:00:44. > :00:48.Good afternoon. Welcome to the Daily Politics.
:00:48. > :00:53.REPORTER: Do you think you might have to consider your position by
:00:53. > :00:56.the end of the day? MPs quiz BBC Director-General, WHISTLE which is,
:00:56. > :00:59.about what he knew and when about the Jimmy Savile sex abuse
:01:00. > :01:05.allegations. The Government's controversial
:01:05. > :01:06.badger cull is expected to be delayed by a year. -- George
:01:06. > :01:10.Entwistle. The Environment Minister is about
:01:10. > :01:13.to make a statement. The Government says it won't
:01:13. > :01:17.subsidise new nuclear power stations but with energy firms
:01:17. > :01:23.reluctant to invest rthey about to change their minds? Prison works.
:01:23. > :01:32.It ensures that we are protected from murders, muggers and rapists.
:01:32. > :01:36.And why do politicians like to talk tough on crime?
:01:36. > :01:38.All that in the next hour. With me for the whole programme today is
:01:38. > :01:43.the former Home Secretary, Foreign Secretary, and Justice Secretary,
:01:43. > :01:48.to name just a few of his former roles. What a busy man he has been,
:01:48. > :01:52.Jack Straw. Before we move on to that smorgasbord of political news
:01:52. > :01:55.that we have prepared, let's talk about a political story emanating
:01:55. > :01:59.from the other side of the Atlantic. Last night was the last of the
:01:59. > :02:03.Presidental debates before next month's election the theme this
:02:03. > :02:07.time: foreign affairs. Something Jack Straw knows a bit about.
:02:07. > :02:12.Before we talk let's get a change of the exchanges. I'm glad you
:02:12. > :02:16.recognise Al-Qaeda is a threat. A few months ago when you were asked
:02:16. > :02:22.the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said rushia,
:02:22. > :02:25.not alguidia. In the 1980s, they were calling to ask for their
:02:25. > :02:30.policy back. The Cold War has been over for 20 years. But governor,
:02:30. > :02:34.when it comes it our foreign policy you seem to want to import the
:02:34. > :02:37.foreign policies of the 1980, just like the social policies of the
:02:37. > :02:40.1950s and the economic policies of the 1920s. You say you are not
:02:40. > :02:45.interested in duplicating what happened in Iraq, but just a few
:02:45. > :02:49.weeks ago you said - you think we should have more troops in Iraq
:02:49. > :02:53.right now. And the challenge we have - I know you haven't been in a
:02:53. > :02:57.position to actually execute foreign policy - but, every time
:02:57. > :03:01.you have offered an opinion, you've been wrong. Attacking me is not an
:03:01. > :03:04.agenda. Attacking me is not talking about how we are going to deal with
:03:04. > :03:09.the challenges in the Middle East and take advantage of the
:03:09. > :03:16.opportunity there and stem the tide of this violence. But I'll respond
:03:16. > :03:19.to a couple of the things you mentioned. Russia, I indicated is a
:03:19. > :03:23.geopolitical foe. It is a geopolitical foe. I said in the
:03:23. > :03:26.same paragraph, "Iran is the greatest national security threat
:03:26. > :03:31.we face." Russia continues to battle us in the UN time and time
:03:31. > :03:36.again. I have clear eyes on this. I'm not going to wear rose coloured
:03:36. > :03:40.glasses when it comes to Russia or Mr Putin and I'll not say it him -
:03:40. > :03:44.I'll give you more flexibility after the election. Why wasn't
:03:44. > :03:48.Barack Obama sewn this up? Well, I think because he was very
:03:48. > :03:53.complacent at the beginning. I think that first debate showed that
:03:53. > :03:58.complacency. He also made a very predictable error - which is he
:03:58. > :04:02.allowed himself to get too tired. Elections are knackering.
:04:02. > :04:06.Especially Presidental ones. any leader. I saw that with Tony
:04:06. > :04:11.and Gordon and with Neil Kinnock before that. Absolutely knackering.
:04:11. > :04:15.He needed to have left himself two or teledays to prepare for that
:04:15. > :04:19.first crucial contest debate. -- two or three days.
:04:19. > :04:23.He didn't do so and he has been on the backfoot frying to regain lost
:04:23. > :04:28.ground. He did well on the second one. -- trying to regain. Looking
:04:28. > :04:32.at the clips I have seen of last night's debate. I think at best for
:04:32. > :04:36.Obama it is even Stevens. I wouldn't have advised him to go on
:04:36. > :04:41.the attack in that way against Romney. It does suggest that he,
:04:41. > :04:45.Obama felt a bit defensive about these things. As you say, it's
:04:45. > :04:48.given Mitt Romney an opening to almost reinvent himself through the
:04:48. > :04:53.Presidental debates because the polls had indicated he was behind
:04:53. > :04:59.in most of the important swing states. So, now, it's going to go
:04:59. > :05:02.to the wire, isn't it? I guess so. As with British elections, which
:05:02. > :05:07.depend crucially on marginal seats, which is not what happens elsewhere,
:05:07. > :05:12.this is down to handful of the so- called swing states and it'll go to
:05:12. > :05:16.the wire. Ohio, Florida, states like that. You just never know. It
:05:16. > :05:19.looks as though Obama may still be slightly ahead in more of the swing
:05:19. > :05:25.states than he is behind, but I think it's going to be a very
:05:25. > :05:30.exciting night. Have you been disappointed by President Obama's
:05:30. > :05:33.first term? I have not been disappointed. I suppose my
:05:33. > :05:38.expectations on world lead remembers fairly lo. I know how
:05:38. > :05:45.damned difficult it is to be in office. -- fairly low. An
:05:45. > :05:49.electorate expects you to go on high-blown rhetoric and then they
:05:49. > :05:52.are disappointed. Expectations were huge on Obama. They were. He has
:05:52. > :05:55.managed to achieve reform in the health service and health care
:05:55. > :05:58.which in the context of American politics, completely different from
:05:58. > :06:02.anything here in terms of health care, that is a major achievement
:06:02. > :06:08.and one I think which will last. you think, though, it is still
:06:08. > :06:12.inconceivable, to use that word, that America would try to bomb Iran,
:06:12. > :06:18.especially under President Romney? When I answered that question in
:06:18. > :06:26.2004, it was about what the UK would do, in respect of the then
:06:26. > :06:29.more moderate regime in Iran. It is not inconceivable that a US
:06:29. > :06:34.administration under Mitt Romney would seek it take military action
:06:34. > :06:38.against Iran. Under present circumstances, I think it would be
:06:38. > :06:42.highly ill-advised. The case for military action simply isn't there.
:06:42. > :06:46.The Iranians are extraordinaryly frustrating to negotiate with. In
:06:46. > :06:54.many ways they are their own worst enemy. But the best evidence which
:06:54. > :06:59.comes from the IAEA, the atomic energy authority, was they stopped
:06:59. > :07:03.developing a nuclear weapon system in 2003, partly of the work of the
:07:03. > :07:06.French, German and British administration. Do you think that
:07:06. > :07:10.Mitt Romney, after that final debate on foreign affairs, where he
:07:10. > :07:14.hasn't had any experience, did he look more Presidental? Did he achef
:07:14. > :07:17.his name as trying to sound as though he could be Commander-in-
:07:17. > :07:20.Chief. The makeover of Mitt Romney in the last month has been
:07:21. > :07:25.extraordinary. He certainly did look more Presidental. If you think
:07:25. > :07:29.about the kind of right-wing position he was adopting in the
:07:29. > :07:34.primaries, he's moved from there to here has been reMoroccoable. -- his
:07:34. > :07:38.move. You could see him in the job for sure. Personally no, surprise
:07:38. > :07:42.about this, I would rather have President Obama reflected.
:07:42. > :07:47.No big surprise. Time for the daily quiz. The Education Secretary,
:07:47. > :07:57.Michael Gove has written to his old teacher to apologise for his
:07:57. > :07:58.
:07:58. > :08:01.behaviour. The question today was, At the end of the show, Jack will
:08:01. > :08:05.give us the correct answer. You will be pleased to know you have
:08:05. > :08:09.time to think about it. The BBC Director-General, George Entwistle,
:08:09. > :08:13.began giving he have to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee a little
:08:13. > :08:17.over 90 minutes ago. He is still being questioned by MPs anxious to
:08:17. > :08:20.find out what and when he found out about allegations of child sex
:08:20. > :08:24.abuse by Jimmy Savile. He has been Director-General for only a month
:08:24. > :08:28.but before that was a senior executive at the corporation in
:08:28. > :08:32.charge of its television output. He was asked about the detail of
:08:32. > :08:37.allegations about the Conservative MP, Philip Davis. Who in the BBC
:08:37. > :08:42.decided to bus in young, vulnerable girls from institutions to be in
:08:42. > :08:45.the audience of programmes being presented by Jimmy Savile.
:08:45. > :08:48.genuinely don't know the answer to that yet. We are trying to pull
:08:48. > :08:52.together all the documentation we can about who, which managers and
:08:52. > :08:54.so on were in positions of authority at the time Jimmy
:08:54. > :08:57.Savile's programmes were being made and we are supplying that
:08:58. > :09:02.information to the police so that they know how to take their
:09:02. > :09:06.investigations forward. Who in the BBC allowed these children to be
:09:06. > :09:09.taken backstage to Jimmy Savile's dressing room after the shows?
:09:09. > :09:14.Davis, we are trying to answer those questions in the same way.
:09:14. > :09:18.Dame Janet Smith's review has been set up to ask and answer all these
:09:18. > :09:22.questions and we will give every support we can to enable her to do
:09:22. > :09:26.that. With respect, you don't need to set up a review it ask questions
:09:26. > :09:30.like that, do you? Surely you are more than capable of asking that.
:09:30. > :09:34.Surely you don't need somebody else to ask those questions for you.
:09:34. > :09:37.set up an independent review for the precise are en, we want the
:09:37. > :09:41.outside world to be assured we asked those questions properly. We
:09:41. > :09:44.set up the few within two weeks of the scale of this crisis being
:09:44. > :09:51.known. I'm convinced that the right way to get to the bottom of this is
:09:51. > :09:55.to give all the support now to Dame Janet Smith so she can answer the
:09:56. > :09:59.questions you are asking. Have you set up a review to allow you to
:09:59. > :10:04.aindividual answering these questions, farm it off to somebody
:10:04. > :10:08.else -- to avoid. Palm it off to somebody else. We see politicians
:10:08. > :10:12.doing this, set up a review and kick it into the long grass. Is
:10:12. > :10:15.that not exactly what the BBC is doing I don't think there is
:10:15. > :10:18.anything about the way we have structured the two independent
:10:18. > :10:21.reviews, that is designed to aindividual answering questions.
:10:21. > :10:25.The way they have been set up and the support they are given will
:10:25. > :10:29.enable them to ask any question they want, to go anywhere they want.
:10:29. > :10:33.It is the opposite of an attempt to hide things and cover things up.
:10:33. > :10:37.This is an attempt to make things wide open. Mr Entwistle, do you now
:10:37. > :10:41.accept, in the light of last night's Panorama, that the decision
:10:41. > :10:47.to drop the Newsnight investigation was a catastrophic mistake? I came
:10:47. > :10:51.away from the Panorama firmly of the view that that investigation,
:10:51. > :10:54.even if in the judgment of the editor it wasn't ready for
:10:54. > :10:58.transmission at the point he was looking at it, should be allowed to
:10:58. > :11:03.continue. Why did it take three weeks for the BBC to realise the
:11:03. > :11:07.account given by Mr Rippon was inaccurate and incomplete? When you
:11:07. > :11:13.want to find out why a programme has done an investigation, in my
:11:13. > :11:17.long experience of the BBC is the person you go to is the
:11:17. > :11:20.commissioning editor or the editor of the programme. They should know
:11:20. > :11:23.why they commissioned the police and they should have the most
:11:23. > :11:27.complete picture. What became clear to us after the blog was published
:11:27. > :11:31.was that there were, that what had happened on Newsnight, was that
:11:31. > :11:36.there was a significant, it seemed, difference of opinion, between the
:11:36. > :11:39.people working on the investigation and the editor Peter Rippon, who
:11:39. > :11:43.commissioned the investigation and that difference of opinion was made
:11:43. > :11:47.clear to me relatively soon after the blog was published the
:11:47. > :11:51.following week. And at that point I thought - well, although I would
:11:51. > :11:54.normally absolutely expect to be able it get from the editor of a
:11:54. > :12:00.programme a -- to get from the editor of a programme, a complete
:12:00. > :12:03.and full picture of what had been going on, I thought I needed to get
:12:03. > :12:05.to the pot bottom of why there was a difference of opinion and there
:12:05. > :12:10.seemed to be a difference of opinion. Were you angry when you
:12:10. > :12:17.found out about this? I was very disappointed that the blog turned
:12:17. > :12:21.out to be as inrack at as it was. maybe have expected a rawer emotion
:12:21. > :12:24.than very disappointed. You have been let down and exposed by a
:12:24. > :12:28.senior colleague. What I have relied upon is that something in my
:12:28. > :12:31.BBC career I have always been able to rely upon, is the editor of a
:12:31. > :12:35.programme having a full grip and understanding of an investigation
:12:35. > :12:40.they were in charge of. On this occasion that doesn't seem to have
:12:40. > :12:45.been the case and that was disappointed. With us is the media
:12:45. > :12:49.commentator and former Panorama editor Steve homosexuality. How do
:12:49. > :12:53.you think he is doing? No killer blow was struck by anyone on the
:12:53. > :12:59.committee. On the other hand, he is sounding under-informed. I think
:12:59. > :13:03.think he doesn't know enough. Even the questions at the beginning by
:13:03. > :13:07.Phillips... Philip Davis asking about the culture in the BBC and
:13:07. > :13:11.you know what happened. He didn't have statistics. He didn't know, he
:13:11. > :13:15.didn't know. Would you have expected him to have had the exact
:13:15. > :13:21.statistics. If you don't know, you should say - I don't know. You
:13:21. > :13:24.shouldn't say, er, er, and after five minutes of being pushed around
:13:24. > :13:29.reveal you don't know. On most points he sounds under-informed I
:13:29. > :13:34.have to say. In so far as what he needed to do here, was to convince
:13:34. > :13:39.people that someone has a grip. Ben Bradshaw said it - tell us you have
:13:39. > :13:43.a grip. He appears as a man trapped in process, not actually with his
:13:43. > :13:48.hands on the thing itself. He hasn't given a convincing
:13:48. > :13:54.performance in your view, in terms of how he has handle of what is
:13:54. > :13:59.going on? Not kwhret. One has sympathy. -- not yet. Due process
:13:59. > :14:05.is important. These are people's careers, a national treasure.
:14:05. > :14:09.he has only been in the job should have been a gift for a new
:14:09. > :14:12.Director-General. A new broom sweep. Lead the organisation through
:14:12. > :14:15.trauma which is what Savile would constitute but because he was at
:14:15. > :14:19.the scene of the crime in his previous role's bit stuck. He has
:14:19. > :14:22.been on the backfoot from the start and the BBC unfortunately continues
:14:22. > :14:27.to show signs of that. Even now, when would you expect him to be
:14:27. > :14:31.able it get on the front-foot and say - right. He is held back by
:14:32. > :14:36.what has happened which is really not great. It's been pulled out of
:14:36. > :14:38.him bit by bit by bit. Let's go through the stages. Let's talk
:14:38. > :14:44.about the Newsnight investigation. He said clearly - it should have
:14:44. > :14:50.continued. Look, I think that's a key question in a sense for Peter
:14:50. > :14:56.Rippon. I was a BBC editor. You know - he is has allowed things to
:14:56. > :15:00.go by which is barmy. I understand why one is saying it's e-mail from
:15:00. > :15:05.Peter Rippon says "We have just the women.", that's an editor saying
:15:05. > :15:09."Hang on, are we sure we've go the enough to go on.", I don't think it
:15:09. > :15:13.means he has a downer on the women or he doesn't believe them, I think
:15:13. > :15:17.he is saying - is that enough? He allowed that to go by and engaged
:15:17. > :15:21.with it as a discussion about the BBC's attitude towards wi. I don't
:15:21. > :15:26.think it exhibits anything of the sort. The BBC may well have issues
:15:26. > :15:36.with women but that is the editor is saying is the evidence there?
:15:36. > :15:41.
:15:41. > :15:45.What has become clear is that they did not take on the accounts of the
:15:45. > :15:51.journalist and producer who were making that investigation. Editors
:15:51. > :15:55.have to make difficult decisions. It is not uncommon to have a
:15:55. > :15:59.journalist pursued to do a story and you have to say, I don't quite
:16:00. > :16:06.by it. Disputes between editors and journalists are commonplace. That
:16:07. > :16:10.is not a surprise. But whereas Peter Rippon's reasoning, if you
:16:10. > :16:14.discount the conspiracy theory, which I do, his reasoning for not
:16:14. > :16:18.going ahead with the programme, you could argue about, but they were
:16:18. > :16:23.his reasons. But what they have said about it does not amount to a
:16:23. > :16:28.convincing explanation. We had to wait for Panorama to tell us that
:16:28. > :16:31.the editor had doubts about the evidence. They said up to that
:16:31. > :16:34.point, he had not gone ahead with the programme because the Crown
:16:35. > :16:39.Prosecution Service had not proceeded on one aspect. It didn't
:16:39. > :16:46.make sense. Jack Straw, we have not watched every bit of the
:16:46. > :16:52.questioning, but from what you have heard, do you think there was
:16:52. > :16:58.outside interference in dropping that Newsnight investigation?
:16:58. > :17:05.don't know. I worked for World in Action, Granada's investigative
:17:05. > :17:09.programme, for two years, before I came into the house. We as young
:17:09. > :17:13.Turks would want to convince our editor of a programme to put it on,
:17:13. > :17:21.for sure. And the editors would say, hang on a second, we haven't got
:17:21. > :17:26.the evidence. As Steve has said, I doubt there is a conspiracy. The
:17:26. > :17:29.bigger issue is, why did Peter Rippon come out with what seemed to
:17:29. > :17:35.be excuses? There is nothing illegitimate about an editor saying,
:17:35. > :17:40.I took a judgment. It may have been the wrong judgment, but I made a
:17:40. > :17:45.judgment that this was not properly cooked. I have spent 13 years as a
:17:45. > :17:51.minister, having to make judgments every day, sometimes on the basis
:17:51. > :17:55.of half a phone call or half a conversation. He problem with life
:17:55. > :17:59.it is that when you look at it backwards, you have to live it
:17:59. > :18:04.affords. Sometimes you get things wrong, but if you do, you need to
:18:04. > :18:12.put your hands up. We have had at the ITV broadcast and we have seen
:18:12. > :18:17.the Panorama broadcast. The question is, is George Entwistle
:18:17. > :18:20.saying that Peter Rippon made a mistake and that it is his fault?
:18:20. > :18:25.He has dumped on Peter Rippon prodigiously this morning. He has
:18:25. > :18:30.said various things which amount to the end of Peter Rippon, certainly
:18:30. > :18:34.in his career at the BBC. In fact, I think Peter Rippon's decision may
:18:34. > :18:38.have been wrong, but it is understandable. The bigger question
:18:38. > :18:43.is, if you had known what you had got, you may not have felt
:18:43. > :18:47.confident enough to broadcast it at the time, but you can't just stop.
:18:47. > :18:52.The woman who appeared on Panorama, when she said, it took me such a
:18:52. > :18:56.lot to get to the point where I was prepared to say this, and then you
:18:56. > :19:02.are left on the cutting-room floor, that is not right. You wonder
:19:02. > :19:06.whether the editor of Newsnight new what he had got. That comes down to
:19:06. > :19:10.questions being asked about George Entwistle's news managers. Were
:19:10. > :19:13.they not telling him everything that was known, that there was a
:19:13. > :19:18.disagreement between the journalists making the film and the
:19:18. > :19:22.editor? Is it their fault, too? There is nothing wrong with
:19:22. > :19:26.management pressure. It is the job of news managers to say to their
:19:26. > :19:30.editors, just as editors sector and the journalists, come up with the
:19:30. > :19:34.proof, it is quite appropriate venues managers to say, hold on,
:19:34. > :19:38.are you sure this is true? That is not inappropriate. It would be
:19:38. > :19:44.inappropriate if pressure were being exercised for other purposes,
:19:44. > :19:48.like to say the corporation embarrassment. There are some
:19:48. > :19:52.implications from what we have heard George Entwistle say so far.
:19:52. > :19:57.He is not sure that his news managers have briefed him
:19:57. > :20:04.effectively, but he has not gone that far yet. We are going to go
:20:04. > :20:07.back to some of the questioning. We will hear the chair of the select
:20:07. > :20:13.committee asking a question about the conversation between Helen
:20:13. > :20:17.Boaden and George Entwistle. This was when he was in his previous
:20:17. > :20:22.role, ahead of the Christmas programme. This was when she said
:20:22. > :20:29.to him, Savile investigation, Newsnight, and he says he did not
:20:29. > :20:33.ask anything about it. When it was said you that Newsnight was looking
:20:33. > :20:39.into Jimmy Savile, what did you think they were investigating?
:20:39. > :20:41.don't remember reflecting on it. This was a busy lunch. You are told
:20:41. > :20:48.that one of the flagship investigative programmes on the BBC
:20:48. > :20:52.is looking into one of the most iconic figures, who you are about
:20:52. > :20:57.to commission she attributes to, and you don't want to know? It was
:20:57. > :21:05.not that I didn't want to know. What was in my mind was a
:21:05. > :21:08.determination not to show an undue interest. But just saying thanks,
:21:08. > :21:11.Helen, what are you looking at? Why did she tell you if you were
:21:11. > :21:15.determined not to ask what it was about? She presumably thought you
:21:15. > :21:19.should know, and therefore would have expected you to say, what is
:21:19. > :21:26.it about? Are assumed she was preparing me for the possibility
:21:26. > :21:33.that I would need to think about changing the schedule. That could
:21:33. > :21:37.be potentially very difficult. George's problem with this is that
:21:37. > :21:40.he has said this before and has gone on to say that at no point did
:21:40. > :21:47.he become aware of any of the details of the investigation. He
:21:47. > :21:51.did not know it was about child abuse. He has claimed to know
:21:51. > :21:55.nothing. He has been absolutely definite. He said it on the Today
:21:55. > :21:59.programme. If anything emerges now or subsequently that shows that
:21:59. > :22:06.that is not 100% correct, he is in real trouble, because he has been
:22:06. > :22:12.so definite about it. It confounds common sense. Would you have asked
:22:12. > :22:16.what it was about? If you are the head honcho in any organisation, it
:22:16. > :22:20.is something I worked out quickly as a rookie Home Secretary, when
:22:20. > :22:26.somebody passes you half a piece of information, you have to think, why
:22:26. > :22:33.are they telling me that? Father a covering their backsides? What is
:22:33. > :22:38.the rest of the story? If I survived for the time I did, it was
:22:38. > :22:42.partly because I got some finely tuned and 10 I, when the bell
:22:42. > :22:49.weather went off in my head. He is only defence is to say, and he has
:22:49. > :22:54.said this on occasion, as director of BBC vision, had he got involved,,
:22:54. > :22:59.which was not his role, he can argue that there are Chinese walls
:22:59. > :23:04.and that he should not ask. But in this case, how can one disbelieve
:23:04. > :23:09.him? He has said it and said it again. It remains hard to believe
:23:09. > :23:12.that he either didn't ask or didn't know. If you say that to someone
:23:12. > :23:18.who is the former editor of BBC Newsnight who has been around for
:23:18. > :23:21.40 years, you will not think it is about Jimmy Savile's curtains.
:23:21. > :23:25.will be listening to the select committee questions throughout the
:23:25. > :23:29.programme. Now, Jack Straw has had an action-
:23:29. > :23:33.packed career - Justice Secretary, Home Secretary, Commons Leader and
:23:33. > :23:38.most importantly, Foreign Secretary before, during and after the war in
:23:38. > :23:43.Iraq. It was the most high-profile of his many Cabinet posts, and
:23:43. > :23:46.between 2002 and 2003, he seems to be almost permanently on the
:23:46. > :23:49.airwaves, doggedly defending the hugely controversial decision to
:23:49. > :23:56.deploy British troops against the Saddam Hussein regime. But what did
:23:56. > :24:02.he really think about the war? I will ask him in a moment.
:24:02. > :24:08.In a moment, I will be asking the Foreign Secretary how much longer...
:24:08. > :24:13.We are joined now by Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary. I have just
:24:13. > :24:16.been talking to Jack Straw. Jack Straw. Foreign Secretary and,
:24:16. > :24:21.during the build-up to the war in Iraq, Minister for the Today
:24:21. > :24:25.programme. His job, to explain the case for military action, ideally
:24:25. > :24:29.with a second UN resolution, if not, without one. But was his heart
:24:29. > :24:34.really in it? We interviewed him dozens of times during the run-up
:24:34. > :24:41.to the war. He was always putting a strong case, but I got the sense
:24:41. > :24:47.that it was a strong case for what became known as the second
:24:47. > :24:51.resolution. My reading of Jack Straw at the time was that he
:24:51. > :24:57.believed that and containment and inspection was a genuine option.
:24:57. > :25:04.But when it came to it, was he actually in the loop? It emerged
:25:04. > :25:06.after the war in the various inquiries that some of the most
:25:06. > :25:12.important telegrams passing between Downing Street and the White House,
:25:12. > :25:22.where the real decisions were being made for, never went anywhere near
:25:22. > :25:24.
:25:24. > :25:29.Jack Straw. After the war, those around Jack Straw described how
:25:29. > :25:39.they felt. The but Jack Straw's critics say that interpretation is
:25:39. > :25:57.
:25:57. > :26:07.That is why some think Jack Straw's claimed that he could have stopped
:26:07. > :26:22.
:26:22. > :26:32.the war by resigning if the second So how will history judge Jack
:26:32. > :26:45.
:26:45. > :26:50.Straw's roar in the build-up to the You know what, we got it wrong. I
:26:50. > :26:53.apologised. I made a mistake. I regret what I did. Yet there are
:26:53. > :26:57.those who believe Jack Straw went further than most in questioning
:26:57. > :27:03.the wisdom of the war. It is interesting when you look become in
:27:03. > :27:08.the record, that there is one voice that continuously asks - why are we
:27:08. > :27:12.focusing on Iraq and why are we focusing on something we are doing
:27:12. > :27:17.now. There the problem has been going on for a decade. The one
:27:17. > :27:23.voice you heard asking, why Iraq, why now, is Straw's? Jack Straw is
:27:23. > :27:29.still with us. You open the chapter in Iran in your book by saying "You
:27:29. > :27:34.could have prevented the UK's involvement in the process."?
:27:34. > :27:37.Yfrpblgts yes because if I resigned, as a matter of arithmetic, there
:27:37. > :27:41.wouldn't have been a majority. I don't say it in a self-serving way.
:27:41. > :27:44.It was a matter of fact. I was aware of the murder of
:27:44. > :27:49.responsibilities on me at that time. Does that trouble you? Of course it
:27:49. > :27:52.does. Anybody with that degree of responsibility is going to be
:27:52. > :27:55.troubled by the decision they make. But do I think that I made the
:27:55. > :28:01.wrong decision at the time on the basis of the information that we
:28:01. > :28:11.had, no I don't. That's something I have to live with. Although,
:28:11. > :28:15.
:28:15. > :28:18.throughout, on the bits I have seen, Kevin March, the former editor of
:28:19. > :28:23.the Today programme at the time is correct to say my whole efforts and
:28:23. > :28:33.I may also say Colin Powell's were corrected towards getting that
:28:33. > :28:57.
:28:57. > :29:01.You expect the Foreign Secretary to be in full possession of their
:29:01. > :29:08.faculties and to know what they are doing. I was responsible as anybody
:29:08. > :29:14.else for the decision to go to wr. I deeply regret it and I regret it
:29:14. > :29:19.more, to find out that the whole basis to go to war was based on
:29:19. > :29:24.the... That is with hindsight. were working towards a second
:29:24. > :29:31.resolution and events conspired and bf all, Roman Shirokov's decision
:29:31. > :29:36.to say he would veto a second resolution -- President Chirac's
:29:36. > :29:40.decision. I don't understand why Chirac did that. If he had come on
:29:40. > :29:44.board we would have resolved it peacefully. He didn't. And did you
:29:44. > :29:49.then at any point feel - I should resign? Not at that stage. Earlier
:29:49. > :29:53.on, before we got a UN resolution, much earlier, I'd thought about it.
:29:53. > :29:58.But anyway we got the first resolution, a critical one, 1441.
:29:58. > :30:02.And then - I mean one of the reasons I became so sceptical about
:30:02. > :30:06.military action in respect of Iran, however, is you have to learn from
:30:07. > :30:11.these experiences and if you have a strategy of diplomacy, backed by
:30:11. > :30:17.the threat or possibly the use of force, you have to be alive to the
:30:17. > :30:23.fact that as you go down these tracks, the gate-marked piece gets
:30:23. > :30:27.narrower and the gate-marked wall gets wider. That's the lesson from
:30:27. > :30:31.history. What about when Robin Cooke resigned? Did it make you
:30:31. > :30:36.reconsider? By that time, in a sense, it was too late. It is never
:30:37. > :30:39.too late to resign. I personally was committed. I was sceptical of
:30:39. > :30:43.Robin's reasons. He had been belligerent about Saddam's threat
:30:43. > :30:45.when he had been Foreign Secretary. He then came to a view that the
:30:45. > :30:53.intelligence didn't suggest the level of threat that we thought.
:30:53. > :30:57.What swung me, actually, was a report that Hans Blix did, 170-odd
:30:57. > :31:01.pages, saying it was suggested that Saddam still had all sorts of
:31:01. > :31:06.weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical weapons and
:31:06. > :31:11.that was presented at the last crucial Security Council meeting on
:31:11. > :31:15.7th March. It was that that - I swung one way, whilst Robin, my
:31:15. > :31:18.good friend, swung the other way. Obviously domestically, I remember
:31:18. > :31:23.it so well, at the time, it was so difficult and tense as people were
:31:23. > :31:27.deciding what they were going to do. You say in your book that if the
:31:27. > :31:34.handling of Iraq went wrong, you know some are licking their lips at
:31:34. > :31:40.the possibility of ray gem change closer to home. I said it to Tony
:31:40. > :31:43.in early March. Who was licking his lips? Various people inside...
:31:43. > :31:48.Gordon Brown? Indeed. People in the Labour Cabinet as well as outside,
:31:48. > :31:50.of course. I had warned Tony about that prospect the previous July as
:31:50. > :31:54.well. Do you think Gordon Brown ever considered not supporting the
:31:54. > :31:59.war as a way of unseating Tony Blair? No, I don't. I think he was
:31:59. > :32:02.alive to the fact that if it went badly wrong, he would be the
:32:02. > :32:06.beneficiary. I had no evidence whatsoever to suggest he actively
:32:06. > :32:10.thought that he would move then - indeed he was party to many of the
:32:10. > :32:14.Cabinet decisions leading up to the war. At this time, at that point,
:32:14. > :32:19.when it came to changover here, you were convinced of Gordon Brown's
:32:19. > :32:24.suitibility? I was. I men there was a history - because Tony and I
:32:24. > :32:28.Frankly fell out, we fell out principally over foreign policies
:32:28. > :32:32.in the Middle East. I had no reason to think that Gordon could not do
:32:32. > :32:36.as good a job as Prime Minister as he had done as Chancellor. I'm
:32:36. > :32:42.afraid a lot of us were proved wrong on in a, including me. Right,
:32:42. > :32:47.you were his campaign manager. was, I was. I mean, we have seen a
:32:47. > :32:51.lot of Gordon, there is one side of him utterly charming, intelligent,
:32:51. > :32:55.bright, engaged. The problem was, it turned out, that he wasn't able
:32:55. > :32:58.to be a leader and make those crucial decisions. You never, in
:32:58. > :33:03.the end know about that sort of thing until people are tested. Both
:33:03. > :33:09.ways. You have people who are unlikely to be leaders like clement
:33:09. > :33:13.Attlee. He turned out to be really good. The reverse is true. Thank
:33:13. > :33:16.you investment sometimes political debate generates more heat than
:33:16. > :33:20.light but one of the most important current debates is how we can
:33:20. > :33:25.ensure generating both. Britain is running dangerously low on power.
:33:25. > :33:28.It was the conclusion of the energy regulator's report which warned of
:33:28. > :33:31.unprecedented challenges with a risk of a short fall in electricity
:33:31. > :33:36.supply by 2015. Nuclear power is supposed to be playing a key role
:33:36. > :33:41.in keeping the lights on in future but the proportion of electricity
:33:41. > :33:45.we generate from nuclear energy has fallen from one-quarter to 16%.
:33:45. > :33:49.Another seven nuclear power stations are due to close by 2023.
:33:49. > :33:52.Why not build more nuclear power stations to replace them? New clear
:33:52. > :33:56.power might be low carbon and reliable but is expensive and takes
:33:56. > :34:00.a long time to deliver. Guaranteed price for nuclear-generated
:34:00. > :34:06.activity has not been enough to ensure investment from the private
:34:06. > :34:09.sector. German companies E.ON and RWE pulled out of nuclear rebuilds
:34:09. > :34:12.earlier this year. The Coalition Government has promised not to
:34:12. > :34:17.subsidise new new clear power plants but now there's pecklation
:34:17. > :34:21.they might be willing to underwrite construction costs overruns. That
:34:21. > :34:26.could cost meltdown in the coalition. The Liberal Democrats'
:34:26. > :34:30.Ed Davey says unless they can be priced competitively, they will not
:34:30. > :34:36.proceed. This morning the head of EDF planning to build new nuclear
:34:36. > :34:40.power stations, told MPs he would go ahead if the price was right and
:34:40. > :34:45.clear. Without clarity we will not invest. It is pretty simple. We
:34:45. > :34:51.have to trust ourselves. It is not an negotiation between us and the
:34:51. > :34:58.Government. It's not us trying to twist the arm of the Government.
:34:58. > :35:02.It's just the opcy. It's about building together the solutions.
:35:02. > :35:05.Win-win solutions. As investors it is a big investment, a long-term
:35:05. > :35:09.investment. It's a major investment. We need clarity about the returns.
:35:09. > :35:14.It has to be fair for the investors. And with me now are the
:35:14. > :35:18.Conservative MP, David more is and the leader Green Party Natalie bent.
:35:19. > :35:23.Welcome. -- David Morris. What is the risk of an energy crisis?
:35:23. > :35:26.think it is real risk. I said two years ago. If we don't go into
:35:26. > :35:29.nuclear power now, there will be power cuts in the next ten years.
:35:30. > :35:33.What do you say to that? It seems fairly immediate and urge snepbt
:35:33. > :35:37.There is the need for rgeebt action which is one of the reasons that
:35:37. > :35:42.nuclear is not answer. The kind of nuclear plant we are talking bthe
:35:42. > :35:47.last two built have taken 14 and 17 to come online, double the original
:35:47. > :35:51.budget and the current two being built are delayed and going much
:35:51. > :35:55.over budget. Nuclear is not the answer to energy needs. What this
:35:55. > :35:59.Government is failing to do is energy conservation and looking at
:35:59. > :36:05.the renewable reliable energy sources we need. What percentage of
:36:05. > :36:09.energy do we need to generate from nuclear? At least another 10% in
:36:09. > :36:11.the mix. Natalie bent has said we'll not have any online. If you
:36:12. > :36:16.are saying there is an energy crisis come down the track in the
:36:16. > :36:19.next few years, what is going to happen in between This is why the
:36:19. > :36:22.Government is intimating underwriting builds. We have eight
:36:22. > :36:26.sites around the country. There will be a nuclear power station
:36:26. > :36:29.built on each one of those sites, that is all it has been foot-
:36:29. > :36:34.printed foor. I think we should start sooner rather than later.
:36:34. > :36:36.That way we know we'll meet the gap. You are going to offer a subsidy to
:36:36. > :36:40.private companies to build nuclear plants? My understand something
:36:40. > :36:44.there will be an underwriting. As you heard on the footage from the
:36:44. > :36:49.Select Committee, it is not a done deal but they want it build power
:36:49. > :36:52.stations, we need the energy. Let's get on with it. You will break the
:36:52. > :36:56.coalition agreement. It said firmly there will not be any Government
:36:56. > :36:59.subsidy of new nuclear power stations. I would love to see that
:36:59. > :37:02.coalition agreement broken on that point because we need the energy.
:37:02. > :37:07.You are saying it is going to be broken, that's what you have heard,
:37:07. > :37:10.they are going to do a U-turn? looks to me as if there will be an
:37:10. > :37:15.underwriting policy going on. That's for the Secretary of State
:37:15. > :37:18.to answer, not myself. You would have to ask him. But that's my
:37:18. > :37:23.understanding. Underwriting construction costs is a subsidy,
:37:23. > :37:26.isn't it? It can be. Personally I would go for it. The economics of
:37:26. > :37:29.nuclear power generation are different from those of hydrocarbon
:37:29. > :37:33.generation which is the capital costs are much higher but the
:37:33. > :37:36.running costs are much lower than conventional hydrocarbon generation.
:37:36. > :37:42.I think we need it. With great respect to the Green Party, floss
:37:42. > :37:47.way in which, inhefrpbtly unreliable wind turbines and other
:37:47. > :37:52.forms can do anything but supplement. -- inherently
:37:52. > :37:55.unreliable. But not replace hydrocarbons. We need to go to the
:37:55. > :38:00.underwriting point. What does it mean? It means writing an open
:38:00. > :38:03.cheque for the nuclear industry. It is what it would mean doing for
:38:03. > :38:08.foreign murlt national companies, to say - whatever the costs we will
:38:08. > :38:12.pay it. -- multinational. Isn't that true?. If you underwrite the
:38:12. > :38:16.costs looking at the two stations being built they have overrun
:38:16. > :38:20.already to a tune of a couple of billion pounds. In this case, if we
:38:20. > :38:24.underwrite them, it'll be the taxpayer. The sit zevens our
:38:24. > :38:29.country need power. The only way is by building nuclear power stations.
:38:29. > :38:33.-- the citizens of our country. It is the way we'll make the angments
:38:33. > :38:38.for shortages to come together. -- arrangements. So it is worth it.
:38:38. > :38:42.my opinion it is. We need power and energy conservation. If you look at
:38:42. > :38:46.the House of Lords report, it says the Government's Energy Bill is
:38:46. > :38:49.failing it tackle demand. Let's get back it Jack Straw's point. Are you
:38:49. > :38:54.saying that renewable energies can replace what nuclear would in the
:38:54. > :38:59.future in terms of keeping the lights on? Xctsly. These are as
:38:59. > :39:03.reliable as a set of renewable sources. These are reliable. --
:39:03. > :39:10.exactly. There is nonsense about wind power. It has been looked at.
:39:10. > :39:15.Wind power is reliable. It has been said it is reliable. They are
:39:15. > :39:18.solvable through renewable sources. But with all due respect, can it
:39:18. > :39:22.supply the amount of energy we need? Nowhere near it. There are
:39:22. > :39:28.two new clear power stations in my constituentcy. When they are both
:39:29. > :39:33.going at full pelt, it is 6% of our National Grid. Feverry wind turbine
:39:33. > :39:38.on and off shore blew at the same time, you are talking about 10% of
:39:38. > :39:42.of our energy at the moment. If you invest in renewables, instead of
:39:42. > :39:47.nuclear, you can raise it vastly. Do you believe, if the investment
:39:47. > :39:52.is there, if we threw the money at renewables and took a GM bell, it
:39:53. > :39:57.would be a gamble, wouldn't it? don't accept that. Germany has
:39:57. > :40:00.decided to abandon nuclear power generation. It is facing an energy
:40:00. > :40:07.crisis. It is facing huge transmission costs from where the
:40:07. > :40:10.energy is being generated, which is on the Baltic coast, down to its
:40:10. > :40:14.industrial heartlines. And the energy is a higher cost. Don't
:40:14. > :40:19.forget for all that we label wind power as environmentally friendly,
:40:19. > :40:24.there are huge environmental issues and planning arguments, just as
:40:24. > :40:31.many in aggregate about wind turbines as there are about nuclear
:40:31. > :40:35.four pants. But could it place? Germany is plavening to go entirely
:40:35. > :40:41.renew ab. I trust the German engineers to work it out. -- the
:40:41. > :40:45.Jeremy is planning to go entirely renewable. They are facing higher
:40:45. > :40:48.and higher energy costs and they'll see a flight of manufacturing to
:40:48. > :40:52.Eastern Europe or elsewhere in the world. Watch this spai, I promise
:40:52. > :40:56.you and look at the debates taking place in Germany. -- watch this
:40:56. > :41:01.space. It is true what Jack is saying and the Germans are looking
:41:01. > :41:06.at buying energy off EDF. That says it all. We have seen big rises in
:41:06. > :41:11.energy costs in the UK because we are dependent on hydrocarbons, gas
:41:11. > :41:15.particularly and prices are rising. Wind solar tidal. We know exactly
:41:15. > :41:20.what the fuel is going to cost forever, zero. And that, of course
:41:20. > :41:24.is a big concern to viewers, the rising cost of energy? I'm in the
:41:24. > :41:29.against having some wind power and tidal power if you can harness it,
:41:29. > :41:34.but it is easier said and than done on a major scale, but nuclear is a
:41:34. > :41:37.very important part... Why didn't Labour sign up to it properly teted.
:41:37. > :41:42.I seem it remember they didn't exactly commit themselves --
:41:43. > :41:46.properly at the time. We should have done. There were too many
:41:46. > :41:50.arguments. And Ed Miliband should take responsibility. I don't know
:41:51. > :41:54.about Ed. In my view we should have been much more clear-sighted about
:41:54. > :41:58.it. This Government is doing the same. Not particularly clear. Do
:41:58. > :42:02.you blame the coalition? If it had been a Conservative Government I'm
:42:02. > :42:07.sure we would have had nuclear power programmes rolled out and I'm
:42:07. > :42:11.certain if there is a Conservative Government at the next election
:42:11. > :42:21.that is what happened. What do you say to Ed Davey? Get them built
:42:21. > :42:24.
:42:24. > :42:27.Why do politicians like to talk tough on crime? David Cameron tried
:42:27. > :42:31.to break that mould with his so- called "hug a hoodie" speech,
:42:31. > :42:35.although he never used those words. Yesterday, the Prime Minister tried
:42:35. > :42:39.to chart a change of direction. It opened another chapter in recent
:42:39. > :42:44.political rhetoric on a crime. need to be tough on crime, tough on
:42:44. > :42:48.the causes of crime. The old choice between social and individual
:42:48. > :42:52.responsibility is no longer valid. We need an approach that both meets
:42:52. > :42:55.the need to protect the public and recognises the link between the
:42:55. > :43:01.conditions in which the young people are brought up and the
:43:01. > :43:08.propensity to turn to crime. opponents say there are too many
:43:08. > :43:12.people in prison. I agree. Too many people imprisoned in their own
:43:12. > :43:22.homes, afraid to go out in case they are attacked or their homes
:43:22. > :43:27.
:43:27. > :43:33.are burgled. Those are the people I want to set free. Let's be clear.
:43:33. > :43:39.Prison works. When you see a child walking down a street, hoody up,
:43:39. > :43:48.head down, moody, swaggering, dominating the pavement, think what
:43:48. > :43:53.has brought that child to that moment. Lock them up, or let them
:43:53. > :43:56.out. Blend the criminal or blame society. Be tough or act soft. I
:43:56. > :44:02.have been trying to break out of this sterile debate and show a new
:44:02. > :44:05.way forward, tough, but intelligent. The former Home Secretary Jack
:44:05. > :44:08.Straw is still here, and we are joined by a former Cameron
:44:08. > :44:12.speechwriter Danny Krueger, who wrote the speech associated with
:44:12. > :44:18.the "hug a hoodie" mantra, although those words were never uttered by
:44:18. > :44:23.David Cameron. Times have changed. The difference between those
:44:23. > :44:27.speeches is stark. Are you disappointed? It is not, actually.
:44:27. > :44:32.On Sunday, it looked like he would be coming down very hard. In isn't
:44:32. > :44:36.that what he wanted? Actually, the speech he gave yesterday was a much
:44:36. > :44:40.more nuanced message, which reflects a lot of the messages he
:44:40. > :44:45.has been giving out since he became party leader. When young people
:44:45. > :44:50.cross the line, it is important that the law is upheld. He makes no
:44:50. > :44:56.bones about that. But they also has to be an understanding of how
:44:56. > :44:59.people commit a crime, and that it is not simply enough to have a
:44:59. > :45:06.deterrent to prevent them. But is it not as a result of pressure from
:45:06. > :45:11.the backbenches saying, you don't sound tough enough on crime, and he
:45:11. > :45:16.is responding to that? He will always be sensitive to that, as he
:45:16. > :45:24.should be. The public care deeply about crime levels. Crime has
:45:24. > :45:28.fallen in the last year. It is a long-term trend. And he has work to
:45:28. > :45:31.do on that, but he believes in a tough law and order approach. But
:45:31. > :45:35.he also understands that rehabilitation has to be part of
:45:35. > :45:39.the picture. It seems to be less about crime policy and more about
:45:39. > :45:43.part positioning. The Conservatives felt at that time that they need to
:45:43. > :45:46.appear more compassionate, and law and order was the prism through
:45:46. > :45:53.which they would achieve that. Labour did the same when they
:45:53. > :45:57.wanted to appear tougher on crime. You were the conduit. It is less
:45:57. > :46:03.about the policies themselves. Would you agree? It is difficult to
:46:03. > :46:07.get two ideas in a headline? yet you do need both things,
:46:07. > :46:11.discipline and understanding. Sometimes the new ones goes one way
:46:11. > :46:15.and sometimes the other. Often, the media decide which way the story is
:46:15. > :46:22.spun. In the case of "hug a hoodie", there was no intention to appear
:46:22. > :46:25.soft on crime. But they did want to appear compassionate. He still does.
:46:25. > :46:30.Tough and intelligent, how different is that from tough on
:46:30. > :46:34.crime, tough on the causes of crime? In it is not different. The
:46:34. > :46:38.Conservatives traditionally had a reputation for being bone Headley
:46:38. > :46:44.hard on crime. Labour are traditionally seen as too soft on
:46:45. > :46:48.crime. So of course, Labour leaders will try and deal with a
:46:48. > :46:52.harbourside and conservative leaders will be softer. Except when
:46:52. > :46:55.times get tough, and then everybody wants to look tough. But don't
:46:55. > :47:02.underestimate the concern of the British public. People really worry
:47:02. > :47:07.about crime. It is great that since 1995, and I am happy to concede
:47:07. > :47:10.this, the decline in crime started under Michael Howard and
:47:10. > :47:16.accelerated under successive Labour Home Secretaries. Crime levels are
:47:16. > :47:22.now about half where they were. In terms of the soft side, far fewer
:47:22. > :47:25.young people are going into crime now, and that is due to the success
:47:25. > :47:31.partly of schools' policies, part but partly of our youth justice
:47:31. > :47:37.policies. You don't see this in the papers, but they have been very
:47:37. > :47:44.good. At the same time, yes, we have got a lot of people locked up
:47:44. > :47:50.in prison, but a fifth per head of population what they have in the US.
:47:50. > :47:55.But if you are calling for longer sentences, which was part of the
:47:55. > :47:58.speech, you will need more prison places. That is the Achilles heel
:47:58. > :48:03.of this government, because they have cut the number of police
:48:03. > :48:07.officers. Kenneth Clarke, in a moment of pure adoration, as
:48:08. > :48:11.Justice Secretary, handed over a large chunk of the Ministry of
:48:11. > :48:15.Justice's budget back to the Treasury. It was a crazy thing to
:48:15. > :48:20.do, and we are now reaping the whirlwind from budget cuts which
:48:20. > :48:24.were unsustainable. There will be problems in the prisons. Prison
:48:24. > :48:28.numbers will not fall by cutting sentences or sending less people to
:48:28. > :48:38.prison, they will fall if we prevent people going back to prison.
:48:38. > :48:41.
:48:41. > :48:47.The real scandal is the reoffending rates. Two-thirds of prisoners who
:48:47. > :48:52.reoffend once they come out. That was talked about by David Cameron.
:48:52. > :48:58.This rehabilitation revolution, no party has ever committed itself to
:48:58. > :49:05.it. I come back to this idea that when the going gets tough, that is
:49:05. > :49:09.shelved. It needn't be. This Government is uniquely committed to
:49:09. > :49:15.rehabilitation. It understands that it is not just about the criminal
:49:15. > :49:18.justice system or making twixt the sentencing, it is about involving
:49:18. > :49:23.charities and working with ex- offenders. There is a genuine
:49:23. > :49:28.commitment to make sure there is greater emphasis on that. Dear
:49:28. > :49:31.Annie point on which I disagree with you is the suggestion that the
:49:31. > :49:35.Conservatives have a monopoly on this. They don't. Everybody is
:49:35. > :49:43.searching for the Holy Grail on rehabilitation because if you can
:49:43. > :49:48.divert people from crime, it is better for society. It requires a
:49:49. > :49:51.lot of effort. Now, bovine TB is issued problem
:49:51. > :49:54.for farmers. There has been completely evidence over the years
:49:54. > :49:58.about whether badgers are responsible for spreading the
:49:58. > :50:03.disease. Last year, the government announced a cull of thousands of
:50:03. > :50:05.badgers in pilot areas. That cull was supposed to begin imminently,
:50:05. > :50:10.but the Environment Secretary Owen Patterson just told the Commons
:50:10. > :50:14.that it will now be delayed until next summer. I know this will be
:50:14. > :50:20.disappointing for many, particularly those farmers in the
:50:20. > :50:28.two pilot areas. But I support the decision of the NFU to delay the
:50:28. > :50:34.start of the coming operations. -- the come in operations. There is no
:50:34. > :50:40.change to the government's policy. We remain committed to it, but we
:50:40. > :50:44.must ensure that we work with the NFU to get the delivery right.
:50:44. > :50:51.are joined now by the chief executive of the RSPCA. Your
:50:51. > :50:55.reaction? I am delighted that we are not killing the badgers, but I
:50:55. > :51:01.am disappointed that we are still seeing the Government committed to
:51:01. > :51:07.a policy which lacks compassion. How do you deal with this?
:51:07. > :51:11.vaccinate the badgers, as the Welsh Government are doing, and you press
:51:11. > :51:15.forward urgently in Brussels to get the vaccination of cattle approved.
:51:15. > :51:21.I was there with Brian May a week ago. There is a lack of effort by
:51:21. > :51:25.the Government to get this done. Will the vaccination work? That is
:51:25. > :51:29.the way we have tackled every disease in animals or human beings.
:51:29. > :51:33.It will work for the badgers and for the cows. But while we wait for
:51:33. > :51:38.the go-ahead for that, what happens in the meantime? Farmers still have
:51:38. > :51:42.the worry of their livestock being affected. The number of cows being
:51:42. > :51:46.affected has fallen for the last three years, because by a security
:51:47. > :51:56.has been improved. If you don't stress the cattle, they are less
:51:57. > :51:58.
:51:58. > :52:02.susceptible to the disease. Is your objection to culling badgers on the
:52:02. > :52:09.basis of the animals themselves, or because you don't think the cull
:52:09. > :52:14.will stop the spread of bovine TB? The RSPCA is a science led,
:52:14. > :52:17.evidence based charity. The scientists say that the review
:52:17. > :52:21.under the last government spent ten years looking at this. It is the
:52:21. > :52:25.only peer reviewed piece of science, and it said the badgers are
:52:25. > :52:30.marginal in bovine TB. So the RSPCA and bobs that position. We care as
:52:30. > :52:35.much about the cows as we do the badgers. I also care about the
:52:35. > :52:39.dairy farmers. They are being led up a blind alley here. But it is
:52:39. > :52:44.still a factor, even if it is marginal. Until vaccination comes
:52:44. > :52:47.on board, the reports we hear from the Government say that the number
:52:47. > :52:51.of badgers is greater than we thought. Wouldn't a cull be
:52:51. > :52:55.sensible? No, because the badgers are not the prime cause of the
:52:55. > :53:01.transmission of the disease. We need better by a security, and
:53:01. > :53:08.let's vaccinate the badgers. some extent, farmers have been led
:53:08. > :53:11.to the top of the hill. Now there is a delay. I understand that the
:53:11. > :53:16.reason is that there is not enough time to carry out the cull before
:53:16. > :53:22.the breeding season starts for badgers. In terms of decision-
:53:22. > :53:26.making, it does seem incompetent. It is a very difficult policy issue.
:53:26. > :53:33.I chaired the Cabinet committee that discussed the issue of coal
:53:33. > :53:41.versus vaccination in the closing years of the last government under
:53:41. > :53:47.Labour. It was an electrifying debate. It was interesting talking
:53:47. > :53:52.to lots of farmers who have got couple, hard-boiled farmers who are
:53:52. > :53:56.not bothered about badgers, their opinions have shifted from wanting
:53:56. > :54:03.to shoot them dead to a much more nuanced position of saying actually,
:54:03. > :54:07.I am not sure that shooting them will work. For and that is for all
:54:07. > :54:11.sorts of complicated, but well- established reasons. Vaccination is
:54:11. > :54:14.probably the answer. It a lot of farmers have rejected the coal and
:54:14. > :54:18.vaccinated their badgers. There is a massive groundswell of opinion
:54:18. > :54:22.here. The key test which differentiates between the cow that
:54:22. > :54:27.has been vaccinated or infected is moving forward. Let's get that done
:54:27. > :54:30.and vaccinate the creatures. Save life, don't take it. Will you
:54:30. > :54:34.persuade the government to drop it? I think the Government will listen
:54:34. > :54:38.to public opinion. So, back to the media select
:54:38. > :54:41.committee, where George Entwistle has now finished giving evidence.
:54:41. > :54:45.Towards the end of that session, he was pressed again on what he knew
:54:45. > :54:50.about the investigation. She surely you can see that even though you
:54:50. > :54:53.might not have enough to stand up a programme legally, it may still
:54:53. > :55:00.apply that it would not be appropriate to start showing
:55:00. > :55:05.tribute programmes about someone? As I said, I recognise that our
:55:05. > :55:08.systems need to be more carefully calibrated for dealing with the
:55:08. > :55:12.outcome of investigations that don't proceed to broadcast.
:55:12. > :55:15.thing was in my mind that if they had serious allegations, it would
:55:15. > :55:19.end up being broadcast and I would be told about it and act
:55:20. > :55:27.accordingly. I recognise that we need to reflect on making sure that
:55:27. > :55:31.we have a culture that does not run the risk of what happened happening.
:55:31. > :55:36.Let's talk to our political correspondent. I understand he has
:55:36. > :55:39.finished giving evidence. Can you give us the latest? George
:55:39. > :55:45.Entwistle came out of here a short time ago. He was met by a barrage
:55:45. > :55:51.of questions along the lines of, is your job on the line? It was a very
:55:51. > :55:55.difficult session for Mr Entwistle, for the BBC and in particular for
:55:55. > :55:58.Newsnight and their editor, Peter Rippon. Listening to the tone of
:55:58. > :56:04.the questioning, MPs were incredulous at the lack of
:56:04. > :56:08.knowledge about details of why the Newsnight investigation was dropped,
:56:08. > :56:12.why they didn't pursue the matter further, about the whole Saville
:56:12. > :56:16.saga, about why young girls were apparently bussed in to Top Of The
:56:16. > :56:20.Pops, about the number of people that were abused. And again and
:56:20. > :56:23.again, Mr Entwistle said, I have no recollection. Particularly
:56:23. > :56:28.difficult for the editor of Newsnight, Peter Rippon, because
:56:28. > :56:31.George Entwistle said he would not have dropped the programme. He was
:56:31. > :56:36.surprised that no decision was taken to continue with it, and said
:56:36. > :56:40.he could not comment on Peter Rippon's "state of mind" when he
:56:40. > :56:44.chose not to press ahead with the programme, and said the BBC would
:56:44. > :56:49.get Nick Pollard's report and then look at whether there should be any
:56:49. > :56:53.disciplinary proceedings. For all the blame that may or may be may
:56:53. > :56:58.not be attached to Peter Rippon, the buck will stop with the
:56:58. > :57:01.director general. He himself said at one point, "I take full
:57:01. > :57:06.responsibility for all BBC journalism". So if MPs are not
:57:06. > :57:10.impressed, his head will be on the block. The says the buck stops with
:57:10. > :57:14.him. What about the conversation between himself and Helen Boaden
:57:14. > :57:18.when he was head of vision, the ten-second conversation when he did
:57:18. > :57:23.not ask what that Jimmy Savile investigation by Newsnight was
:57:23. > :57:27.about? His defence was that he did not want to interfere in another
:57:27. > :57:31.programme's business. He wanted there to be an editorial buffer
:57:31. > :57:38.between the two programmes. He said to Helen Boaden briefly at this
:57:38. > :57:42.charity lunch, keep me updated, and that was it. MPs spoke about the
:57:42. > :57:45.amazing lack of curiosity that here he was, about a book out two
:57:45. > :57:48.tribute programmes to Jimmy Savile, and along comes the director of
:57:49. > :57:53.news and says, this could affect your Christmas schedule, and he did
:57:53. > :57:58.not take it further. If that was part of the disbelief on the part
:57:58. > :58:04.of MPs. They could not understand why on earth he did not pursue it
:58:04. > :58:08.further. What strikes me is, it just has so many echoes of the
:58:08. > :58:11.James Murdoch appearance before exactly the same select committee a
:58:11. > :58:16.few months ago, when again and again, Mr Murdoch said, I don't
:58:16. > :58:21.remember, I don't know. You felt that George Entwistle was being
:58:21. > :58:24.pushed into the same box. We will be reflecting on this throughout
:58:24. > :58:29.programmes today. There is just time before we go to find out the
:58:29. > :58:33.answer to our quiz. The question will was, what has the Education
:58:33. > :58:39.Secretary written to his old head teacher to apologise for? Who said
:58:39. > :58:43.he was an unpleasant brat. Go to the top of the class. That is all
:58:43. > :58:48.for today. Thank you for being our guest of the day and thanks to our
:58:48. > :58:51.other guests. The One O'clock News is starting on BBC One. I will be