16/10/2012 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 16/10/2012. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Good afternoon. Welcome to the Daily Politics. Computer hacker


Gary McKinnon awaits his fate as the Home Secretary prepares to


announce whether she will block his extradition to the US. We will


bring you that decision. Her inflation is at its lowest


level for almost three years, but with food and energy prices on the


rise, how long will that last? Les but calls for a public inquiry


into the allegations of sexual abuse by Jimmy Savile in a school,


hospitals and at the BBC. To Guantanamo, US base on Cuba, the


US sends reinforcement of Marines. And it is 50 years since the Cuban


missile crisis. How close did we get to nuclear war?


All that in the next hour. With us today is the Labour peer and


broadcaster, Baroness Joan Bakewell. Let's start with that imminent


decision on whether computer hacker Gary McKinnon should face charges


in the United States of hacking into Pentagon computer systems. The


Home Secretary, Theresa May, is due to make a statement in the Commons


in the next half-hour. She has to decide whether to block the


extradition on human rights grounds. He has been diagnosed with


Asperger's Syndrome and medical reports say he would be a suicide


risk if sent to the US, where he could face up to 60 years in jail.


His is just one of a number of cases that have led to questions


about whether the extradition treaty with the US it is fair. The


former Liberal Democrat leader Ming Campbell has written a report on


the treaty for the Liberal Democrats, and he joins us now. How


significant is his decision today by Theresa May? Is it is very


significant, not just in relation to Gary McKinnon, but in relation


to the other elements of the whole issue of extradition. The Home


Secretary has taken her time. There was the Baker report. She has taken


some months to consider that. In addition to any decision about Gary


McKinnon, there are two other issues am concerned about. Firstly,


there is deciding whether British citizens should be prosecuted. At


the moment, that is done by the Director of Public Prosecutions. I


hope the Home Secretary will announce that that will now be done


by a judge in an open court. The other thing refers to the differing


standards of proof required. If you want to get an American citizen to


Britain by extradition, you have to show a probable cause, whereas if


you are doing the reverse and getting a British citizen to the


United States, a reasonable suspicion is enough. It is an


important distinction and I hope the Home Secretary deals with these


matters. There is huge political pressure on her, because both David


Cameron and Nick Clegg, before the general election, said Gary


McKinnon should not be extradited to the US. One might presume that


she will block the extradition? don't think you can presume


anything. There is a variety of alternatives flowing about the


House of Commons this morning. It does appear to be the case that two


independent examiners, a psychiatrist and psychologist, have


seen Mr MacKinnon recently and written a report, extracts of which


have been produced which suggest that they would support, from a


medical point of view, the contention that he should not be


extradited on human rights grounds. But that does not bind the


Secretary of State. She has to exercise her own discretion. It is


there a risk of a precedent being set here? There has to be a law in


these cases that applies to everyone equally. If she does block


this extradition, then it could open the floodgates in terms of


requests. You are right. If the decision is not to extradite Gary


McKinnon, the Home Secretary would have to justify it by saying that


there were special and particular circumstances in this case. It is


in the interests of Great Britain and the United States that we have


an effective extradition system. That system must be consistent with


human rights, be legal and more fundamentally, it has to be a


system in which the British public has confidence. That confidence has


not been on display recently. We will hopefully hear from Theresa


May within the next half-hour. Joan Bakewell, to some extent, this


extradition treaty was used in order to allow a flow of terror


suspects. Indeed, he came -- it came in after 9/11. There was a


flood of concern and legislation to make it easier to pursue terrorists.


Hacking into the pan Digan is of course a shocking crime -- hacking


into the Pentagon. But the point Menzies makes is important, that


the public at large field that Gary McKinnon should be given the


benefit of the medical reports. The human rights issue about his


Asperger's syndrome should weigh with the judgment. I agree with


that. Although legislation has to be seen to be fair, it is easier


for Americans -- for America to extradite people from here than it


is for us to extradite from there. There were the NatWest three and so


on. We want fairness and compassion. But is there then a risk that


medical grounds, or human rights legislation, could be used to keep


people here who we don't necessarily want to keep, who


should be extradited? Every case is a particular one. If people try and


win the lead and say there is a medical case for this, it has to be


recognised. People are skilled enough to know these things and


whether they are genuine. Asperger's is a very elusive


problem, so it would take experts to assess it. But it is not beyond


the means of intelligent people. Now, as you may have heard, the


rate of inflation has dropped to its lowest level for nearly three


years. Relieved? Well, unfortunately, it is not as simple


as the headline suggests. The rate of consumer price index inflation


fell from 2.5% in August to 2.2% in September. Although the slowing


pace in living costs will be a relief for many, those claiming the


basic state pension or benefits are likely to see a smaller increase


next April because the September inflation figures are used as the


basis to calculate any rises. The downward trend is also likely to be


coming to an end. The Office of National Statistics has warned that


inflation is likely to rise in the coming months. A poor harvest has


pushed up grain prices, which will increase the cost of food. The big


energy companies, including British Gas, Npower and SSE, have recently


increased energy prices, which is likely to have an upward impact on


future figures. Some experts are warning that the increasing


university tuition fees will also contribute to the end of a downward


pattern in inflation. For many of us, the outlook seems less positive.


Merryn Somerset Webb of money Week magazine joins me now. Presumably


the first impression is that it is a good piece of news that inflation


is on its way down? Absolutely, but if it is only temporary, it does


not help as much. There are several things which will push inflation up


over the coming months. Before this month is almost entirely due to


rises in utility prices from last year coming out, and utility prices


are about to go up again. That will come back in. The poor harvest will


also affect things. So will tuition fees. What happens to inflation is


also dependent on what happens to our currency. So this is really a


blip, and actually, we will see rises coming in soon? Yes. And the


problem with that is that the thing that matters about inflation is its


impact on confidence. Over the last couple of years, inflation has


consistently been higher than expected. Now they expect inflation


to be volatile, which affects confidence and spending. That is a


big deal for the economy. though it is good if you are in


work and for households generally, what about for pensioners and those


on benefits? The Chancellor mainly takes the September rises in


account when he decides on benefits and payments to pensioners. Last


year, inflation was high, so the rises were high. This year, it is


lower, so it balances out. With us now is Conservative MP and member


of the Treasury Select Committee Jesse Norman. Good news for a


change? I think it is good news on two France, first at the cost falls


in inflation are always welcome and the inflation rate has halved over


the last two years. You ask, it has gone down from 5.2%. A tremendous


win. The second reason it is good is because even when there is some


re-rating to pensions, there is still a back place -- backstop


which the government put in place to say it cannot be less than 2.5%.


So even if there were an incentive to lower payments, it would still


be 2.5%. But to to still difficult for pensioners. It is still


difficult for pensioners, and I think it is a blip. With the shore


of rises that are coming, particularly the rise in food


prices, they will be seriously affected by the drought in America.


Pensioners are not sanguine about things. They do affect things that


affect their cost of living to rise. They will wait to see what happens.


Isn't the problem that actually, the cost of living element, so when


we talk about the food prices rising, energy bills and fuel costs,


those are things households have to spend money on, and those other


things the Government can do nothing about? The artisan embedded


problem in general. Joan is right that pensioners could reasonably


feel concerned. In my constituency, older people are very concerned


about fuel and petrol prices and increases in food prices. We are in


danger of seeing a hike in food prices after the bad harvest in


Britain. And there has been a bad harvest in many other parts of the


world. It could be stormy weather ahead. The but where will inflation


go from here? We have heard it is probably going to go straight back


up again, so it will be a short- lived benefit, if any benefit at


all. We are in a time of extraordinarily difficult economic


trouble generally. That is not very comforting. Unfortunately, when you


are in choppy seas, confidence is not what you expect. We will would


not be out of them for a few years. A but from a consumer point of view,


are we looking at years of continued squeeze in household


expenditure and a squeeze on living standards? Wages have not risen in


real terms over the past few years. The air is no doubt that we will


continue to see a squeeze on living standards and household expenditure.


One wishes it could be different. The economy works in cycles. It


goes through periods of feast and famine. We missed a period of


famine in the early 2000s because there was so much extra spending.


We are now reaping the harvest of that, in a long term sustainable


period of living standards. That is inevitable. It is not inevitable.


The OBR and the IMF are beginning to say that austerity has gone too


far. It is having repercussions on the economy which could be avoided.


I do not think that is true. They have said one or two little things.


I don't know if you are taking a political position on this, but if


you are, you will recall that the IMF has been supportive of the


Government for the previous two years. Now it is saying, how long


can austerity go on for? They are right to raise the question, but


the consensus of opinion is still on the government's side. By but


they have also said the measure of the impact on the economy of


austerity has been underestimated. They think this term, the fiscal


multiplier, has been underestimated and that actually, every pound cut


has a greater impact on the economy than George Osborne and the IMF


first thought. I don't think that bears on the central economic


judgment. In 2010 Comedy Central judgment was, wasn't the right


thing to do to take control of the economic mess this country? It was


clearly right. Even now, look at the alternatives. The alternatives


are to allow borrowing costs... Borrowing is going up anyway.


alternative is to allow our long- term borrowing costs to go up. That


will clobber households even more. That is the inevitable counterpart


of Joan's idea that we should go and spend. Spending will not work.


People in a get hold do not spend the money they receive through tax


cuts or government programmes, they keep it to pay off the debts.


Spending can bring jobs. And it will give people who are unemployed


the resources. When unemployed people get an income, they spend it


all because they have such needs. You would have higher spending


across a whole swathe of re- employed people. What share of GDP


is consumed by the government at the moment? 42? For 49. The


historical problem has been that we have gone from 38-40% for decades


to the 49% now. To start to restrain the huge increase in state


spending. It does not help people. It depresses growth and is a bad


What about now? George Osborne made that argument in 2010 and it was


accepted by many people, in terms of reigning in public expenditure,


but much of the, or many of the cuts have been to investment, have


been to capital expenditure, do you this that has harmed the growth


prospects of the economy? I think the Government needs to be training


every sinew to increase capital expenditure. That is why some of


the work I have been doing on reforming PFI is important. It


feeds through into hieing less expensive expenditure. They haven't


got the banks to lend on the scale it needs. It keeps launching


different ideas to get the banks to lend to people who want, small


businesses and so on, it isn't working to the extent that is


necessary. Surely you recognise that. Can I bring it back, just to


inflation and prices and how people are feeling. Politically, let us


move away from the economics, how difficult is it going to be for


your Government to get people to vote for them, when people are


going to continue to feel this squeeze, which you have admitted is


going to go on. T. It has been clear this will be a long-term


process. T I think you will not see the current benefits during the


life of this Parliament. I think there is actually, if we were


honest, a kind of heroism in saying we are going to do something that


we know is tough and difficult, even if we can say we won't reap


the political benefits. Will people thank you for that, if you continue


admitting you can't do anything about the energy prices, the fuel


prices, into the future, and there is still no growth. A lot of things


have been done to mitigate that. That is what they want do you look


at. I agree with that. It is obviously right to bear down on


that. The key question is if there is the beginnings of sustainable


high quality, not just high, growth, coming through the end of the


Parliament, I think they will realise the nay Sayers who said


turn again half way through, will right be right. The BBC, a girls


school and three NHS hospitals all implicated in the flood of


allegations of sexual abuse committed by Jimmy Savile.


Yesterday, questions were asked in the Commons about how the late DJ


and TV presenter was able to conceal evidence of his behaviour


over five decades and whether public institutions turned a blind


eye. MPs wanted to know why a BBC Newsnight report being prepared in


the aftermath of Savile's death was not broadcast. The BBC has launched


three separate investigations, the first will look particularly at the


allegations with regards to the item on Savile, which was


inappropriately pulled from Newsnight. The second review to be


undertaken when the police advice it is appropriate to do so, will


focus on Jimmy Savile himself, and although the BBC's child protection


policy was overhauled in 2000 2 the are view will focus on whether its


policy is fit for purpose and what lessons can be learned. That will


be assisted by an independent expert there San additional piece


of work that will look at the troubling allegation of sexual


harassment at the BBC that have come to light in recent weeks.


Everyone has been sickened by the vile abuse perpetrated by Jimmy


Savile, and it similar possible to overstate the suffering caused to


those he abused. And what has deepened the revulsion is this


happened at the BBC, an institution so loved and trusted it is known as


"auntie". Does she agree that no- one should be complacent and


believe sexual abuse by people in position of power happened then,


but could not happen now? And that is why the BBC should proceed now


to review all its policies and process on protection of children,


sexual harassment and whistle- blowing to be sure the right


policies and processes are in place, and they are properly enforced.


I echo the remarks that the revelation of recent weeks raise


serious questions, not just about the culture that existed in the BBC


some years ago, and in other organisation, but about the way in


which the BBC has handled this and in particular the very damaging


suggestion that the Newsnight investigation was suppressed.


may have heard the Culture Secretary Maria Miller saying the


Newsnight investigation into Jimmy Savile had been "inappropriately


dropped. "Her spokesperson said she had meant to say only that the BBC


was investigating whether or not the investigation had been


inappropriately dropped. Well, last night, Ed Miliband weighed inwhen


he was questioned on the ITV show The Agenda. These are horrific


allegation, now I think in order to do right by the victim, I don't


think the BBC can load their own inquiry. I have thought about this


as a statement in Parliament today. I think we need a broader look at


these public institution, the BBC, I am afraid some parts of the NHS,


potentially Broadmoor. I am open minded about how it is done but it


has to be independent. I don't think you can have the BBC board. I


am a great supporter of the BBC, I don't think you can have the BBC


board leading its own inquiry. Miliband there. Rob Wilson is the


MP who asked an urgent question on Jimmy Savile in the Commons


yesterday. He joins us now. What do you want to find out? I have been


asking for an independent inquiry now for over two week, and the BBC,


bit by bit, dragging its feet is coming to the point where it is


offering an independent inquiry. That is not the same thing that Ed


Miliband is asking for, he is asking for a wider public inquiry.


I think it is early and premature to be doing that. I think the BBC,


if it does have an independent chairman, if it does have an


independent panel, can deal with this at the moment. However, it


also depends how much comes nowt the next few weeks and months,


because I still think we aren't at the bottom of the barrel, in terms


of things that will come out. say the BBC has been dragging its


feet, but you have just said you would like to wait for the next


weeks and months, wouldn't it be better to wait, because there is a


sense, I mean listening to Maria Miller there, the Secretary of


State, she miss spoke, but a feeling that people have made up


their mind that somehow they are pre-judging some of the inquiries.


For me with the BBC there are two separate issue, one is about the


police and the criminal investigation, and that I think has


to happen, the police are right to co-operate with it. The second is


about the independent inquiry into the culture of the BBC. There is


something, something went badly wrong within the culture of the BBC.


We have had stor stories of turning a blind eye, fondling young women,


I think that is what needs to be looked at. Why was there this


culture that allowed people like Jimmy Savile to be sustained in


that culture over such a long period of time. Was there a cull --


culture of that? You are younger than I am and I remember it. It was


the culture of the time. Older than I look. You were there at the time.


Is that a fair, is that a fair allegation against the BBC


specifically at that time? No, it was the culture of the Times and it


is very hard to identify what that was, decades later, and honestly,


how many more inquiries are we going to have? We will have one


here, one there, everyone has an opinion suddenly about this, but


the opinions that matter, the opinions of the women, who were


molested were never listened to. Everyone goes on about where was


the evidence, where was the evidence? The evidence was what the


women were telling them, They weren't believed at the time.


are allegations that the BBC internally suppressed many of those


reports. What evidence is there of that? I have had reports from woman,


I have spoken to the police about it. There are serious allegations


out there and it is up to the police to look at those allegations,


but also for this internal inquiry, to look at those allegations as


well. Hang on... We were all padded, pinched stroked, the whole female


sex was available, in those days, not willingly so in the '60s, it


was how you treated women. There was a culture within the BBC of


senior management targeting younger employees, female employees.


you just talking about the BBC? Are we not talking as Joan is saying


across the board in institution, you know, the NHS, potentially,


other big institutions where this culture existed? I have asked for


investigation to what happened at Stoke Mandeville to take place, I


am not just targeting the BBC. I think the police have questioned to


ask. The Crown Prosecution Service, children's homes, there are lots of


different questions that need to be answered, but that doesn't mean


that the BBC shouldn't answer its own questions. You don't have faith


in the BBC inquiries themselves, the three inquirys that have been


launched? If they sipt an independent chairman, with an


independent panel, and they publish the right remit I will be happy for


them to do the inquiry. That doesn't mean to say that will be


enough ultimately. It depends what we find during that inquiry and


whether the results, how the results are defined. That sound


like a fishing exercise. To take the point about the culture, how


easy would it be to hold an independent inquiry, into a culture


decades ago? Well, clearly there will be people who have died if it


is 40 years ago, but I think the BBC must have records of people


that work there, people are coming forward all the time, there are


senior management that is still alive, there are lots of people


that can talk about the culture and we have seen in the newspaper, day


after day after day, people coming forward and giving their own


version of events. Now, somebody independent needs to look at those


versions of events and see what the truth is. What matters was the


evidence that the women gave at the time, when they were not listened


to. That is what is at the core of this. Now, talking about decades


past, is really very difficult, because if you remarked in those


days, to someone who might be your superior in television, I worked in


television in the 60ings, you would have a different reaction than


today, there was no law about harassment, the feminist movement


hadn't taken off. Women were regarded as perhaps not as reliable,


so what you could expect from management, and I don't speculate


about what they actually did say, but what you might expect was a "Oh


well we have looked into it, we have had a word" some sort of


remark would be consistent with the nature of discourse at the time


about sexual predators. Bringing this up-to-date, that is not just


something that goes back 40 years, I am afraid. It is up-to-date. We


have the situation with regard to Newsnight and what happened there,


there are lots of unanswered questions about that. What are the


unanswered questions? There have been denials that any pressure was


put on the editor of Newsnight to drop the investigation, relating to


Jimmy Savile. And the editor himself has said that. You don't


believe them? I think we need to understand clearly who knew what


when. About what? The in terms of what the director general knew


about Jimmy Savile, because he says he knew absolutely nothing about


the terms of what the investigation was about, only they were about


Jimmy Savile. The Newsnight investigation? And people within


the BBC are suggesting that is, they are sceptical about that point


in particular. He would not have known anything about what was going


on with Jimmy Savile. In terms of the editorial reasons that were


given by the editor of Newsnight who said, you know, there wasn't


enough evidence to carry on, he made an editorial decision. There


was an allegation that the investigation was changed half way


through, to one where it was looking at these issues to do with


the women and Jimmy Savile, to an investigation about what the CPS


knew and what the weight of evidence was. Now, why was that


changed? If it was changed. We need to find out. Programmes get made


over a period of time and adjust all their findings, the more they


discover and the more evidence they find, and the more they put


together, what is going to be a fool-proof legally sound story. And


you shift and find out more, a programme gets made by changing its


mind all the time. So you are saying the BBC should have nothing


to hide. It should publish the scripts and be open and transparent


about what happened. I am happy for that to happen. The BBC asence


truetion in crisis and has to have a inquiry, without question. Do you


agree it should be independent? Are politicians getting to a stage


where they are always calling for an independent inquiry. I think the


BBC knees to have a BBC inquiry. Think they need to have an


independent inquiry. This is their crisis, they need to deal with it


and pay for it, but it will come from the license fee payer, because


that is where all the BBC's money comes from. Is that well spent..


Yes, if it clears up the BBC. don't think we have the problem


today. You not read the papers Joan? I will have to end it on that


note. Thank you. Two bits of good news for the Chancellor, it does


happen, this morning inflation is down, as we have mentioned, and in


the latest redrawing of constituency boundaries his


parliamentary seat has been reinstate t. But it has not all


gone his way over the last couple of year, in a moment we will talk


to the author of a new biography of George Osborne but here he is


before the election in 2009, Of our country is facing the


largest budget deficit in modern history. We will have no choice but


to tackle it decisively if we are to stop interest rates going up and


the unemployment that they bring. Yet at the same time, the next


Conservative government is determined to leave public services


and society stronger than it finds them. Put bluntly, Labour created


this mess, and we Conservatives will have to sort it out.


The author of a new biography of George Osborne is here now. Picking


up on that bit of film, am I right in saying that George Osborne feels


that that speech may have cost the Tories the election? A lot of


people around him share the same view. Someone I spoke to estimated


that perhaps 20 seeds were lost as a result of telegraphing the


message of austerity ahead of an election. But George Osborne's view


is that had he not warned the electorate of physical pain to come,


it would have been impossible to implement austerity in government.


It was an amazing revelation, though, to blame yourself in the


speech for losing your party 20 seats. His is not amazing if you


look at the other half of the calculation, which is that it would


have been borderline impossible to govern, had he not sent the message


beforehand. The Lib Dems paid a huge price for their admission --


tuition fees U-turn because they had not warned the public about the


policy. If you Telegraph a message before an election, and the public


are sufficiently grown-up, they will tolerate that message in


government. They will not accept a policy which is the opposite of


something you said in opposition. The EU have obviously spent a lot


of time with him and researching his background. What would you say


are his core beliefs? I think it boils down to four things. One is


fiscal conservatism. The ones we know less about our education


reform. He is a fan of what Michael Gove is doing. Interventionism in


foreign policy, which he is a big supporter off, and also cultural


liberalism. If you look at his voting record on abortion or gay


rights, he is as liberal as almost any member of the House of Commons.


And looking at it as a person, what is your view of George Osborne?


hope your book goes well, but I think it is a bit soon to start


setting out exactly what he is about. I am speaking as someone who


is not party to all the background. He strikes me as someone who does


not have a strong image. He has a modest way of speaking. He is not a


great deliverer of Budget speeches. He is shy of the public platform.


So aren't you racing ahead a bit soon? He is Chancellor. The fact


that he became Chancellor at that it does not erode the fact that he


is Chancellor, the second most powerful person in the country. It


would be strange, were then not interest in the book. When I


embarked on the process 18 months ago, there were upwards of 10


journalists in the lobby who were either in the process of planning a


book or who had similar projects. hope people do want to know the


truth about George Osborne. They do, because he is Chancellor. What of


the other things that was seen as a game changer for him was in 2007,


before he was Chancellor. This was his speech about inheritance tax.


The next Conservative Government will raise the inheritance tax


threshold to �1 million. That was strategically brilliant, some of


his colleagues said at the time. August and September of 2007, there


was a very good chance that Gordon Brown would call a snap election.


Had he won it, it was possible that David Cameron would have lost his


leadership of the Conservative Party. A confluence of events


caused him to withdraw from that election. Of those, the most


significant was that inheritance tax announcement. Having said that,


I am not a huge fan of the policy. It was not far from what Labour


presented it as, a tax giveaway to people who did not desperately need


one. What did you think of the decision to cut the top rate of


income tax? Politically, does George Osborne now think that was a


mistake? Had he not cut the top rate of income tax, he thinks that


people would be demanded by now. Not on the left, but people on the


right and a large part of the centre would be thinking, are we


repelling people who create wealth with that cut? I am a bigger fan of


cutting income tax than cutting inheritance tax. We should be


lowering taxes on earned income and increasing them on entrenched


wealth. But the Budget shambles, as it has been labelled, has caused


popularity to go down consistently since that point. A mistake and


badly delivered? Yes, it was the worst political event of his career.


Have he been shaken by it? He has been shaken. But not stirred.


not so discombobulated, given the level of criticism he has come


under. The strongest characteristic he has is resilience and self-


awareness. He knows he is disliked. You have to be a resilient, when


you have such an unpopular image. He Brasher's a lot of that aside


easily, maybe too easily. What about ambitions for prime minister?


Are I don't think he is desperate for the job. Even when he was in a


better position to get the job a couple of years ago, when he was


more feted than he is now, we in the media exaggerated his interest


in the job. We see Osborne and Cameron has parallels for Brown and


Blair, and they are not. He is not as intensely ambitious as Gordon


Brown was. So breaking news now. Theresa May, the Home Secretary, is


blocking the extradition of Gary McKinnon, the computer hacker, to


the United States. We will be bringing you much more on that. In


the last few minutes, Theresa May, the Home Secretary, has made that


decision, under a lot of political pressure, the block the extradition


of Gary McKinnon. Now, what would it be like to go


straight from university to being a full-time politician? One member of


the Northern Ireland Assembly has recently done that. Sinn Fein's


Megan Fearon, 21, is the youngest parliamentarian in the UK. Northern


Ireland also has the youngest serving lord mayor, Gavin Grabban


some of the DUP, who is leading Belfast City Council at the age of


27. We spoke to them and asked what impact they are having on political


life in the province. Politics here has had a drink from


the fountain of youth. The twentysomethings are not just


getting involved, they are taking some top jobs. Just a few months


ago, a student called Megan Fearon was sitting her finals here at


Queen's University. Since then, she has gone from studying politics to


being a fully fledged politician. Now she has swapped lectures for


legislation and course work for committees. Not only is she the


youngest member of the Northern Ireland Assembly, she is also the


youngest parliamentarian in the UK. They is a link between school


attendance and deprivation. At the age of 21, Megan Fearon was made


MLA in June, just before her graduation. I thought about it long


and hard, but if you want to make a difference, you have to lead by


example. We definitely need more women and young people in politics.


I felt I could not be an advocate for that and not attempt to break


the glass ceiling myself when the opportunity arose. Good morning,


everyone. Me to Gavin Robinson, the DUP's choice to lead Northern


Ireland's biggest council. He is still three years of 30. The lord


mayor thinks jobs don't get much better than his present one.


try to do your bit to help people. It is a satisfying part of my life


where you get to engage with people. Being actively involved in that,


opening doors where you can, it is very rewarding. But would more


senior people consider casting their vote for someone a lot


younger? For a young man in their twenties, he does not have a lot of


experience. There need fresh blood. If they have the experience, he


could do it. Megan Fearon and Gavin Robinson think their voices are


valuable. I don't think my life experience is less valid than


anyone else's because it is shorter. Everyone has their lives, and the


political body should represent that. We have a young population in


an off. That should be put across in what we discuss and the issues


we raised. I have worked professionally. I have an education


as good as it is worth, but I have my own experience and my own


reflections. I may only be 27. But I would like to think that my view


is as important as that of someone else with 40 years of experience.


The they are passionate about promoting young people's interests


in the places of power, and a lifetime of political -- time in


the political limelight may lie ahead.


Palmer and's youngest MP, Pamela Nash, joins us. And the ever so


youthful Joan Bakewell is still here. In the generations understand


each other? Death and a cliff. It is interesting following that film


to look at how many of our young politicians come from Northern


Ireland and Scotland. A why is that? There are good run a ships


between the generations in the small communities where these


politicians come from. Young people are encouraged to speak their mind.


Do you think that is true? In 0 and Ireland, they have been up against


the realities of life. I think it has been a forcing ground. You are


surrounded by the Troubles. You have had to think about the


community from an early age. But nowadays, people say the extended


family is not such a big part of family life. People move away, and


that compact between older and younger generations does not exist


to the same extent. I can see that that is the case, but it is


wonderful that many of these MPs are not just young, they are women


as well. I think the emergence of young people concerned about


politics is really overdue. It is terrific that they are coming


forward, because the older generations like me have been


saying for a long time that we cared so passionately about nuclear


disarmament and it all these ideologies of the time. Where are


the youngsters who Philp passionate about politics? It is great to see


them arriving. What are the passions for young people now? In


those days, the ideological differences were clear and people


were brought up in a field of protest and debate. It is the big


issues that bring young people into politics. Young people are not


always good at voting, but they are good at marching in the street and


making their voice heard about the issues that matters to them.


Unfortunately, a lot of those campaigns in recent years have been


things that directly matter to them, about tuition fees and now the


housing situation. Young people feel short-changed. Joan, is there


a feeling among some of the older politicians at Westminster that


people like Pamela might be wet behind the ears, that, to use


Ronald Reagan's phrase, I am not going to exploit my opponent for


his youth and ex -- inexperience, or are they more expecting --


tolerating? It is different for different generations. Older people


are not accepting of the young, they feel threatened by them. They


feel that they do not know as much as we do. In some ways, they don't,


but they are very much attuned to the generation that matters. It is


interesting that the Arab Spring in all those countries across the


Middle East is happening in countries where a high popular --


high percentage of the population is under 30. It is important that


young people do take a lead and understand that well. We do have an


ageing population, but we don't want to isolate the Government with


that ageing population. We want to see younger people coming along.


Shoot some of the older politicians be pensioned off? I have to defend


the more experienced politicians, because ever since I was elected


two and a half years ago, there has been nothing but a warm welcome.


Most of my colleagues feel that we do need younger people in


Parliament to ensure that it is truly representative of society.


And that means representatives from all age groups. But isn't there a


bit of conflict? There is envy of the baby boomers, who have done so


well financially. They have made a lot of money on their houses, they


have had index-linked pensions, no tuition fees. There is a lot of


anger that somehow, your generation has done better? Won the saddest


things I hear as a politician is when a young person tells me on the


doorstep that they do not vote because politicians do not listen.


That is a reason to vote. If you look at austerity measures, they


have hurt young people arguably more than any other group in


society, and that is because young people are not using their vote


enough, so politicians don't listen. Should pensioners lose their


universal benefits? I do believe that. That envy is quite difficult


for the younger generations to deal with. People say now it is much


tougher to get onto the housing ladder. They are right about that.


There are so many older people, and older people vote, so any


government is likely to consider the interests of older people when


it comes to electioneering. The things that young people care about,


climate change, education, the cost of housing, they care about those


because it is hitting them hard. Is there a fear among old people of


the young? People will remember those unfortunate pictures of the


rioting that went on in London, you know, for whatever reason, and is


that the sort of thing that affects older people in their views of the


young? I I wish you wouldn't regard me as representative of all older


people! I do think it is important that the old listen to the young. I


went to the St Paul's occupy movement a couple of times, just to


talk to people and just to meet people, they were very welcoming


and they were very pleased to explain to me why they were there


and what they hoped. Very often testify naive and in my judgment,


they weren't as wise, as I thought I was. But the point was they


wanted to talk, and they were concerned. And we mustn't neglect


that. Pamela Nash, good luck. While we have been on air the Home


Secretary Theresa May has announced her decision on whether the


computer Hacker Gary McKinnon should be extradited to the United


States. Mr McKinnon who has a sporm of autism is accused of hacking US


Government computers. Since I came into office the sole issue on which


I have been required to make a decision is whether gark's


extradition to the US would breach his human rites, he is accused of


serious crime, but there is also no doubt he seriously ill, he has


Asperger's Syndrome and suffers from depressive illness. The legal


question before me is now whether the extent of that illness is


sufficient to preclude extradition. As the House would expect, I have


carefully considered the representations made on his behalf.


Including from a number ofically in addition, I have obtained my own


medical advice from practitioners recommended to me, and I have taken


extensive legal advice. After careful consideration, of all of


the relevant material, I have concluded that Mr McKinnon's


extradition would give rise to such a high risk of him ending his


life... That a decision to extradite would be incompatible


with his human rights. I have therefore withdrawn the extradition


order against Mr McKinnon. It will now be for the Director of Public


Prosecutions to decide whether he has a case to answer in a UK court.


Theresa May. Let us get more on this with our political


correspondent Carole Walker. She made that announcement to cheers in


the House, so a popular decision there and clearly with gark's


family. She acted on the medical advice that was given to her, it is


a significant decision. It S I am sure one that will be greeted with


a huge amount of relief by his family, and other campaigners who


have argued for a long time that Gary McKinnon was a computer nerd,


a geek who was looking for UFOs and was not trying to hack into


sensitive material in the United States. The American authorities


took a very different case, of course. They said that he had


actually done damage to very sensitive files, and they very much


wanted to put him on trial there in the United States. They had argued


very strongly that because of his history of mental illness, and


because of his Asperger's Syndrome, his state of mind, that there was a


very strong likelihood that he would commit suicide if he was


extradited, and Theresa May announced today that having looked


at the medical advice, and also the expert legal opinion, in this case


where she has a quasi-judicial role, she is acting in a separate legal


capacity, she feels it is right to block the extradition, because she


believed there was a high risk he could take his own life, and that


is a fundamental breach of human rites. Now, that obviously is a


specific case, but Theresa May has also been talking more broadly


about the extradition system, about the treaty that was signed between


the US and UK. What has she said about that? Several significant


changes, the first thing she has introduced something called the


forum bar, and what this means is when there is a case which involves


a crime which perhaps covers UK soil, and foreign tertri, as in the


case we have just been talking about, there will have to be a


hearing in a British court, for a British court to decide if there is


suitable ground for an extradition hearing to go ahead. So it will


mean a British court will in the first instance decide whether that


individual should be tried here in the UK. Now, Shetland went on the


say she accepted -- she went on to say she accepted the findings of a


review she has commissioned, there was no imbalance between Britain


and the US, on this. But she also introduced another change, which


means that in future where there are appeals, like the one we have


been hearing about, where people say extra dit would harm their


human rite, that would be decided by the high court not the Home


Secretary. Thank you. Joan Bakewell you welcome this? I welcome it. She


has done her image a good turn, she will be seen as having made a


thoughtful an to some extent generous decision, so I think it


will be welcomed. I am interested in the other changes that are


coming about, and I think that will go on being debated and subject to


scrutiny for some time. That is good too. All right. Well, it is


nearly 50 year since the world teetered on the edge of the nuclear


abyss. The Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962 was the high water


mark of ten stwhiens the USA and the Soviet Union. The point at


which the Cold War almost became a hot war. In a moment we will talk


to a historian about Britain's role at the time let us remind ourself


of the event. To Guantanamo US base on Cuba, the Americans send strong


reinforcement of marines. Meanwhile, the naval blockade against Russian


and satellite ships nearing Cuba was put into effect. At the White


House, making the announcement to the waiting world, Mr Kennedy said


that only a few days before, he was assured that Russia has put no


rockets on Cuba. Photographic proof to the contrary was soon in the


President's hand. What kind of rock t? The moss kai Mayday parade had


featured. So they were pointing at American cities. Powerful stuff,


joining me is the historian Peter shen si who has written numerous


books about Britain in the Cold War. It seems to me, that the world held


its breath for those tense days during the escalation of events.


They did. It's the chosest we have come to it happening, thermonuclear


exchange, global war, but it was a closer run thing than we realised


if the time. If Kennedy had known there were warhead already on Cuba,


Russian one, and that the local Russian commander had the final say


on whether they were launched on an invading American ary it would have


made the calculations different. Ten years ago Russian submariner, I


wasn't there, told a conference on Cuba they were stuck on their


diesel submarine, with a nuclear torpedo on, the United States navy


keeping them down. They can't clean their air, the temperature was


rising, they could hardly breathe and the captain liezs it. He was


overruled by his number two and the political officer, now if that


nuclear torpedo had been launched that would have been it. It is


amazing really, that it didn't happen. I mean. It was unbearable.


What was it like at the time? thought the world would end. It was


as close as close as you can be and not have nuclear war. We would go,


we would leave work, in the evening and say, see you tomorrow, if we


are still here, and people would go, yes, let's hope, let's hope, but


people walked round expecting a flash in the sky, and the end of


the world. I mean it was absolutely expected. Widely expected, and


there was nothing to do but hold your breath. You could not do


anything. You couldn't march. You couldn't protest. I went for a walk


in the Black Mountain, we set off on the Sunday, October 27th


thinking we might not come back tonight but what a place to go. We


found Mr Khrushchev had stood down when we got back. I found a


document that looked at war, and they said it could arise if one


side or the other behaved in such a way it was intolerable to the other


side and they hadn't realised it would be or if they involved a


third party, with whom they were associated outside of the Soviet


bloc. Then it says Cuba. So British intelligence... How did they know?


They were looking at the general circumstances where it might get


out of control. The stalemate was you couldn't lift a muscle. One


side would think we will try it on, just try and get a bit of advantage,


then it would unravel rapidly and British intelligence which is


usually very criticised was spot on. They didn't say it was coming in


October, because it didn't, but thaw foresaw the events that could


produce it. What did they do in order to prepare for that outcome?


Was there panic and preparation in Whitehall? There was a lady called


Beryl who produced for many year, but she was known as the Queen of


the war book. She would come in from south London, auntie Beryl as


she was called. She Washington National Symphony Orchestra out the


drills for the end of the world, the... What a role to have?


every capital there would have been a Mrs Beryl. These are declassified


now, these war tpwhie, are extraordinary, for our generation,


Joan you go into those and you look over the abyss. Because Because the


thought of another World War... sears your mind. You look, I have


just come back from a visit to Hiroshima, there was a global with


all the existing warheads, nuclear warheads on the planet, and there


are thousands of them. And I just looked at that and thought they


haven't been to Hiroshima. It just gives you pause, and makes you


realise that nuclear disarmament must go on negotiations have to


continue, because the world is bristling with it. It is more


precarious now because of the proliferation, but the greatest


shared Boon of our lifetime is that the Cold War ended the way it did,


without general wa, it trumps everything else. A deal was done in


the end. They wouldn't invade.... What happened... They wouldn't


invade Cuba. And they would, if Mr Khrushchev removed the missiles


they would remove the NATO missiles from Turkey, so there was a back


channel in Washington. The doeld war ending is miraculous, it is


breathtaking for me, the most I could hope for, when I was growing


up, was an an American am bas for do to London called it the cheaper


form of deadlock. It is nice we don't live under that shadow any


more. It is not right to discount it and say we will pocket that bit


I took the most extraordinary set of circumstances. A lot of simply


good luck, because people were speaking of, we have no alternative


to total destruction. OK. I will have to stop you there. The Berlin


wall had no idea it was going to happen. Thanks to my guest,


particularly to Joan Bakewell for being my guest of the day. The one


Download Subtitles