14/06/2012 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 14/06/2012. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Afternoon, folks. Welcome to the Daily Politics. We've had Gordon,


we've had Tony, we've had John. We've even had Nick, in case you


didn't notice. Today, it's Dave's turn in the witness box at the


Leveson Inquiry. The Prime Minster's apparently had a day's


coaching from lawyers to prep for the event, which might explain why


so far this morning it's been pretty tedious. The PM's giving


evidence as I speak and will do for the rest of the day. This is what


he had to say. This is idea that somehow the Conservative Party and


News International got together and said, "You give us your support and


we'll waive through this merger .". It's nonsense. Back in the real


world, Spain's 100 billionn euro bail out is already in crisis as


bond yields in Madrid this morning hit an unsustainable 7%. A


snooper's charter or a crucial tool in the fight against crime? We'll


be looking at the Government's new surveillance plans. And who tickles


your fancy? Balls or Osborne. We let the balls decide. I wouldn't


trust Ed Balls as far as I can throw me and I don't like Osborne


either. Fairly conclusive. Happy All that in the next hour and with


us for the duration is the businesswoman and FT columnist,


Heather McGregor. People on this programme. Welcome. Now, first this


morning, let's talk about the crisis in Europe, because this


morning Spanish borrowing costs, under the euro, rose to a record


high. That's dispute the Europeans agreed to a 100 billion euro The


yield on benchmark 10-year bonds hit 7%.. Bail out of the banks.


This was true of Ireland and Portugal and in Greece as well at


7%. This news came as moody's cut Spain's credit rating. It's now


just one notch above junk. That explains why they are having to pay


over 7%. It seems even 100 billion bail out now, it doesn't last 24


hours? No. This is the inevitable result of fiscal union, without


political union. Does this mean we'll get political union? This is


the first step towards the United States of Europe. It's not time to.


That may be the road we are going and people in the eurozone and even


our own Government even talk that that is the direction we'll have to


go in, but this crisis is today. have a strong European Central Bank.


What they will do or they'll have to do, is step in, just as Alistair


Darling had to save the Royal Bank of Scotland. It's completely


unsustainable. 7% is a huge rate for a Government to have to pay.


But, you say the strong mechanism, but the ECB by law is not allowed


to by government debt in the primary market. It can't buy the


bonds. It's confineed by lots of rules. Those rules can be changed


quite quickly. They can't be changed that quickly. Isn't it the


situation, that when you look at this, you look at the election


coming up in Greece, which could have some very strange results, you


see what has happened in Spain this morning, what we haven't reported


is the Italians had to pay over 5% for three-year bonds. It looks like


they are losing control. We are missing the point. The point here,


there but for the grace of God go we. We, we talk about austerity and


how we have it under control. Actually we are still spending more


money than the previous Government and borrowing more than we said.


understand that. We, at the moment, are simply going to be caught up in


the backwash. We are not the story. We could be one of the victims. We


could be collateral damage. Indeed, if it all goes bellyup. My concern


this morning, with the events in Greece, Spain and Italy, the


European elite that controls the eurozone it seems to have lost


control. It's almost like they are rabbits stuck in the headlight.


They need to wake up and smell the coffee. If you see what the


Americans did with Tarp, some similar scheme needs to be put in


place in Europe. It will come more quickly than we realise. That would


require a banking union. Yes. the eurozone to agree and a new


treaty. In the meantime, Spain burns. That will make them get off


their backsides a lot more quickly. May be they will be burnt by the


time we get there. What a horrible thought. Well, Mr Cameron is still


giving evidence at the Leveson Inquiry this morning. The Prime


Minister described the inquiry as a cathartic opportunity to sort out


the relationship between the press, politicians and the police. At the


beginning of the morning, Mr Cameron began by explaining why he


believed politicians haven't been successful in sorting out the


problems before. Because the relationship has been too close, as


I put it, the politicians and the press haven't spent enough time


discussing and sorting out the regulatory system under which the


press exist. We need to fix that and I thought Ed Miliband put this


quite well. He identified another risk, which is it's quite difficult


for the politician to sort out on their own the regulatory situation


the press face, because we are clearly - we are an interested


party. If we just steamed ahead and said, "We'll regulate in this or


that way." Then the press would have an argument to say, "Hold on,


you are beneficiaries and we need independence." That's part of what


this investigation is about. Prime Minister then went on to


address allegatons that there had been some sort of deal between the


Conservatives and the press. don't accept that. On the idea of


overdeals, this idea that somehow the Conservative Party and News


International got together and said, "If you give us your support and


we'll waive through this merger." We didn't even know about that at


that stage. The idea of that is nonsense and you've heard that from


lots of people in front of this inquiry. I also don't believe in


this theory that there was a sort of nod and a wink and some sort of


covert agreement. Of course, I wanted to win over newspapers and


other journalists, editors, priorors and broadcasters. I worked


hard, because I wanted to communicate what the Conservative


Party and my leadership could bring to the country. I made those


arguments, but I didn't do it on the basis of saying, "For all this,


I'll give you a better time on this policy." There are plenty examples


of policies which I believe in, that the people who are backing me,


didn't believe in. However, he explained why he felt he needed to


spend more time quoting certain parts of the media. I did


progressively realise over 2006 and 2007, that it's very difficult in -


if you are running a political part -- party and trying to create


momentum, it's difficult if you don't have what I would call the


different bits of the family behind you. You need the MPs and MEPs and


councillors and members and you also need the parts of the of the


press that should be sort of getting behind you. I had this


situation where some quite conservative parts of the press, I


wasn't getting much backing from them and I was struggling frankly a


bit to get the message across. So, I put in a lot of work already, but


maybe I'll put in some more work. He's got his work cut out. With us


now is the Tory Chairman of the Culture Select Committee, John


Whittingdale, and the former Labour Culture Secretary, Ben Bradshaw.


There is some juicy bits to come, I suspect. His relationship with


remembering brooks and so on. Have we learnt anything this morning?


From what I've seen, David Cameron has given the answers very much I


would have expected. There is no revelation? Is there anything today


that you didn't know before? There is nothing that I was surprised to


hear from him. I thought there were a couple of interesting points.


Firstly, in the clip you played about the transactional


relationship with the Murdochs, he took a deep intake of breath and


then said there was no deal. He said in that sentence, he wasn't


aware that Murdoch wanted to take full control of BSkyB, which I find


surprising. This is the biggest media issue out there before the


election and after. Secondly, he also said that he didn't think


there was a case, as I understand, I didn't hear the exact parts, for


re-examining cross-media ownership. That is a bit disappointing and a


different position from the one taken by Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband.


Are you surprised that the Prime Minister didn't realise that Rupert


Murdoch wanted all of BSkyB? Well, I am not surprised in that the


actual details of the bid he might not have been familiar with. He's


saying the principal he didn't even know that Mr Murdoch wanted the 60%


that he didn't have. I would - I follow the media. I would have


guessed it would be something that Rupert Murdoch would like, because


BSkyB generates a huge amount of money. What Ben Bradshaw is saying


that the Prime Minister's claiming he didn't know that Rupert Murdoch


wanted all of BSkyB. Is that credible? If it was after the bid


had actual ln been announced. this was before the bid. Then I'm


not surprised. No? You didn't know ironing? We all knew. No, I didn't.


Because it was the biggest story around. They delayed the


application until after the election. I knew it was likely they


would want it, because it's a hugely successful country that


generates billions of profit. The fact that the bid hadn't been there.


You did know? I didn't know. I would have guessed. I didn't know.


All right. In a sense, there's not a lot happening here. What we have


learned is that David Cameron set out when he became leader not to


woo the Murdoch press, not to do what Tony Blair and Gordon Brown


had done, but by summer 2007 it was sticky and he had no friends, so he


decided to woo them the way they had done. I think probably even to


have more meetings. I can't remember the exact figure, 17, 11,


ten and that's without the informal social gathers that the Prime


Minister had to acknowledge he hadn't included all of in his


evidence. He went back on what he intended to do. He said to me in


2005, he wasn't going to go the route of Blair and Brown, but then


he did. I think the fact that meetings took place, doesn't


necessarily mean he was going cap in hand in the way that perhaps


others have. However, I think it's a fact of life that any leader of a


political party has to deal with the most important media


organisations. Yeah. That was the biggest. Of course. In every


democracy in the world political leaders deal with the media and if


there are press proprietors as there are in America and in France


and Germany, you deal with them. But is it necessary to be as


incestious with them as ours have been? Starting with Mr Blair?


think the number of meetings, the frequency of meetings came as


something of a surprise to me. I think David Cameron himself has


said that actually that relationships had become too close


and that is one of the reasons why Lord Justice Leveson was asked to


conduct the inquiry. Everybody was at it. That is the truth? Yes.


Except the Lib Dems, because nobody cared. Yes. I have said before, as


Jeremy Hunt's predecessor what changed massively was that media


policy was subcontracted to the Murdochs, not just on this bid, but


free-to-air and cricket on TV and regional TV news. Every single


issues that James Murdoch attacked me for doing, the Tories reversed


when he were in Government. were the political arm of the


Murdoch media? Me? The Conservative Party. I'm not saying that. It's


the accusation that Mr Bradshaw is making. It's nonsense. It's the


case that generally the outlook of the Murdoch organisation, which was


promarket, it was deregulatory, was very similar to that of the


Conservative Party, so it wasn't that surprising that when we


adopted policies, which were much more promarket and deregulatory,


that those would be supported by the Murdoch organisation. As I said


before, but because you were in short trousers you denied knowledge,


the 2003 Labour communication act was the most deregulatory act in


modern British telecoms history and passed under your government.


you asked me, I've looked in it and it was a mistake. I welcome the


fact that Ed Miliband is talking about the need for tighter rules on


cross-media ownership and the amount of the media that one single


person it allowed to own. If you take the position that the


Conservatives were overfriendly, oversupportive of some Murdoch


media positions, that criticism would absolutely be true as well of


the Blair government around the year 2000? Wouldn't that be fair?


Except, that the takeover of BSkyB, if it had happened, was in a


completely different order. Every other media organisation opposed it,


because they thought and they worried it would mean total


dominance and the ability to cross- subsidise and the multimedia


platforms. I understand that. only reason it didn't go through


was because of Milly Dowler. agree with all of that. Why was it


possible for Rupert Murdoch to mount a bid for all of BSkyB in the


That was possible because of the act that I think was a mistake.


2003 Labour act? We would have preferred that bid to the


Competition Commission, as would Vince Cable have done -- we would


have referred. The policy changed when Jeremy Hunt took over. Follow


the policy. If you want to see what has happened, follow the policy.


understand there is some text coming out with the Prime Minister


and Rebekah Brooks, former chief executive, have you got it there?


This is about the relationship and how close they came, we already


heard from the Prime Minister about admitting you could still have


friends in organisations and be able to keep enough distance to


make decisions impartially. This is where they started to see more of


each other because the Brooks family moved nearby. She has moved


into Charlie Brooks' s house, it is near where we live, there is talks


about country suppers where they discussed, yes, but seriously, this


is a text. I understand the issue with the Times, let's discuss over


country supper soon. On the party, it was because I had asked a number


of people to post the endorsement. Sam was wonderful... It is all too


cosy, isn't it? Cosy country suppers. The fact that the Prime


Minister is friends with a leading executive from News International


is not a matter of shame in his cell. The fact that he has country


suppers seems perfectly understandable. When this media


organisation is lobbying like mad to get permission for the biggest


media takeover in British history? That is a separate matter which was


clearly not something he suggested discussing over a country supper.


We know it was discussed over a country Christmas supper. We know


that the subject was raised. David Cameron was clear that it was a


matter which was quasi judicial in the hands of the Business Secretary


and was out of his control. The fact that David Cameron was friends


with Rebekah Brooks, as was Gordon Brown for a time, as was Tony Blair,


is not in itself something which would immediately -- which we


should immediately criticised them for. Is it appropriate for that


level of access? Robert Jay has read out a text message from


Rebekah Brooks, 2009, pre- election, I am so rooting for you tomorrow,


not just as a personal friend but because professionally, we are both


in this together. It does give a sense that they were working on the


same side with the same aims. fact that Rebekah Brooks and a


newspapers were backing the Conservative Party in the last


election is on the record. issue is that the media group


backing the party is one thing, but a media group backing your party,


and once a major business favour, is something entirely different. --


and wants. Any sensible politician would surely keep their distance.


It only becomes wrong if the two island. The policy changed.


policy did not change. -- becomes wrong if the two are linked.


recommendation was to refer the bid to the Competition Commission, he


did not do it. Jeremy Hunt bent over backwards to do James


Murdoch's bidding in not referring it. It would have delayed the bid


by a year and cost News Corp millions. Jeremy Hunt did that.


Jeremy Hunt was required by the law when he received that


recommendation, to have a period which alternative suggestions could


be made. During which a special adviser provided a back channel.


followed the code to the letter. David Cameron: I think it means we


were friends, we were going to be pushing the same political agenda.


I suspect most of our viewers watching think that both of their


parties got far too close to the Murdoch organisation? I think most


of the viewers thought that anyway. They may not have known the extent.


They may not. I am not sure we needed such a massive inquiry at


such a massive public expense, in order to get to the extent of it. I


have no idea why the Leveson inquiry was set up. I have long


since forgotten. All I believe now is that he must have set it up as


some kind of distracting activity. That didn't work, did it? That is a


great political judgment! Some sort of cabaret to fill up newspaper


columns and time, in order to get away from the real problem, that we


in business believe that the government is not pursuing an


agenda for growth. That is what I want to see. Frankly, if I wanted


this kind of distracting activity, I would load fridge manger on to my


I remind you that Spanish bond yields hit 7%. Thank you.


We are going to do more of this! Things got heated in the Commons in


the debate over Jeremy Hunt's handling of the BSkyB. Mr Hunt


survive the ordeal but it was all hands on deck for the Conservative


Party, he even called back one MP from his honeymoon to ensure they


Either he didn't know what he was doing when his special adviser was


overstepping the mark, and that was a breach of the code, or as people


think more likely, he did know what he was doing when Adam Smith was


overstepping the mark, and that, too, would have been a breach of


the code. Whichever way you look at it, there has been a clear breach


of the ministerial code. First of all, the disgraceful allegation


that I deliberately misled Parliament. In response to a


question... Well, do you want to hear what I'm going to say about it,


because you call to the debate. If you want to hear the facts... In


response to a question on 3rd March 2011, I stated that I had published


correspondence between myself and News Corp. In answer to those


questions, I referred back to that statement. If there was any


misunderstanding about the extent to which I was publishing


correspondents, it was addressed as long ago as last September. What


the minister just referred to was his reply on 7th September when he


said it was for reasons for cost he was not able to provide anything


more. How much would it have cost him to remember he had sent a memo


to the Prime Minister on the matter, or to have checked his own mobile


phone for the text messages he sent to James Murdoch. He has lied to


I am not sure if everyone correctly heard the allegation that was made


by the honourable member. As I understood it, he accused Mike


right honourable friend of lying to Parliament. My understanding was


that that was unparliamentary language which should be withdrawn.


What I say to the... Members can shout as loudly or as long as they


like, and it doesn't make any sense, it won't make any difference. I am


simply saying that on advice that I have taken, nothing disorderly has


occurred. It may be orderly to accuse my right honourable friend


of being a liar, would it be orderly to accuse the front bench


opposite of being the most sanctimonious, hypocritical humbug


sin recent political memory. their credit, the Liberal Democrats


have decided they cannot go along with the Prime Minister's cynical


charade, good for them. But Mr Speaker, I struggled to see why


they should not join us in the lobby for the vote tonight. They


should be in the lobby with us, upholding the integrity of the


ministerial code. The house is well aware that this is not a decision


for the house. It is a decision for the Prime Minister. He has made


that decision. This is, therefore, a political ruse by the Labour


Party, whose behaviour on these issues is frankly appalling.


Well, as you may have realised, the Lib Dems did not back Labour's call


for an inquiry into Jeremy Hunt's behaviour, they abstained. The


government still had enough to win the vote with a majority of 38. We


are joined by one of the MPs you saw in the film, the Liberal


Democrat Don Foster, who speaks for the party on matters cultural.


Let's read -- beat about the thing which led to uproar in the House,


Labour's Chris Bryant accusing Jeremy Hunt of lying -- speak about.


Was it fair that it was allowed by Speaker Bercow? My view is not, I


think it brings the house into disrepute to have that sort of


language. I understand why the Speaker said what he said, he said


he had had some advice that it was going to be OK in those particular


circumstances. I don't want it to happen. It is almost irrelevant.


The substance of the debate was a situation where Liberal Democrats


were very clear we were not going to support the Prime Minister's


decision not to refer Jeremy Hunt to the independent adviser. We


believe, and questions remain to be answered, that the public want


answers to. You have already made clear that you're happy with the


way Jeremy Hunt dealt with the bid. Absolutely right. Is it that you


are unhappy with the way he handled, or perhaps should have taken more


responsibility for the behaviour of his special adviser? Or is it the


accusation that he misled Parliament? I think all of the


questions that were being raised from the Labour benches were


legitimate questions to raise, and they are the ones that I think we,


and the public, one to have wants us to. But not just because the


Prime Minister says I am satisfied, the public wants to have the


independent adviser look at the issue so it can have confidence in


the outcome. How angry are your colleagues with first novel, the


Liberal Democrats and Speaker Bercow? -- first of all. We are a


bit disappointed in the Liberal Democrats. I think Jeremy Hunt give


a good account and answered the questions. We expect in a coalition


that all members should reach a collective view and support it.


This was not an issue of collective responsibility. The Prime Minister


did not even consult the Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, before


he made his announcement. So it wasn't collective... This is not a


collective decision-making so there is no collective responsibility.


terms of the substance, that is not really what Liberal Democrats were


unhappy with. What they are unhappy about is that David Cameron did not


consult the Liberal Democrats in terms of the decision? Nick Clegg


made absolutely clear a long time ago that if questions remained


following Jeremy Hunt's appearance at Leveson, those question should


be fully addressed. And if they were about the ministerial code,


that should have been done by the independent adviser. That is what


the Prime Minister decided not to do. Nick Clegg was clear he doesn't


endorse that decision as Prime Minister. You got what you deserve?


In my view in a coalition, if the Prime Minister reaches a decision,


we expect the supporters of the government to back that decision. I


do think that there is some disappointment and some anger. And


it may have reverberations for some of the folks to come. There is a


lot of unhappiness about Lords reform and it may be that my


colleagues think, perhaps they may feel it is something they don't


have the same compulsion to vote for. Have you spoken to those who


have expressed that view? We have. House of Lords reform was in the


Conservative manifesto and Liberal Democrat manifesto. It is part of


the agreement that we address this issue and is totally separate from


an issue that was a decision made entirely by the Prime Minister, not


even with consultation with the Deputy Prime Minister. You have now


been warned, are you worried about the repercussions that may now make


policy decisions difficult? Frankly, I am not. Because when the


Conservative Party members sit down and reflect on this, they will


realise that two opposing political parties came together in a


coalition to sort out the economic mess. We didn't say we were going


to love each other through the process but we will get on and work


together to deal with the issues that we agreed to deal with. This


isn't making coalition politics looking good, if we now have


threats from Tory MPs, saying that we may not back you over policies


that were agreed in the manifesto? It has always been the case that


there are issues which still divide us. We worked together on the big


issues but there will always be occasions where there will put


people on one side of the fence or the other who are unhappy with the


decision reached. Can I ask you about one issue of substance?


Jeremy Hunt saying I have publish all the documents. What do you take


that to mean? I think what he made clear was that he published all the


documents which he felt were relevant at the time. That isn't


what he said. And which he was aware of. Part of the problem was


the extent of the Communication taking place between the special


adviser and News Corp was not something he was aware of, and it


became apparent later. He did in the memo of his own expressing


concern about Vince Cable's handling of the BSkyB bid. That was


before he was given responsibility. He was specifically asked a


question about that in the House of Commons. He denied he had made


representations when Vince Cable had responsibility. We know that is


not true because he had written a strongly worded memo to the Prime


Minister. The second issue was the one you drew attention to, that he


claimed he had published the communications. He admitted he may


have inadvertently misled Parliament on those counts. If that


is the case, you have be come back and apologised and acknowledge it,


as soon as you realise, and he didn't.


We are about to move on to some other issues. We welcome the was


from Scotland, who have been watching First Minister's Questions


live from Holy Rood. You're now with The Daily Politics in London.


We get more details of Rebekah Brooks's text messages to David


Cameron, before his conference breach in 2009. I am so rooting for


you tomorrow -- conference speech. Not just as proud friend but


because professionally, we are definitely in this together. Speech


of your life, yes he can. She was chief executive of News


International at the time. I don't think we will be hearing we are all


in this together again from the Prime Minister very soon. Is Big


Brother watching you? How would you feel about the police and


intelligence services having access to the details of your internet


use? For the record, I thank the Cat Protection League website very


informative indeed -- I find. There are proposals which the government


says they will help in the fight Local authorities wouldn't have the


new powers. The police could track e-mails, websites and mobiles.


They'll be able to reveal such details as the time of


communications, sender, recipient and location. Basically, the when,


who and where of their enquiries. It will remain the case they will


not be allowed to access the content of e-mails, texts and


mobiles without a warrant from the Home Secretary. This is all about


making sure that the police and security services can continue to


catch criminals and stop terrorists. At the moment, what they are able


to do is get access to what is called communications data, and


that's The Who, when and where of telephone calls. They have access


to that. The police have used it in 95% of serious organised crime


investigations and security services have used it in every


counter-terrorism investigation and this is used by the police as


evidence to prosecute criminals and put them behind bars. In the new


world, people communicate differently. They are no longer


using mobiles, but the internet, so we want to update the ability of


the services to have access to the data. It's not about the content or


reading people's e-mails or listening to their calls. This is


purely about the communications, which is the information about who,


when and where made the communications and as I say, it's


about ensuring we can catch criminals and stop terrorists.


was the Home Secretary. We are joined by one of her many ministers,


James Brokenshire and the Conservative MP, David Davis, who


is not one of her ministers. Welcome to both you. The Home


Secretary says she needs this to fight crime. She is wrong. Look, if


you are a burglar and you are captured and convicted on the basis


of evidence found in his house of stolen materials, that happens


quite a lot, it doesn't mean the next door neighbour should have his


house searched without a warrant, which is the logic of this. There


are of course, important times when the State needs access to where you


are, what your e-mails are to and from, but it's really important


they should get a judge to issue the warrant, as he would to search


a house. Why don't you? Well, to take David's point on, this is


actually about nuts and bolts policing, on the ensuring that the


police are able to know who is communicating with whom. As they do


at the moment, that's with mobiles and fixed lines and also on some of


the internet traffic. That is not with warrants at the moment. If you


are seeking to gain the information on what you are saying yes, that is


warranted, but there is oversight with the interception of


communications and ensuring that any decisions are made, they are


made at a level to give that. you were to tap my phone, do you


need a warrant? If it's a wire, listening, yes, it is, because of


the intrusive nature. If you want to know where I'm going on the


internet, shouldn't you need a warrant? It's a different level of


intrusion and therefore it is a separate system that we have for


this, with a senior officer making that decision and it has to be


based on the fact that it's an investigation of crime, it to be


for the protection of life and that system itself is overseen by a


Commissioner, so it's not that there aren't safeguards, there are.


It's a different type of system. You have one police officer giving


permission to another police officer and that's not satisfying.


How many commissioners are there? One of the things that we are


looking at, as part of the Bill, is the strength of that. The point of


this question is this - if 2010, the last year for which there were


numbers, there were 5 50,000 accesss. That's a lot of feed files


and gangsters, but also it's almost impossible to oversee something


like that and it's so big, because there isn't a restraint, there


isn't a judge saying, "I'm sorry, no that's too far. It's not


relevant." But the point that David makes and the number was 550,000


last year, but that isn't individuals. If you look at an


inquiry it may generate 1,000 requests. There are 18 million


individual phone subscriptions and around 129 billion texts each year,


so what we are saying is as we live our lives online increasingly, so


do the criminals and therefore Aztec knollgy changes we need to


reflect that in the tools available to the police to be able to police.


The FBI in a country six times as big of us have 14,000 equivalent


applications in the same year. That is how much we overuse this already.


Secondly, other countries, Germany, the Czech Republic, they tried to


introduce even the old system, before e-mails and it was struck


down by their courts, because it was such an intrusion on privacy.


Where you are, who you are calling, and in fact to a very large extent


where you are all day is given. It's excessive. It shouldn't be


that the State should interfere and intrude., as was said by David


Cameron and the Shadow Home Secretary and the Shadow Attorney


General when this was Government policy under Labour and we were the


opposition. Firstly, what guarantee do I have that you are not reading


my e-mail? Well, a number of things. The law itself provides that under


our draft bill that nothing constitutes that interception. That


would be an offence and nothing we are doing in the proposals


published today do that. But the government can break the law. So


what is the guarantee? If you have access to my e-mails, so that you


know where I'm sending and to whom I'm sending, how can I be sure you


are not reading it as well? Well, let me just clarify on the fact


that it isn't Government that would be holding that information. It


would be the individual phone and communications providers. Therefore,


there are safeguards in place around that, that the data is


protected under, to ensure that's held securely and separately


requests have to comply and be based on the fact it's solving


crime and protecting life. Let me get this right, my safeguard is


Google? No, it's not. You just said it was. That's right. The safeguard


is the law that is there, and the commissioners that operate around


this and the fact that they will be doing further audits and


examinations of that work. Ultimately if you break the law,


it's criminal. To misuse that information. You can send someone


to prison. Secondly, could I now give you a list of browsers on the


internet which I'm sure most criminals will get to, which will


scramble my I SP address and make it impossible for you to find out


who I am and who I'm sending it to or should I give you a range of


apps called VPNs, which you can't break? Actually, Andrew, you make


the case very clearly as to why the Government needs to change. All the


bad guys will use this. The point is that 95% of the organised crime


cases have a communications data element there. That capacity is


there. Let's pick one, 7/7, and we are talking about terrorism. They


used phones. Of course, we can track down where they were, but


they were pre-paid and cash bought. The ones that drug dealers use.


can do the same with e-mails. You hack somebody's WiFi or go to a


cafe and use a created e-mail identity. No contact. The ways


around this are Legion. The people who will be caught by this are the


incompetent and innocent. I'll give you the final word, and what do you


make of this? It's like looking at Jeremy mustn't on the previous clip.


That bad? I think it's the greatest privilege. I grew up believing it


was the greatest privilege to represent their country in


Parliament and their constituents in Parliament and I look at things


like that and I think, they live in a parallel universe. I'm out there


sweating to pieces, paying 50% tax and creating jobs, which is more


than anybody in the chamber has done and most of them haven't had a


commercial job to be honest, including the Prime Minister.


that bit, but I'm at a loss as to what this has to do with e-mails.


You've lost me. Straight to the Prime Minister on e-mails. I bet


you he changes his mind about this kind of thing when he reads acres


of print about his texts with Rebekah Brooks. It's possible.


are they there. He may say, of course, "If all mine have been out


there, so can injures." Do we not have better things to do with our


time in all seriousness? The Leveson and this thing, we need to


pursue an agenda for jobs and growth and none of that seems to me


to be happening. The final word to you. I appreciate it. If you


promise not to read my e-mails. are not reading those. Ultimately.


Do you promise? I do personally, I won't be reading your e-mails.


You've been privatised into somebody else? I'm only teasing you.


Make the final point. This does matter and I absolutely hear the


points about liberty and freedom, that's why many draft that we


published today has significant safeguards in it, but ultimately,


doing nothing is not an option, because the ability for the police


to do the ordinary stuff about bringing bad guys to justice will


be eroded unless we take action. Where are we in the process on


this? A long way to go? Briefly. Draft published today. Oversight by


a joint committee of the House of Commons and the House of Lords.


That is expected to report back at the end of the year. Are the


Scottish viewers covered by this? It's a UK-wide. It's a UK-wide


publication. Thank you very much. How to solve youth unemployment.


It's something the Government's keen to tackle. A report from the


CBI shows that many firms think school and colleague leavers lack


the skills. Our guest runs a scheme and we have been to see it in


action. A college, some students and a direct link to business.


Heather. This course at Oldham College is one of 130 so-called


career academies around the country to teach people the skills they


need. You did something really well there, which is that you shook my


hand properly. Everybody looked me in the eye. Each student gets to to


an internship with a local business and some will get jobs out of it.


For 19-year-old Lynne it's opened the door to higher education,


something no-one in her family's ever done. If I went to this class


I didn't think I would go to university. I thought to finish the


course and do something extra or get a job, but I thought why not?


You go to university and get the experience and now I have the work


experience, so there's no way that when I get out of uniy I go and get


a job, because I will have the experience. This is one of the


hardest-hit areas. Oldham has some of the highest numbers across the


country of young people claiming jobseeker's allowance. Outside this


job centre, I meet one young bricklayer who has been out of work.


I'm not looking for work as much, because I see it as a waste of time,


but the work is through agencies, where they could phone you one day


and then you are not in for four. It's nothing proper. It's not


strong how it used to be. They can get rid of you. More than 2.5


million people are out of work in the first three months of this year.


Just over one million were young people. The north-west was the


region with the highest percentage of 16 to 24-year-olds out of work.


But this Oldham factory has 15 vabg siz it can't fill. -- vacancies it


can't fill. She puts in a number of different notes. It takes it into


the machine. The finance director, who is mentoring this student, set


the Government -- said the Government has to work with


businesses. It's important to talk to the employers and understanding


the employers' needs and making sure that the colleges and


universities deliver what the employers really want. Would that


do enough to get young people into jobs? The minister for employment,


Chris Grayling is with us now. Governments have tried many things


to deal with unemployment and particularly youth unemployment.


Why will the Government's latest scheme work better than the others


Two parts, the first is through the work programme. We have stepped


back and created a black box approach. We are saying to the


organisations involved, you do what works, we won't seek to set


parameters but will only pay you when you are successful. The aim is


to allow the most successful approaches to flourish. Alongside


that what we are trying to do, and what the project we have seen it


does so well, is we are trying to get people into the workplace


through our work experience scheme and the support we are providing


with these contracts. Very often a person coming out of university


without previous experience is up against someone five or six years


older, has come from another country, maybe more experienced and


more qualified and the employer is tempted to go for the more


experienced person. If we can get them into the workplace, the


employer starts to build a workplace and says, they are pretty


good, I will keep them. -- starts to build eight impression.


problem might be that the majority of the jobs were created in the


public sector. The jobs that are being created under new government


schemes, are the permanent jobs? Are they full-time jobs? We are not


trying to create artificial jobs. What is the evidence that it will


work? My goal, if you look at a young person coming out of school,


college or university, are we better off putting them in a six-


month placement which has nothing beyond that, in a part of the


economy where there isn't going to be a lot of growth in the future,


all the better trying to get them into a private sector employer,


with an apprenticeship, in the hope it builds a career for them. What


is your view on that? I applaud the idea that people should have an


opportunity to go into the workplace and the career academy


scheme, which I chair in the UK, that is what we set out to do.


People come into our scheme and we help them by giving them a mentor


and a six week paid employment opportunity. That is the important


bit, it is paid. The fact that it is paid is very important. The


people on the whole are in parts of the country where it is very


difficult. More importantly, it is being there, on their CV, when they


leave school or university, they have already been in the workplace.


We find that people become more employable and raise their


aspirations. Do they get jobs? do. We have put 4,000 people


through the skin, they -- we have spent something like �8 million


with almost no government help whatsoever. -- through the scheme.


We have done all this, I have never been invited into the DWP to talk


about the scheme. Very kindly the minister said before we came on air


that he would come and visit us, and this -- we are delighted.


this is working, surely this is the model you should be looking at,


even if you want to say you want to step back. With all due respect, it


Stop we pay for success but we don't so, you must do it this way.


If an organisation has a good way of supporting people back to work,


the door is open to help young people get back into the workplace.


Why is unemployment so high for young people? One of the things


that tends not to be spotted is that if you cut the number of


people want Jobseeker's Allowance and benefits overall, it has fallen


over the last two years. Claimant count figures, the reforms are


moving from one benefit to the other. You would think there are


jobs hanging on trees by the way you are talking. Why isn't


unemployment coming down specifically in large numbers?


are going through a difficult economic time. So there are no jobs,


that is not what -- that is what I It is not true that there are no


jobs. In Oldham, they could not fill 15 jobs. That is the other


side, there are jobs. Young people are not qualified properly. Yes.


Graduates are unemployed in large numbers as well, who you might say


are qualified educationally. They have not had enough work place


experience. In a different scheme were I take ethnic-minority


graduates straight into university, we have to equip them with


workplace skills. That is crucial for the bit you talk to employers,


it is often not about, do I have somebody who knows how to operate


the machinery or the software, it is actually somebody who is not yet


fully geared up or experienced in the workplace. That is what


employers are looking for. If you can get them into the workplace,


they start to build those skills. If you are taking them from 16 to


24, would you say that university it is not the great panacea, that


going to get a job after school might be better. Is that the sort


of thing you might guide people to do? So 62% of the young people who


have been through our programme go into higher education. At least


half of them, they are the first person in their family to go to


university. What I would say, it is a not-for-profit scheme, the


government largely out source is what it does to profit


organisations. We are a charity. We get private sector employers like


me to provide other private-sector employers, like my clients, to come


together and work with schools and colleges to deliver this programme.


On the manners, on the, I can't be bothered to get up and no one, do


you find that? Getting people to go to work every day is a real problem.


The you have found that? We teach them. This idea of a lost


generation, is that exaggerated or really true? It is partially


exaggerated. If you look at young people have become unemployed, most


come off benefits within three months. There is a called young


people who are struggling, not getting to work. We have to do


everything we can to help them. I don't want to countenance a lost


generation because we want to make sure that does not happen.


Spare a thought for Ed Balls, who only wants to be loved. R. The


Shadow Chancellor has apparently spent thousands of pounds on


private polling on an effort to find out if voters like him. Ed, we


could have saved a lot of money. One call and we could have told you.


Anyway, it is sweet and we thought we would help him out. We thought


we would ask what people thought of the Chancellor, too.


We have come to Spitalfields Market, a stone's throw from the City of


London, to find out if people prefer a George Osborne or Ed Balls.


There will be voting with these, which I suppose for balance we


should call coloured spheres. both irritates me. Also irritates


me an awful lot more than was born. Very positive. -- Ed Balls


irritates me an awful lot more. Balls has got it. What has he got?


He is not looking like Mr Bean and doing a whirling dervish act.


don't like Osborne for by just don't like him. But you are a Tory


voter? Yes. He doesn't make the right choices, the economy is not


growing. A what do you like about George Osborne? I know more about


him, Ed Balls doesn't seem as visible. It has to be... What do


you think it is about him? People do have quite a strong reaction to


him. I have heard on the grapevine that he can be a bit belligerent.


Osborne. Why? I don't trust Ed Balls. I wouldn't trust Ed Balls as


far as I could throw him. And I don't like Osborne either. It is


not much of a choice. Ed Balls is BLEEP. Osborne is a gap Les BLEEP.


This guy. He is less of a BLEEP. have never heard so much bad


language during -- doing one of these things were but I am amazed


how many people can't pick either, but it is looking pretty evenly


matched. Coming up for lunchtime, who would you rather have lunch


with? Definitely Ed Balls. He would be entertaining. Why would you talk


about? Current affairs. Ed Balls looks the more rich. Really?


Because he is fatter so I feel like he has more money to feed himself.


A appearances can be deceiving. ? George Osborne is loaded. Who


would you rather be stuck on a desert island with out of those


two? Who are they? Who would you rather share a flat with? Why?


is better looking. Who would you rather your daughter came home


with? Ed Balls, I suppose. He would make the better boy friend, George


Osborne or Ed Balls? Oh... For most of the morning, it was neck and


neck but in the last few minutes, George Osborne has just snuck into


the lead. The fact is, for most people, it was like choosing


between a poke in the eye or a kick in the teeth.


Adam's vocabulary has been much expanded. It is an educational life


that the BBC. We have succeeded where he failed. Claire Perry, we


are told, she has got a tattoo dedicated to George Osborne. Steady


on. She won't tell us where it is. And we are not going to ask,


because we are frightened of the answer. Why should we love Ed


Balls? Here's a good bloke. Even the press lobby, they say they


enjoy spending time with him. He is good to have a drink with. I agree


with that. He is a good laugh, he cooks well. He has not cooked for


me. I'll have a word, see if he can invite you round. He is good


company? Yes. Why should we love George Osborne. Equally, he is a


great guy. He runs a very good team, trying to make these incredibly


tough decisions. Who wants to go into politics to be popular? It is


a nightmare. People think I spent my entire life swearing and cursing


because this is what they read in the papers. No, they just watch it


on a Daily Politics. If you ask people about Labour's policy, half


of them have not got a clue. All of this is based on images and sound


bites and what the media says. When we tried to dig behind it, these


public images have nothing to do with it. Can George Osborne cook?


Yes, he can. And he hires women. hires women? As a stay at home


housewife, he gave me my big break into politics. What is his best


dish? I can't possibly tell you. Because you don't know. The fact is


that neither is that popular. It maybe something about being


Chancellor, or Shadow Chancellor, they are both jobs designed to make


enemies, aren't they? Yes, it is a tough economic time, people are


really struggling. I think they blame all politicians for the mess


that they think the country is in. And we will have the fight about


who is really to blame. My stop them blame you, to be fair. Could


you leave him alone? -- most of them blame you, to be fair. It is a


tough time. It is. In the House of Commons in particular, the culture


is to knock spots off each other. That doesn't show people in a very


positive light. They both have a problem, people who know them say


they have a much better image privately than they do with the


public, which I think is true of both of them. You judge people on


the teams they get together, and George and Ed have loyal and good


team around them. Ultimately, you judge people on who they get to


work with over the years. And how they treat people around them. I


think both of them to a regional -- do a reasonable -- both of them do


They are obviously concerned about their public image, or Ed Balls is.


What do they need to be to be more likeable to the public? Why do you


have to be likeable? They want to be. I have met them both and I


would quite happily, and have done, spent time with them both. The


thing I think they have in common, I find they are both incredibly


clever. You would back me up on that. Personally, I think clever is


Go think they should spend too much time worrying about being likeable


-- I don't think they should. They should be more serious. If they


started talking about playing computer games, I don't think


people will be that fast. If he was my son sitting there muttering, I


would tell him to shut up and he would not get his Nintendo for a


week. It is annoying, irritating, juvenile behaviour and the House of


Commons could do with more of a serious approach. Right... Thank


you for getting into the spirit of a non-partisan discussion. That is


it for today, with a core of our guests. The One o'clock News is


Download Subtitles