, it is
:13:28. > :13:33.not clear. And if they vote for this chap, then it is a vote to
:13:33. > :13:39.leave, isn't it? That is what some Prime Ministers and politicians are
:13:39. > :13:43.saying, including David Cameron. What do you say? I think it is up
:13:43. > :13:47.to the Greek people to decide what Government they want. If the hard
:13:47. > :13:52.left was to form a majority Government in coalition with others,
:13:52. > :13:54.then there would have to be negotiation between the new Prime
:13:54. > :13:57.Minister and the European leadership, and I don't think we
:13:57. > :14:00.should try to dictate to the Greek people have to vote or otherwise.
:14:00. > :14:06.But I certainly think it would be much more difficult if the hard
:14:06. > :14:10.left wing. Speaking of how to vote, what do you make of the UK
:14:10. > :14:15.Independence Party proposal for joint candidates at the next
:14:15. > :14:17.election? How does that grab you? think we should stand as
:14:17. > :14:22.Conservative candidates across the UK and I am sure people will want
:14:22. > :14:31.to do that. The UK Independence Party will want to plough their own
:14:32. > :14:39.furrow and use that own policies. If you had the staunch euro-sceptic
:14:39. > :14:44.Conservative, like yourself, standing in a seat where without UK
:14:44. > :14:48.Independence Party votes you might win, what would be wrong with that?
:14:48. > :14:52.Given that you both agree on of the referendum and have an anti-
:14:52. > :14:56.European attitude, why shouldn't you have a joint ticket? I think it
:14:56. > :15:02.is very difficult to do in practice. They are different party
:15:02. > :15:06.organisations. While we agree on some points, we disagree on others.
:15:06. > :15:10.We need to demonstrate to their supporters, that voting for one of
:15:10. > :15:19.their candidates, who might get five or 6% of the vote, that will
:15:19. > :15:23.actually get Emma Reynolds into Government! They are opposed to EU
:15:23. > :15:27.legislation, and that is the consequence of voting for the UK
:15:27. > :15:31.Independence Party. Where do you disagree with the UK Independence
:15:31. > :15:33.Party? I don't believe that we should leave the European Union. I
:15:33. > :15:40.think there is hope in renegotiating our membership and we
:15:40. > :15:44.benefit from the single market. We want to get rid of the excess
:15:44. > :15:48.legislation, that I was talking about. But if you tried to
:15:48. > :15:54.renegotiate and failed, would you want to leave? I think there are a
:15:54. > :16:01.lot of hypothetical questions in that. Just one! It is just one. If
:16:01. > :16:04.you failed to renegotiate, would you leave? If we renegotiated and
:16:04. > :16:08.employment legislation, if we renegotiated our budgets level,
:16:08. > :16:11.then there are lots of ifs. Let's see what we come out with and take
:16:11. > :16:15.the view. I think that should be put to the British people, by the
:16:15. > :16:18.way, taking a view on how successful the renegotiations have
:16:18. > :16:21.been. Then we can see whether we want to bear the good things about
:16:21. > :16:31.membership and the bad things, which is what we always have to
:16:31. > :16:37.
:16:37. > :16:42.take into account. I think we will Where you stand? I'm even more
:16:42. > :16:48.confused as to what has been proposed. I'm in flux and confusion.
:16:48. > :16:53.You should do this show every day! I will give you the final word.
:16:53. > :16:57.Conservative Party is all over the place on Europe. You have got
:16:57. > :17:02.Martin saying there should be renegotiation... Do you want a
:17:02. > :17:07.referendum? Our position hasn't changed. Are you in favour or
:17:07. > :17:12.against? By came on your show in October the and said I think it's a
:17:12. > :17:18.distraction. The British government needs to focus on jobs. You rule
:17:18. > :17:23.out a referendum? And not forever, but at the moment the focus should
:17:24. > :17:27.be on getting the economy growing. Maybe you could draw one up for the
:17:27. > :17:31.next Labour Party manifesto. have no plans for that. You know
:17:31. > :17:34.what happens with politicians. Michael Heseltine said he had no
:17:34. > :17:41.plans to run against Margaret Thatcher. You are keeping the door
:17:41. > :17:45.open. We think membership of the EU... Are I was talking about... Do
:17:45. > :17:49.you rule out that the next Labour manifesto could promise the British
:17:49. > :17:54.people a referendum? I'm not writing the next manifesto. I will
:17:54. > :17:58.not write it on your show. won't answer the question? We are
:17:58. > :18:02.not in favour of a referendum. you answer the question... We are
:18:03. > :18:08.not in favour of a referendum. we don't really know. I thought
:18:09. > :18:13.someone said they were! He is not on the front bench. They are all
:18:13. > :18:16.all over the place. We have to thank you very much. The
:18:16. > :18:19.What did Jeremy Hunt know and what did he say? That's the question
:18:19. > :18:22.today as the Leveson Inquiry looks at the emails between the Culture
:18:22. > :18:25.Secretary's team and Rupert Murdoch's media empire in the run-
:18:25. > :18:28.up to the attempted takeover of BSkyB. Mr Smith, who resigned after
:18:28. > :18:32.his emails were published by the inquiry, is due to give evidence
:18:32. > :18:35.this afternoon. Mr Michel has been questioned this morning. In the
:18:35. > :18:45.last hour, he was asked whether he thought Adam Smith spoke with
:18:45. > :18:49.Jeremy Hunt's authority when they The day and for me, it is self-
:18:50. > :18:53.evident. A special adviser is someone who
:18:53. > :18:57.represents the Secretary of State, that is what they are there for.
:18:57. > :19:02.When they interact across the policy community or with anyone. I
:19:02. > :19:05.would have to assume that a special adviser, and there are not many
:19:05. > :19:11.around the Secretary of State, two in this case can't always
:19:12. > :19:15.represented the view of their boss. They were representing their boss,
:19:15. > :19:20.that is absolutely true, and constitutionally it is self-evident,
:19:20. > :19:24.but I suppose I'm asking you about the last part of it and after
:19:24. > :19:28.having conferred with him. Is that just under Sumsion you are making
:19:28. > :19:38.or do you have evidence? -- an assumption. It is a general
:19:38. > :19:40.
:19:40. > :19:44.assumption by making. -- I am making. There are two of three
:19:44. > :19:48.events where I probably had the impression that some of the
:19:48. > :19:54.feedback I was being given had been discussed with the Secretary of
:19:54. > :19:58.State before it was given to me. Mike Sergeant joins us. Doesn't
:19:58. > :20:03.this go to the very heart of the allegations against Jeremy Hunt? As
:20:03. > :20:07.he said, to walk free events, the impression he got was that that
:20:07. > :20:12.Feedback had been discussed with the Secretary of State. Adam Smith
:20:12. > :20:15.was operating with the knowledge of Jeremy Hunt. Yes, clearly that is
:20:15. > :20:21.the question and that is what Fred Michel has been questioned at
:20:21. > :20:26.length about today at the Leveson Inquiry. He was referring to two or
:20:26. > :20:31.three instances where he felt Jeremy Hunt's views were being
:20:31. > :20:39.relaid, but that is just two or three occasions within a whole
:20:40. > :20:46.bunch of communications, 191 phone calls, 158 e-mails, 799 text
:20:46. > :20:51.messages with Adam Smith. On each occasion, Fred Michel is under
:20:51. > :20:56.pressure to describe to what extent were Jeremy Hunt's views accurately
:20:56. > :21:00.be reflected and when Mr Michell was being asked directly what were
:21:00. > :21:04.Mr Hunt's views on the BSkyB bid, he said he did not know whether
:21:04. > :21:09.Jeremy Hunt was in favour, he said he thought Mr Hunt was keeping an
:21:09. > :21:13.open mind on whether NewsCorp should take full control. That
:21:13. > :21:17.slightly contradicts, when you look at the e-mails between Fred Michel
:21:17. > :21:24.and Adam Smith, how he could have succumbed to that assumption when
:21:24. > :21:27.they talked positively about the BSkyB bid. But Fred Michel denies
:21:27. > :21:33.exaggerating his relationship with Jeremy Hunt and his special adviser.
:21:33. > :21:38.Yes. He was asked repeatedly whether he was exaggerating his
:21:38. > :21:42.level of influence, exactly what had been relayed to him and he said
:21:42. > :21:47.there were one or two instances when he was talking things up, to
:21:47. > :21:52.keep up morale within NewsCorp, but that was before the oversight for
:21:52. > :21:58.the bid had been transferred to Jeremy Hunt. After that, he felt
:21:58. > :22:05.there were no inappropriate contacts. He felt that when he was
:22:05. > :22:08.talking about J H in those e-mails, he was in fact reflecting the wider
:22:08. > :22:15.views of the Office of Jeremy Hunt, including his special adviser, and
:22:15. > :22:19.he makes the point that he was contacted by it text message with
:22:19. > :22:23.the Office of Jeremy Hunt that direct contact with him could not
:22:23. > :22:25.continue and he said he understood that. From then on he was dealing
:22:25. > :22:28.with a special adviser and he thought that was OK.
:22:28. > :22:33.We've been joined by the Conservative MP John Whittingdale,
:22:33. > :22:37.who chairs Parliament's Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee.
:22:37. > :22:41.Let's pick up on that point. What impression did you get from that
:22:41. > :22:47.evidence, particularly that peace we've just shown? He got the
:22:47. > :22:50.impression that the special adviser, Adam Smith, had discussed the
:22:50. > :22:54.information previously with Jeremy Hunt. From what I've seen this
:22:54. > :23:00.morning, everything Fred Michel said bears out Jeremy Hunt's
:23:00. > :23:05.account of what happened. That doesn't. Jeremy Hunt said that Adam
:23:05. > :23:09.Smith had been authorised by the department to act as the channel of
:23:09. > :23:17.communication. It is not that surprising that there was a lot of
:23:17. > :23:21.contact between Fred Michel and Adam Smith. But what Adam Smith
:23:21. > :23:27.said may not be precisely as reported by Fred Michel. We need to
:23:27. > :23:32.wait and see what Adam Smith says. Fred Michel wants to impress his
:23:32. > :23:36.boss, demonstrate what an effective lobbyist tears. For a channel of
:23:36. > :23:40.communication, yes, granted, but it is the relationship between the
:23:40. > :23:45.special adviser and the Secretary of State acting on Jeremy Hunt's
:23:45. > :23:48.wishes. That is the impression you come away with. In that instance,
:23:48. > :23:54.if Adam Smith has resigned and he was only doing his boss's bidding,
:23:54. > :23:58.where does that leave Jeremy Hunt? We need to hear from the Adam Smith.
:23:58. > :24:02.I would like to see the actual communications Adam Smith may have
:24:02. > :24:07.centred Fred Michel and then compare them. I think you might
:24:07. > :24:12.find that Fred Michel's account of what he was getting from Adam Smith
:24:12. > :24:16.may be rather exaggerated or at least putting a slant on it. But he
:24:16. > :24:22.has denied it. He said he contextualised some of it, but it
:24:22. > :24:26.was not exaggerated, it was a fair reflection. We will hear from Adam
:24:26. > :24:31.Smith this afternoon. What I hope we will see is not hear from Adam
:24:31. > :24:35.Smith, I hope we will be able to see Adam Smith's Communications and
:24:35. > :24:41.then it will be playing for anybody to judge. Is it appropriate have
:24:41. > :24:44.come and I can't remember the exact words, at 799 text messages,
:24:44. > :24:49.hundreds of e-mails and text messages, between a special adviser
:24:49. > :24:52.and a lobbyist, a special adviser very close to Jeremy Hunt, who
:24:52. > :24:57.could not possibly have missed that this amount of communication was
:24:57. > :25:01.going on, when they were looking over the BSkyB bid? I want to see
:25:01. > :25:06.the context and the content of those communications. You don't
:25:06. > :25:11.think the number... Michel's job was to say to his boss, I am in
:25:11. > :25:18.regular contact. I suspect a lot of those will have been Fred Mitchell
:25:18. > :25:23.e-mails Darren Smith, possibly not even replied to. -- Adam Smith. I
:25:23. > :25:25.have received a lot of e-mails from Fred Michel in the past.
:25:25. > :25:29.permanent secretary told the minister it would be inappropriate
:25:29. > :25:33.to have further contact because of his quasi-judicial role, but he
:25:33. > :25:38.made his special adviser the point of contact, not even a civil
:25:38. > :25:41.servant. The special adviser is then involved in 1,000 text
:25:41. > :25:45.messages, 350 calls and e-mails having been told they should be no
:25:45. > :25:51.contact. He should be told they should be no direct contact between
:25:51. > :25:55.the Secretary of State and NewsCorp. He appointed a surrogate. It is
:25:56. > :26:00.normal practice that there should be a channel of communication.
:26:00. > :26:06.communication between Mr Hunt's office and those opposed to the
:26:06. > :26:08.BSkyB takeover. I was told that Vince Cable's special adviser had a
:26:08. > :26:14.similar role when Vince Cable was in charge of determined the
:26:14. > :26:17.decision. Obviously there has to be some kind of channel of
:26:17. > :26:22.communication. Whether it was right to appoint a special adviser is a
:26:22. > :26:26.different question. There's no record of anything like 1,000 e-
:26:26. > :26:32.mails and text messages to those opposed to it. Why was it a one-way
:26:32. > :26:36.briefing? Fears a negotiation that takes place. There's a legal
:26:36. > :26:40.requirement that a company which is examined by the regulator should
:26:40. > :26:42.then have an opportunity to make representations on the basis of the
:26:42. > :26:48.recommendations made by the regulator. That is standard
:26:48. > :26:52.practice. What is interesting, and carrying on from what Andrew said,
:26:52. > :26:56.is that Fred Michel admitted in the evidence that he did not have much
:26:56. > :26:59.chance to make representations to Vince Cable, implying he therefore
:26:59. > :27:05.stopped and switched his attentions to where he felt he was getting a
:27:05. > :27:10.better hearing. Isn't it that that will land Jeremy Hunt in trouble?
:27:10. > :27:14.Vince Cable, we know, was hostile to the bid, that is why it was
:27:14. > :27:18.taken away from him. It may be at that time that Fred Michel wanted
:27:18. > :27:22.to communicate with Jeremy Hunt's office and Jeremy Hunt at that
:27:22. > :27:27.stage had no involvement. Once Jeremy Hunt was given the job, he
:27:27. > :27:33.rightly said he can't communicate with them any longer, but there was
:27:33. > :27:37.a channel of communication. We will content of that communication was.
:27:37. > :27:42.Then we can reach a judgement. seems that Adam Smith has resigned
:27:42. > :27:48.to protect his boss. He was carrying out the will of his boss
:27:48. > :27:53.and he has resigned. At the moment, there's this huge circle as to did
:27:53. > :28:01.he or didn't he know. Communication is a two-way thing. The ordinary
:28:01. > :28:04.person in the Street might say that if Adam Smith has resigned, his
:28:04. > :28:08.boss may be accountable. I think Adam Smith said when he resigned
:28:08. > :28:13.that he accepted that on some occasions he had overstepped, he
:28:13. > :28:16.had gone too far in what he said an maybe volume and frequency was too
:28:16. > :28:21.great. He accepts that perhaps he went further than he was authorised
:28:21. > :28:25.to do, but the fact that he was having those communications was
:28:25. > :28:30.accepted and authorised by the Department and the Secretary of
:28:30. > :28:34.State. Briefly, before we end this, we have also had news that Sir
:28:34. > :28:37.Jeremy Heywood has now said that he expected David Cameron to seek his
:28:37. > :28:41.advice after the Leveson appearance, there would be more questions to
:28:41. > :28:46.answer. He was unaware of the nature of the apparent back channel
:28:46. > :28:51.dealings between Adam Smith and the News Corporation executive Fred
:28:51. > :28:56.Michel. We know that the permanent secretary in the DCMS was aware and
:28:56. > :28:59.agreed with it. He was aware, he was not keen to say he agreed.
:28:59. > :29:05.understand he would said he was made fully aware and was content.
:29:05. > :29:09.Jeremy Heywood was not happy. It is one of these white all
:29:09. > :29:13.weaselly words. Content is one of these words that can mean anything.
:29:13. > :29:17.We will probably have an opportunity to ask Jonathan
:29:17. > :29:20.Stephens when he next comes before the committee. He has said he
:29:20. > :29:25.agrees with the Secretary of State's account, which is that he
:29:25. > :29:30.was happy with the arrangement. That is the principle of collective
:29:30. > :29:36.responsibility, does it apply to Adam Smith and his boss? If Adam
:29:36. > :29:41.Smith was acting directly on the orders of his boss, obviously...
:29:41. > :29:45.just what special advisers are supposed to do. He did go further
:29:45. > :29:50.than he was authorised and there was why he decided to resign.
:29:50. > :29:54.There's a bigger question about the job of special advisers. I was a
:29:54. > :29:56.special adviser a long time ago in the Department of Trade and
:29:56. > :30:00.Industry and the one area I did not get involved in was competition
:30:00. > :30:04.policy because that was a political. But the role of special advisers
:30:04. > :30:13.has changed over the last few years and perhaps we need to look at that
:30:13. > :30:18.I am content to move on to another matter, but I have not necessarily
:30:18. > :30:22.agree to it! I am also content to welcome viewers from Scotland,
:30:22. > :30:26.watching First Minister's Questions at Holyrood, now joining us on
:30:26. > :30:31.Daily Politics live from Westminster. Our first question is,
:30:31. > :30:35.how do you get more women into top jobs? It is an age-old question and
:30:35. > :30:38.when it comes to the legal profession, the Ministry of Justice
:30:38. > :30:43.has been sharing its own ideas on how to create a more diverse
:30:43. > :30:53.judiciary. But lawyers is not the only sector where women are less
:30:53. > :30:59.
:30:59. > :31:03.They make up more than half the British population, but when it
:31:03. > :31:08.comes to who is in the top jobs, women rarely come close to hitting
:31:08. > :31:13.the 50% mark, apart from a few exceptions. When it comes to
:31:13. > :31:17.Supreme Court Justices, the figures plummet. In 2011, just 9% of
:31:17. > :31:21.justices at the highest court in the land for women, and at the
:31:21. > :31:29.moment only one woman is employed to sit in that seat. Just as Ben
:31:29. > :31:36.Ali has been outlining plans to get more women and ethnic minorities
:31:36. > :31:41.into those seeds. -- Lord McNally. Government cuts to criminal and
:31:41. > :31:45.family law where women tend to work, is having the opposite effect.
:31:45. > :31:49.result of publicly-funded cuts over 15 years, at the bar, we have a
:31:49. > :31:57.huge retention problem in relation to our women. It is rather sad.
:31:57. > :32:04.When we look at the number of black and minority ethnic that of women
:32:04. > :32:08.entering the profession taking the exams, we are almost equal and it
:32:08. > :32:14.is much higher when it comes to a thing minorities. This is another
:32:14. > :32:18.place where women and the senior ranks are low. Just 22% of MPs
:32:18. > :32:23.positions are filled by women. There is a woman who did reach the
:32:23. > :32:27.top of British politics. But David Cameron's Cabinet has just five
:32:27. > :32:31.women at the table, which is a far cry from the new French President's
:32:31. > :32:36.line-up. This gender equality campaigner tells me that the only
:32:36. > :32:39.answer is to give women a leg-up. We have waited 100 years for
:32:39. > :32:43.equality in Parliament and I think it is time that unless we accept
:32:43. > :32:46.that we have to open the doors to let women come in, we are not going
:32:46. > :32:54.to get the change that we need. What we have got women there, we
:32:54. > :32:57.can allow that change to be more sustainable and it would just be a
:32:57. > :33:04.short-term solution. Respect and deference are two different things,
:33:04. > :33:08.sir. In the world of law, change has come to our TV scenes. -- TV
:33:08. > :33:12.screens. The latest drama shows a woman rising above her male
:33:12. > :33:18.counterparts. But if life is to imitate art, do women need to be
:33:18. > :33:23.bushier? They do not have to be more pushy, they have to be more
:33:23. > :33:26.forceful and determined, I think. I was the first female Asian Queen's
:33:26. > :33:30.counsel appointed in the United Kingdom. I have two children.
:33:30. > :33:35.Therefore I managed to do it but I had to make sacrifices in relation
:33:35. > :33:38.to my children, such as when I was there when they grow up, and I was
:33:38. > :33:46.not for most of the time. You have to be really determined about what
:33:46. > :33:50.you want. So when in need to work harder if these numbers are to rise.
:33:50. > :33:55.-- women need to work harder. But do men have to level the playing
:33:55. > :33:59.field? When you go into the big legal
:34:00. > :34:07.offices in London, the international offices, or in New
:34:07. > :34:09.York, their role women everywhere in the top jobs. Yes. -- there are
:34:09. > :34:15.women everywhere. I suspect they are solicitors rather than
:34:15. > :34:21.barristers. But hasn't the legal profession done reasonably well on
:34:21. > :34:24.the gender balance? I wouldn't say so. Because? In terms of gender
:34:25. > :34:29.balance at the very bottom, at entry level, they are quite a lot
:34:29. > :34:32.of women. As you go up the pyramid, they fall away, and I am afraid
:34:32. > :34:38.that in the top jobs at the top of the pyramid, they are very few
:34:38. > :34:44.women. By the top jobs, you mean the judges? The Supreme Court, the
:34:44. > :34:48.judges. Top barristers? Very few women. Given that they are coming
:34:48. > :34:54.out of university and going into the profession, but they don't make
:34:54. > :34:59.it to the top, why is that? There are a number of reasons. The first
:34:59. > :35:03.is, I suppose, that those that take the decisions do not select women.
:35:03. > :35:07.It has often been suggested that we have a difficult task. We have
:35:07. > :35:13.ovaries, therefore we are going to have children, and then we will
:35:13. > :35:17.take time out. So it is men selecting men? Well, I think it is
:35:17. > :35:22.men selecting men. I know this may be controversial, but when I first
:35:22. > :35:25.came to the Bar in 1983, I was told in very clear terms, that there
:35:25. > :35:30.would be a trickle-down of diversity and quality and all I had
:35:30. > :35:34.to do was wait. I have been waiting for the best part of 30 years and
:35:34. > :35:42.that trickle-down equality has not trickled down to me and people like
:35:42. > :35:49.me and women. I very much regret to say that I doubt very much whether
:35:49. > :35:54.it will trickle down. I think we pay too much lip-service to
:35:54. > :35:59.equality and more women in top jobs. It simply does not happen. We are
:35:59. > :36:03.probably in the same position that we were in 1987. Not much is done.
:36:03. > :36:07.We talk it up and we have interesting debates about it. Do we
:36:07. > :36:11.actually put women in top positions? Of course we don't. And
:36:11. > :36:16.then we say, you know, it is the women. They don't want the top jobs.
:36:16. > :36:19.We are happy to give it to them but they just will not take it.
:36:19. > :36:26.parliamentary briefing paper that we looked at for this said that
:36:26. > :36:33.women have registered some progress in the legal profession. 9%? Moving
:36:33. > :36:39.from 37% in 2001-45% working as solicitors, lawyers, judges and
:36:39. > :36:43.coroners in 2010. -- up to 45%. then when you get up the pyramid,
:36:43. > :36:49.it is 9% of judges in the Supreme Court? It is. That is quite
:36:49. > :36:56.interesting. It bears out the point you are making. But now we have a
:36:56. > :37:00.profession in which 45%, almost equality, are working as solicitors,
:37:00. > :37:05.lawyers, judges and coroners. Surely that 9% changes over time.
:37:05. > :37:11.There is a much bigger base. much time does one need for it to
:37:11. > :37:16.change? I came to the Bar in 1983. The change from 1983 to now was not
:37:16. > :37:20.significant at all. If you look at the amount of women coming into the
:37:21. > :37:26.profession, yes, that has increased. But as you go up to top judges,
:37:26. > :37:33.there has been no progress. How many minorities are there? How many
:37:33. > :37:37.women? How many minorities in the Court of Appeal? Very few. But they
:37:37. > :37:44.are all ancient in the Supreme Court. In a Thwaite, they reflect
:37:44. > :37:50.the legal profession the way it was 30 years ago. -- in a way. And the
:37:50. > :37:57.way it is. 10% of barristers are now from ethnic minorities. That is
:37:57. > :38:02.about the ratio in the country, isn't it? 10%? About that, yes.
:38:02. > :38:09.lot more in London, but as an average of the country. Barristers
:38:09. > :38:14.kind of reflect that. This barrister's kind of reflected. --
:38:15. > :38:21.yes, barristers kind of reflect that. My son wanted to go to the
:38:21. > :38:26.Bar as a barrister. We discussed it. He is not coming, thank goodness!
:38:26. > :38:31.Are you not supporting your industry? No way will we tolerate
:38:31. > :38:35.that. He is going straight to the City! My daughter wanted to be a
:38:35. > :38:39.barrister and we had another discussion about that. She is not
:38:39. > :38:42.coming, thank goodness. She is going to the City. There is a
:38:42. > :38:46.better chance of progress and getting to the top than at the bar.
:38:46. > :38:53.I have been working for 30 years and I do not want my children to
:38:53. > :38:59.wait for 30 years. That is not going to happen. Take that!
:38:59. > :39:02.City can welcome them with open arms. Online pornography, how to
:39:02. > :39:05.stop your children accidentally stumbling across it and seeking it
:39:05. > :39:09.out as they get older is a challenge for any parent with the
:39:09. > :39:12.computer and internet connection. In an attempt to tackle this, the
:39:12. > :39:18.Government is going to consider introducing new filters, which
:39:18. > :39:23.would block adult material as a default. But Nick Pickles from Big
:39:23. > :39:27.Brother Watch does not think this is a good idea.
:39:27. > :39:31.Parents are always worried about what their children are up to, and
:39:31. > :39:37.how to make sure that, when they are in their bedroom and out with
:39:37. > :39:40.friends, they are safe. And the internet brings new challenges.
:39:40. > :39:44.Parents need to make sure their children are not seeing something
:39:44. > :39:49.appropriate and that they are safe online. I put forward a default
:39:49. > :39:59.block on any content that is deemed inappropriate, from pornography to
:39:59. > :40:00.
:40:00. > :40:04.gambling websites. I really do not Since 2008, there have been two
:40:04. > :40:10.Major Government reviews into how we keep children safe online. Both
:40:10. > :40:13.of these reviews rejected the idea of a default filter and actually
:40:13. > :40:17.focused on the idea of parents being able to talk to their
:40:17. > :40:22.children and making informed decisions themselves. In the USA,
:40:22. > :40:26.the White House's chief technical expert rejected blocking because it
:40:26. > :40:29.would introduce a new security risks to the internet and in
:40:29. > :40:33.Holland, internet service providers introduced the system, only to
:40:33. > :40:36.abandon it when it did not work. And Ofcom have concluded that
:40:36. > :40:46.blocks are trivial to circumvent and not with implementing in the
:40:46. > :40:50.first place. -- not worth implementing. Yes, more does need
:40:50. > :40:53.to be done, but technology is not a substitute for parenting. When you
:40:53. > :40:57.buy a new PC and have broadband installed, you should be given a
:40:57. > :41:01.simple choice about whether you want to install controls. They
:41:01. > :41:04.should be a straightforward helpline for parents. But this is
:41:04. > :41:07.already happening. Ultimately it is for parents to decide what their
:41:07. > :41:11.children look at online. The alternative is that the Government
:41:11. > :41:18.decides what we can all see online, and that is a very, very dangerous
:41:18. > :41:20.step to take. In the studio with me is Nick
:41:20. > :41:24.Pickles and the Conservative MP Claire Perry, who chaired the
:41:24. > :41:29.parliamentary inquiry into online child protection. Can I start with
:41:29. > :41:34.you? As part of the research, how easy is it to access pornography?
:41:34. > :41:40.From a child's perspective? The way we are supposed to protect our
:41:40. > :41:44.families now is to download filters on to every internet enabled device.
:41:44. > :41:47.You download protection on to everything, which the internet
:41:47. > :41:51.service provider is keen for you to do, and they provide filters for
:41:51. > :41:55.free. It is the parent's responsibility to keep their child
:41:55. > :41:59.safe, and that extends to the internet world, absolutely. The
:41:59. > :42:03.problem is that less than four out of 10 of parents by using those
:42:03. > :42:07.filters. 50% of parents say that their children know more about the
:42:07. > :42:11.internet than they do. We have got to the situation where millions of
:42:11. > :42:17.children are accessing things, but not just pornography, anorexia
:42:17. > :42:22.sides, suicide sides, self-harm. And it is easy to do. Is it
:42:22. > :42:25.damaging and do people care? We asked that question, and 83% of
:42:25. > :42:30.people are really worried about how easy it is to access online adult
:42:30. > :42:34.material. How effective would filters actually be? You have said
:42:34. > :42:39.it yourself, and I know from my experience, my children are very
:42:39. > :42:42.computer-literate. They are going to find ways round it. Not if they
:42:42. > :42:47.are looking for pornography, but they will find their way around
:42:47. > :42:50.Fildes. Young children stumble across it when they are typing in
:42:50. > :42:56.the innocent search term, and then the older children who are curious
:42:56. > :43:01.about sexuality. It was ever thus. The problem with the current set-up,
:43:01. > :43:05.is they have to go on every device, and in some houses that is up to 17.
:43:05. > :43:09.And they are relatively easy to circumvent. And public Wi-Fi is
:43:09. > :43:13.relatively free of filters. This idea of an opt-in, where you choose
:43:13. > :43:17.to get the adult material, but the default setting is free from adult
:43:17. > :43:22.material, that is a much safer option. What is wrong with that
:43:22. > :43:25.plan? A before you get to the choice of opting in or out, someone
:43:25. > :43:27.has to decide what is blocked. I agree fully with the Foreign
:43:27. > :43:31.Secretary, that this is not something the Government should be
:43:31. > :43:35.doing. Britain is leading the world in campaigning for a free and open
:43:35. > :43:40.internet and the benefits that have brought. But at the same time, we
:43:40. > :43:45.are having this debate. Is it any wonder that last year the Chinese
:43:45. > :43:47.state media praise Britain for controlling the internet as a new
:43:48. > :43:52.opportunity for the world? This is about censorship at the end of the
:43:52. > :43:57.day. Do you not accept the damage that it does to children? That you
:43:57. > :44:02.are putting an automatic block on pornography sites, so how is that
:44:02. > :44:06.censorship? There are two points there. By now, mobile phone
:44:06. > :44:11.operators are blocking the BNP's website as part of their child
:44:11. > :44:14.protection. -- right now. Whatever we think of that, it is not
:44:14. > :44:17.pornography, and do we want the Government making that same view?
:44:17. > :44:21.If you buy a device, it should be prompted, and more effort should be
:44:21. > :44:28.made by suppliers. Parents should have a simpler way of getting
:44:28. > :44:33.support. But if you make those choices on your devices, it is up
:44:33. > :44:39.to you. We reject that. If there was censorship, the watershed would
:44:39. > :44:46.be censored. You have to opt in to get adult contact on your website.
:44:46. > :44:49.And the BNP website! That is why you need to have human intelligence
:44:49. > :44:54.around filters. And it is brilliant that we are talking about this
:44:54. > :44:58.problem. Finally it is on the Daily Politics. 60 websites have been
:44:58. > :45:01.blocked in the first quarter, and that was not right. Millions and
:45:01. > :45:05.millions of websites, with arguably very degrading and damaging
:45:05. > :45:11.pornographic material, because it is not borne as we knew it that we
:45:11. > :45:16.are worried about, it is the degrading and extreme stuff. --
:45:16. > :45:21.porn. We know that the current system is not working. Our children
:45:21. > :45:30.are accessing stuff with these are known, social, long-term
:45:30. > :45:33.consequences. -- unknown. We should bring this in, because we have six
:45:33. > :45:38.out of 10 of people supporting it. There is a difference between
:45:38. > :45:42.popular support for control and the Government mandated a list of
:45:42. > :45:45.websites. Your report calls for Government consultation into a
:45:45. > :45:55.network filter across the whole of the UK and the Government should
:45:55. > :45:55.
:45:55. > :45:59.consider introducing VAT. That is a Government led website control.
:45:59. > :46:05.me just continue. The current filtering technology is provided by
:46:05. > :46:08.all of the internet service providers and is installed on every
:46:08. > :46:18.lap top, that already has definitions of what is and is not
:46:18. > :46:18.
:46:18. > :46:27.acceptable and we would use that You have got children. Would some
:46:27. > :46:33.sort of block, adopting, would that be so wrong? Can I just say before
:46:33. > :46:38.I answer that question that it must be of grave concern that a minister
:46:38. > :46:43.is going to dictate to the British citizens what they can and can't
:46:43. > :46:48.access on the internet. I don't think that is what we are proposing.
:46:48. > :46:55.I don't think that a minister should be getting involved in this.
:46:55. > :46:59.Where do we stop? Do we sense of violence? Do we sense or politics
:46:59. > :47:05.or political views that are not conducive to the present
:47:05. > :47:13.government? Can we watch sex in the City? That is the problem. It is
:47:13. > :47:17.who is doing it. Forgive me, I absolutely agree that we should
:47:17. > :47:22.have more protective measures when it comes to children. Perhaps we
:47:22. > :47:28.ought to re-educate parents because we would save a lot more money
:47:28. > :47:34.telling them how to fix their filters on. I do think when a
:47:34. > :47:40.minister starts to dictate to us in this country what we should and
:47:40. > :47:43.should not seek is unacceptable. one is suggesting that. We are
:47:43. > :47:49.suggesting the eye S Ps work together on this. They already use
:47:50. > :47:53.these filters. Why is the internet any different? We accept these
:47:53. > :47:58.filters on every other form of media, whether it is television,
:47:58. > :48:07.film ratings, mobile phone us. Why is the internet any different? It
:48:07. > :48:12.isn't. Thank you. After I saw the second sex And The
:48:12. > :48:15.City movie, I was convinced it should be banned it was so awful!
:48:15. > :48:18.What can be done to help motorists with the cost of petrol? Yesterday,
:48:18. > :48:24.MPs discussed ideas including cancelling the planned 3p rise in
:48:24. > :48:34.fuel duty due in August. But could the Chancellor afford that? Here's
:48:34. > :48:38.
:48:38. > :48:43.Said he really he of Tesco said that feeling that the family car
:48:43. > :48:49.has gone up by 70% in two years, causing what was a steady recovery
:48:49. > :48:52.to go sideways. Myself and others and most fair-minded people will
:48:52. > :48:57.recognise the government have made significant progress, abolishing
:48:57. > :49:01.the last government's fuel duty escalator, scrapping the planned
:49:01. > :49:08.hikes in 2011 and a 1 p cut in duty last year and a partial fuel
:49:08. > :49:13.stabiliser as well up as a freeze in the duty in January this year.
:49:13. > :49:18.But we face considerable problems and that first is the planned tax
:49:18. > :49:22.rise in August, which I'm asking the government to reconsider.
:49:22. > :49:26.Second, we need a serious inquiry into the lack of competitiveness in
:49:26. > :49:31.the oil market and possibly even a windfall tax on law firms to cut
:49:31. > :49:37.prices. Third, there's a problem of banks speculating on the price of
:49:37. > :49:42.oil. At a time when fuel costs are rising and it costs more to fill a
:49:42. > :49:46.car and he jaw home than to buy groceries, is it not now time for a
:49:46. > :49:51.windfall tax on oil companies? own belief is that in order to cut
:49:51. > :49:59.prices at the pump, the government needs to seriously look at another
:49:59. > :50:02.windfall tax on the oil companies. Calls for the August increase to be
:50:02. > :50:07.scrapped do raise a very important question. We would need to consider
:50:07. > :50:12.how to replace the �1.5 billion it would cost to do so. This money
:50:12. > :50:17.would need to come from higher taxes or lower spending elsewhere.
:50:17. > :50:21.We have recognised the impact of high oil -- higher oil prices. The
:50:21. > :50:25.previous government had no credible plan to deal with the debts they
:50:25. > :50:30.created, nor a credible plan to support motorists, however we have
:50:30. > :50:34.listened and responded in our time in government. We cut fuel duty, we
:50:34. > :50:39.scrapped their escalator, we have ensured there would be only one
:50:39. > :50:42.thing crate -- inflation-linked increase this year. We will have
:50:42. > :50:48.kept fuel duty frozen for 16 months and we will continue to support
:50:48. > :50:50.motorists. We've been joined by one of the MPs
:50:50. > :50:53.who spoke in that debate, Conservative backbencher Robert
:50:53. > :51:03.Halfon, and by Sian Berry from the Campaign for Better Transport.
:51:03. > :51:04.
:51:04. > :51:07.Welcome to the Daily Politics. Let's continue the debate.
:51:07. > :51:12.Interpreting what the minister had to say, she basically said we have
:51:12. > :51:16.done a lot of May -- already, we have no money, you are not on.
:51:16. > :51:21.have to continue the campaign. We've asked the government to stop
:51:21. > :51:24.Yorkist rise, we want an Office of Fair Trading investigation into the
:51:24. > :51:28.UN competitiveness of the oil companies and we want them to look
:51:28. > :51:33.seriously at the windfall tax of mail companies. Doesn't that
:51:33. > :51:37.increase the pump at the price? your oil companies are already
:51:37. > :51:41.behaving uncompetitive rate and the price of oil, when it is high, the
:51:41. > :51:45.price at the pumps go up, but when the oil price falls, it takes much
:51:45. > :51:51.longer to get passed on to motorists at the pump. When the
:51:51. > :51:55.price of oil falls, as it has done recently, $95 a barrel at the
:51:55. > :52:03.moment, should that be reflected in lower prices or a tax rise to keep
:52:03. > :52:07.a constant? You asking me? That why you're here. We have a serious
:52:07. > :52:13.long-term problem with the petrol market. There are short-term
:52:13. > :52:19.problems with speculators making it more expensive. But petrol prices
:52:19. > :52:23.will go up. We have to do more to reduce people's reliance on the car.
:52:23. > :52:28.Chloe Smith was talking about not having money available. If there's
:52:28. > :52:33.going to be money available, it has to go on improving public transport
:52:33. > :52:39.before it goes into petrol. We have to live in the real world. My
:52:39. > :52:41.constituents will get up at 5am, have to drive his lorry, and is
:52:41. > :52:48.paying an extortionate amount on petrol. The average Harlow resident
:52:48. > :52:54.is paying a 10th of their income every year on fuel. Motorists are
:52:54. > :52:59.facing fuel poverty. If we stopped the August rise, we will put �1.8
:52:59. > :53:06.million back into the economy and create jobs. We would not...
:53:07. > :53:09.would not object to a freeze. Any kind of cut is going to be public
:53:09. > :53:14.spending and it does need to go into things that are more
:53:14. > :53:17.constructive, more about the future, more about reducing people's car
:53:17. > :53:22.dependency long term. You will not be able to fight this rise in the
:53:22. > :53:26.long term. In real terms, fuel duty is lower than it has been for quite
:53:26. > :53:34.a while. If there's money available, it should go into something more
:53:34. > :53:37.worthwhile. It hasn't gone up in real terms. If you look at the
:53:37. > :53:41.figures and the former chairman of Tesco will confirm this, the price
:53:41. > :53:48.of petrol and diesel and the last couple of years has gone up by 70%.
:53:48. > :53:53.Oil prices have risen. Last year, or oil prices fell by 5.5% yet they
:53:53. > :53:59.were only reduced by 1.5% at the pumps and took a long time to get
:53:59. > :54:04.that decrease. Off the government has done a lot to cut petrol tax
:54:04. > :54:08.last year, and stopping the January rise, but they need to go further.
:54:08. > :54:12.It hasn't got any money. This is why I'm suggesting we have a
:54:12. > :54:17.windfall tax on the oil companies which would raise the money and
:54:17. > :54:20.that money would be passed directly to the motorist under-insured
:54:20. > :54:24.millions of pounds were injected back into the economy. We will
:54:24. > :54:31.leave it there. Now, sit back, chillax and have a
:54:31. > :54:37.glass or two of wine. I have had! Better not suggest that
:54:37. > :54:39.to David Cameron, though, as you might just get your head bitten off.
:54:39. > :54:44.Using our hard-won credibility which we would not have if we
:54:44. > :54:49.litter -- listened to the muttering idiot opposite Mai. It prevents the
:54:49. > :54:53.bullies from hitting him, the Prime Minister. The honourable gentleman
:54:53. > :55:02.has the right at any time to take his pension and I advise him to do
:55:02. > :55:05.so. Calm down, dear. Listen to the doctor. Calm down and listen to the
:55:05. > :55:09.doctor. It is good to see the honourable gentleman on such good
:55:09. > :55:13.form, I often say to my children, no need to go to the National
:55:13. > :55:20.History Museum to see a dinosaur, come to the House of Commons. I
:55:20. > :55:30.know the honourable lady is extremely frustrated about... Maybe
:55:30. > :55:33.
:55:33. > :55:37.I'm going to give up on this one. think that was the right decision.
:55:37. > :55:42.We're joined now by the journalist Iain Martin. Does the Prime
:55:42. > :55:45.Minister have a problem with his temper? It is a good thing that the
:55:45. > :55:50.Prime Minister has a temper. It shows there's blood flowing through
:55:50. > :55:54.his veins rather than iced water. People who don't have a tempers
:55:54. > :55:57.tend to be saints or very boring. But he's clearly having a problem
:55:57. > :56:02.controlling it and whilst it is good that he cares and he takes his
:56:02. > :56:06.politics seriously, what happened yesterday looked very unlike a
:56:06. > :56:12.prime minister. Was it more than that? Does he lose the argument if
:56:12. > :56:17.he snaps back at Ed Balls, in this case, and says you are muttering
:56:17. > :56:23.idiot. His benches fall about laughing, does it matter that much
:56:23. > :56:27.or does it show that he has lost it? Be matters because at the
:56:27. > :56:32.moment, look at the situation to government is in, the economic
:56:32. > :56:35.crisis, everything else that is happening, you really need if you
:56:35. > :56:41.are Prime Minister, one of the strongest cards you have is being
:56:41. > :56:44.calm in a crisis. When he does what he did yesterday to Ed Balls, he
:56:44. > :56:48.throws that away. Ed Miliband has picked up on this and has changed
:56:48. > :56:53.his style over the last few months. He has definitely gone for
:56:53. > :56:57.something much calmer and more deliberately statesmanlike, as
:56:57. > :57:02.Cameron loses his temper, Ed Miliband finds his voice. What do
:57:02. > :57:06.you think? One of the other incidents was where he made a
:57:06. > :57:10.comment about Ed Balls, a gain. He is sitting right across and what
:57:10. > :57:13.they will say is the microphones and cameras don't quite pick up a
:57:13. > :57:20.lot of the provocation. Not that I'm saying it is justified, but
:57:20. > :57:23.there's a lot of heckling. He also said Ed Ball was akin to having
:57:23. > :57:29.something with to read syndrome sitting opposite. Is that
:57:29. > :57:32.appropriate? It may not be. It probably isn't appropriate. But the
:57:32. > :57:39.man in the Street will understand what it is like to lose one's
:57:39. > :57:44.temper when one is being severely provoked. This is not a permanent
:57:44. > :57:51.bad mark. He lost his temper. He might do with some anger management
:57:51. > :57:57.courses. Oh no he wouldn't! I know of some very good ones if he wishes
:57:57. > :58:02.to avail himself to that facility. He might wish to take Ed Balls with
:58:02. > :58:09.him. Let's see how he was described. Do you remember the quiz at the
:58:09. > :58:15.Stade? Let's listen to who said this about David Cameron. We have
:58:15. > :58:25.got the quiz answer. My fault! Somebody said he was quite volatile.
:58:25. > :58:26.
:58:26. > :58:30.Do we know the answer? Norman Lamont. He was his boss when he was
:58:30. > :58:35.Chancellor of the Exchequer and David Cameron was special adviser.
:58:35. > :58:42.The frustrated Merc -- remark about women, is that good politically?
:58:42. > :58:46.To be fair to him, he did withdraw that immediately because he did
:58:46. > :58:51.realise he was through the water! That's it. Special thanks to