23/10/2012 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 23/10/2012. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Good afternoon. Welcome to the Daily Politics.


REPORTER: Do you think you might have to consider your position by


the end of the day? MPs quiz BBC Director-General, WHISTLE which is,


about what he knew and when about the Jimmy Savile sex abuse


allegations. The Government's controversial


badger cull is expected to be delayed by a year. -- George


Entwistle. The Environment Minister is about


to make a statement. The Government says it won't


subsidise new nuclear power stations but with energy firms


reluctant to invest rthey about to change their minds? Prison works.


It ensures that we are protected from murders, muggers and rapists.


And why do politicians like to talk tough on crime?


All that in the next hour. With me for the whole programme today is


the former Home Secretary, Foreign Secretary, and Justice Secretary,


to name just a few of his former roles. What a busy man he has been,


Jack Straw. Before we move on to that smorgasbord of political news


that we have prepared, let's talk about a political story emanating


from the other side of the Atlantic. Last night was the last of the


Presidental debates before next month's election the theme this


time: foreign affairs. Something Jack Straw knows a bit about.


Before we talk let's get a change of the exchanges. I'm glad you


recognise Al-Qaeda is a threat. A few months ago when you were asked


the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said rushia,


not alguidia. In the 1980s, they were calling to ask for their


policy back. The Cold War has been over for 20 years. But governor,


when it comes it our foreign policy you seem to want to import the


foreign policies of the 1980, just like the social policies of the


1950s and the economic policies of the 1920s. You say you are not


interested in duplicating what happened in Iraq, but just a few


weeks ago you said - you think we should have more troops in Iraq


right now. And the challenge we have - I know you haven't been in a


position to actually execute foreign policy - but, every time


you have offered an opinion, you've been wrong. Attacking me is not an


agenda. Attacking me is not talking about how we are going to deal with


the challenges in the Middle East and take advantage of the


opportunity there and stem the tide of this violence. But I'll respond


to a couple of the things you mentioned. Russia, I indicated is a


geopolitical foe. It is a geopolitical foe. I said in the


same paragraph, "Iran is the greatest national security threat


we face." Russia continues to battle us in the UN time and time


again. I have clear eyes on this. I'm not going to wear rose coloured


glasses when it comes to Russia or Mr Putin and I'll not say it him -


I'll give you more flexibility after the election. Why wasn't


Barack Obama sewn this up? Well, I think because he was very


complacent at the beginning. I think that first debate showed that


complacency. He also made a very predictable error - which is he


allowed himself to get too tired. Elections are knackering.


Especially Presidental ones. any leader. I saw that with Tony


and Gordon and with Neil Kinnock before that. Absolutely knackering.


He needed to have left himself two or teledays to prepare for that


first crucial contest debate. -- two or three days.


He didn't do so and he has been on the backfoot frying to regain lost


ground. He did well on the second one. -- trying to regain. Looking


at the clips I have seen of last night's debate. I think at best for


Obama it is even Stevens. I wouldn't have advised him to go on


the attack in that way against Romney. It does suggest that he,


Obama felt a bit defensive about these things. As you say, it's


given Mitt Romney an opening to almost reinvent himself through the


Presidental debates because the polls had indicated he was behind


in most of the important swing states. So, now, it's going to go


to the wire, isn't it? I guess so. As with British elections, which


depend crucially on marginal seats, which is not what happens elsewhere,


this is down to handful of the so- called swing states and it'll go to


the wire. Ohio, Florida, states like that. You just never know. It


looks as though Obama may still be slightly ahead in more of the swing


states than he is behind, but I think it's going to be a very


exciting night. Have you been disappointed by President Obama's


first term? I have not been disappointed. I suppose my


expectations on world lead remembers fairly lo. I know how


damned difficult it is to be in office. -- fairly low. An


electorate expects you to go on high-blown rhetoric and then they


are disappointed. Expectations were huge on Obama. They were. He has


managed to achieve reform in the health service and health care


which in the context of American politics, completely different from


anything here in terms of health care, that is a major achievement


and one I think which will last. you think, though, it is still


inconceivable, to use that word, that America would try to bomb Iran,


especially under President Romney? When I answered that question in


2004, it was about what the UK would do, in respect of the then


more moderate regime in Iran. It is not inconceivable that a US


administration under Mitt Romney would seek it take military action


against Iran. Under present circumstances, I think it would be


highly ill-advised. The case for military action simply isn't there.


The Iranians are extraordinaryly frustrating to negotiate with. In


many ways they are their own worst enemy. But the best evidence which


comes from the IAEA, the atomic energy authority, was they stopped


developing a nuclear weapon system in 2003, partly of the work of the


French, German and British administration. Do you think that


Mitt Romney, after that final debate on foreign affairs, where he


hasn't had any experience, did he look more Presidental? Did he achef


his name as trying to sound as though he could be Commander-in-


Chief. The makeover of Mitt Romney in the last month has been


extraordinary. He certainly did look more Presidental. If you think


about the kind of right-wing position he was adopting in the


primaries, he's moved from there to here has been reMoroccoable. -- his


move. You could see him in the job for sure. Personally no, surprise


about this, I would rather have President Obama reflected.


No big surprise. Time for the daily quiz. The Education Secretary,


Michael Gove has written to his old teacher to apologise for his


behaviour. The question today was, At the end of the show, Jack will


give us the correct answer. You will be pleased to know you have


time to think about it. The BBC Director-General, George Entwistle,


began giving he have to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee a little


over 90 minutes ago. He is still being questioned by MPs anxious to


find out what and when he found out about allegations of child sex


abuse by Jimmy Savile. He has been Director-General for only a month


but before that was a senior executive at the corporation in


charge of its television output. He was asked about the detail of


allegations about the Conservative MP, Philip Davis. Who in the BBC


decided to bus in young, vulnerable girls from institutions to be in


the audience of programmes being presented by Jimmy Savile.


genuinely don't know the answer to that yet. We are trying to pull


together all the documentation we can about who, which managers and


so on were in positions of authority at the time Jimmy


Savile's programmes were being made and we are supplying that


information to the police so that they know how to take their


investigations forward. Who in the BBC allowed these children to be


taken backstage to Jimmy Savile's dressing room after the shows?


Davis, we are trying to answer those questions in the same way.


Dame Janet Smith's review has been set up to ask and answer all these


questions and we will give every support we can to enable her to do


that. With respect, you don't need to set up a review it ask questions


like that, do you? Surely you are more than capable of asking that.


Surely you don't need somebody else to ask those questions for you.


set up an independent review for the precise are en, we want the


outside world to be assured we asked those questions properly. We


set up the few within two weeks of the scale of this crisis being


known. I'm convinced that the right way to get to the bottom of this is


to give all the support now to Dame Janet Smith so she can answer the


questions you are asking. Have you set up a review to allow you to


aindividual answering these questions, farm it off to somebody


else -- to avoid. Palm it off to somebody else. We see politicians


doing this, set up a review and kick it into the long grass. Is


that not exactly what the BBC is doing I don't think there is


anything about the way we have structured the two independent


reviews, that is designed to aindividual answering questions.


The way they have been set up and the support they are given will


enable them to ask any question they want, to go anywhere they want.


It is the opposite of an attempt to hide things and cover things up.


This is an attempt to make things wide open. Mr Entwistle, do you now


accept, in the light of last night's Panorama, that the decision


to drop the Newsnight investigation was a catastrophic mistake? I came


away from the Panorama firmly of the view that that investigation,


even if in the judgment of the editor it wasn't ready for


transmission at the point he was looking at it, should be allowed to


continue. Why did it take three weeks for the BBC to realise the


account given by Mr Rippon was inaccurate and incomplete? When you


want to find out why a programme has done an investigation, in my


long experience of the BBC is the person you go to is the


commissioning editor or the editor of the programme. They should know


why they commissioned the police and they should have the most


complete picture. What became clear to us after the blog was published


was that there were, that what had happened on Newsnight, was that


there was a significant, it seemed, difference of opinion, between the


people working on the investigation and the editor Peter Rippon, who


commissioned the investigation and that difference of opinion was made


clear to me relatively soon after the blog was published the


following week. And at that point I thought - well, although I would


normally absolutely expect to be able it get from the editor of a


programme a -- to get from the editor of a programme, a complete


and full picture of what had been going on, I thought I needed to get


to the pot bottom of why there was a difference of opinion and there


seemed to be a difference of opinion. Were you angry when you


found out about this? I was very disappointed that the blog turned


out to be as inrack at as it was. maybe have expected a rawer emotion


than very disappointed. You have been let down and exposed by a


senior colleague. What I have relied upon is that something in my


BBC career I have always been able to rely upon, is the editor of a


programme having a full grip and understanding of an investigation


they were in charge of. On this occasion that doesn't seem to have


been the case and that was disappointed. With us is the media


commentator and former Panorama editor Steve homosexuality. How do


you think he is doing? No killer blow was struck by anyone on the


committee. On the other hand, he is sounding under-informed. I think


think he doesn't know enough. Even the questions at the beginning by


Phillips... Philip Davis asking about the culture in the BBC and


you know what happened. He didn't have statistics. He didn't know, he


didn't know. Would you have expected him to have had the exact


statistics. If you don't know, you should say - I don't know. You


shouldn't say, er, er, and after five minutes of being pushed around


reveal you don't know. On most points he sounds under-informed I


have to say. In so far as what he needed to do here, was to convince


people that someone has a grip. Ben Bradshaw said it - tell us you have


a grip. He appears as a man trapped in process, not actually with his


hands on the thing itself. He hasn't given a convincing


performance in your view, in terms of how he has handle of what is


going on? Not kwhret. One has sympathy. -- not yet. Due process


is important. These are people's careers, a national treasure.


he has only been in the job should have been a gift for a new


Director-General. A new broom sweep. Lead the organisation through


trauma which is what Savile would constitute but because he was at


the scene of the crime in his previous role's bit stuck. He has


been on the backfoot from the start and the BBC unfortunately continues


to show signs of that. Even now, when would you expect him to be


able it get on the front-foot and say - right. He is held back by


what has happened which is really not great. It's been pulled out of


him bit by bit by bit. Let's go through the stages. Let's talk


about the Newsnight investigation. He said clearly - it should have


continued. Look, I think that's a key question in a sense for Peter


Rippon. I was a BBC editor. You know - he is has allowed things to


go by which is barmy. I understand why one is saying it's e-mail from


Peter Rippon says "We have just the women.", that's an editor saying


"Hang on, are we sure we've go the enough to go on.", I don't think it


means he has a downer on the women or he doesn't believe them, I think


he is saying - is that enough? He allowed that to go by and engaged


with it as a discussion about the BBC's attitude towards wi. I don't


think it exhibits anything of the sort. The BBC may well have issues


with women but that is the editor is saying is the evidence there?


What has become clear is that they did not take on the accounts of the


journalist and producer who were making that investigation. Editors


have to make difficult decisions. It is not uncommon to have a


journalist pursued to do a story and you have to say, I don't quite


by it. Disputes between editors and journalists are commonplace. That


is not a surprise. But whereas Peter Rippon's reasoning, if you


discount the conspiracy theory, which I do, his reasoning for not


going ahead with the programme, you could argue about, but they were


his reasons. But what they have said about it does not amount to a


convincing explanation. We had to wait for Panorama to tell us that


the editor had doubts about the evidence. They said up to that


point, he had not gone ahead with the programme because the Crown


Prosecution Service had not proceeded on one aspect. It didn't


make sense. Jack Straw, we have not watched every bit of the


questioning, but from what you have heard, do you think there was


outside interference in dropping that Newsnight investigation?


don't know. I worked for World in Action, Granada's investigative


programme, for two years, before I came into the house. We as young


Turks would want to convince our editor of a programme to put it on,


for sure. And the editors would say, hang on a second, we haven't got


the evidence. As Steve has said, I doubt there is a conspiracy. The


bigger issue is, why did Peter Rippon come out with what seemed to


be excuses? There is nothing illegitimate about an editor saying,


I took a judgment. It may have been the wrong judgment, but I made a


judgment that this was not properly cooked. I have spent 13 years as a


minister, having to make judgments every day, sometimes on the basis


of half a phone call or half a conversation. He problem with life


it is that when you look at it backwards, you have to live it


affords. Sometimes you get things wrong, but if you do, you need to


put your hands up. We have had at the ITV broadcast and we have seen


the Panorama broadcast. The question is, is George Entwistle


saying that Peter Rippon made a mistake and that it is his fault?


He has dumped on Peter Rippon prodigiously this morning. He has


said various things which amount to the end of Peter Rippon, certainly


in his career at the BBC. In fact, I think Peter Rippon's decision may


have been wrong, but it is understandable. The bigger question


is, if you had known what you had got, you may not have felt


confident enough to broadcast it at the time, but you can't just stop.


The woman who appeared on Panorama, when she said, it took me such a


lot to get to the point where I was prepared to say this, and then you


are left on the cutting-room floor, that is not right. You wonder


whether the editor of Newsnight new what he had got. That comes down to


questions being asked about George Entwistle's news managers. Were


they not telling him everything that was known, that there was a


disagreement between the journalists making the film and the


editor? Is it their fault, too? There is nothing wrong with


management pressure. It is the job of news managers to say to their


editors, just as editors sector and the journalists, come up with the


proof, it is quite appropriate venues managers to say, hold on,


are you sure this is true? That is not inappropriate. It would be


inappropriate if pressure were being exercised for other purposes,


like to say the corporation embarrassment. There are some


implications from what we have heard George Entwistle say so far.


He is not sure that his news managers have briefed him


effectively, but he has not gone that far yet. We are going to go


back to some of the questioning. We will hear the chair of the select


committee asking a question about the conversation between Helen


Boaden and George Entwistle. This was when he was in his previous


role, ahead of the Christmas programme. This was when she said


to him, Savile investigation, Newsnight, and he says he did not


ask anything about it. When it was said you that Newsnight was looking


into Jimmy Savile, what did you think they were investigating?


don't remember reflecting on it. This was a busy lunch. You are told


that one of the flagship investigative programmes on the BBC


is looking into one of the most iconic figures, who you are about


to commission she attributes to, and you don't want to know? It was


not that I didn't want to know. What was in my mind was a


determination not to show an undue interest. But just saying thanks,


Helen, what are you looking at? Why did she tell you if you were


determined not to ask what it was about? She presumably thought you


should know, and therefore would have expected you to say, what is


it about? Are assumed she was preparing me for the possibility


that I would need to think about changing the schedule. That could


be potentially very difficult. George's problem with this is that


he has said this before and has gone on to say that at no point did


he become aware of any of the details of the investigation. He


did not know it was about child abuse. He has claimed to know


nothing. He has been absolutely definite. He said it on the Today


programme. If anything emerges now or subsequently that shows that


that is not 100% correct, he is in real trouble, because he has been


so definite about it. It confounds common sense. Would you have asked


what it was about? If you are the head honcho in any organisation, it


is something I worked out quickly as a rookie Home Secretary, when


somebody passes you half a piece of information, you have to think, why


are they telling me that? Father a covering their backsides? What is


the rest of the story? If I survived for the time I did, it was


partly because I got some finely tuned and 10 I, when the bell


weather went off in my head. He is only defence is to say, and he has


said this on occasion, as director of BBC vision, had he got involved,,


which was not his role, he can argue that there are Chinese walls


and that he should not ask. But in this case, how can one disbelieve


him? He has said it and said it again. It remains hard to believe


that he either didn't ask or didn't know. If you say that to someone


who is the former editor of BBC Newsnight who has been around for


40 years, you will not think it is about Jimmy Savile's curtains.


will be listening to the select committee questions throughout the


programme. Now, Jack Straw has had an action-


packed career - Justice Secretary, Home Secretary, Commons Leader and


most importantly, Foreign Secretary before, during and after the war in


Iraq. It was the most high-profile of his many Cabinet posts, and


between 2002 and 2003, he seems to be almost permanently on the


airwaves, doggedly defending the hugely controversial decision to


deploy British troops against the Saddam Hussein regime. But what did


he really think about the war? I will ask him in a moment.


In a moment, I will be asking the Foreign Secretary how much longer...


We are joined now by Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary. I have just


been talking to Jack Straw. Jack Straw. Foreign Secretary and,


during the build-up to the war in Iraq, Minister for the Today


programme. His job, to explain the case for military action, ideally


with a second UN resolution, if not, without one. But was his heart


really in it? We interviewed him dozens of times during the run-up


to the war. He was always putting a strong case, but I got the sense


that it was a strong case for what became known as the second


resolution. My reading of Jack Straw at the time was that he


believed that and containment and inspection was a genuine option.


But when it came to it, was he actually in the loop? It emerged


after the war in the various inquiries that some of the most


important telegrams passing between Downing Street and the White House,


where the real decisions were being made for, never went anywhere near


Jack Straw. After the war, those around Jack Straw described how


they felt. The but Jack Straw's critics say that interpretation is


That is why some think Jack Straw's claimed that he could have stopped


the war by resigning if the second So how will history judge Jack


Straw's roar in the build-up to the You know what, we got it wrong. I


apologised. I made a mistake. I regret what I did. Yet there are


those who believe Jack Straw went further than most in questioning


the wisdom of the war. It is interesting when you look become in


the record, that there is one voice that continuously asks - why are we


focusing on Iraq and why are we focusing on something we are doing


now. There the problem has been going on for a decade. The one


voice you heard asking, why Iraq, why now, is Straw's? Jack Straw is


still with us. You open the chapter in Iran in your book by saying "You


could have prevented the UK's involvement in the process."?


Yfrpblgts yes because if I resigned, as a matter of arithmetic, there


wouldn't have been a majority. I don't say it in a self-serving way.


It was a matter of fact. I was aware of the murder of


responsibilities on me at that time. Does that trouble you? Of course it


does. Anybody with that degree of responsibility is going to be


troubled by the decision they make. But do I think that I made the


wrong decision at the time on the basis of the information that we


had, no I don't. That's something I have to live with. Although,


throughout, on the bits I have seen, Kevin March, the former editor of


the Today programme at the time is correct to say my whole efforts and


I may also say Colin Powell's were corrected towards getting that


You expect the Foreign Secretary to be in full possession of their


faculties and to know what they are doing. I was responsible as anybody


else for the decision to go to wr. I deeply regret it and I regret it


more, to find out that the whole basis to go to war was based on


the... That is with hindsight. were working towards a second


resolution and events conspired and bf all, Roman Shirokov's decision


to say he would veto a second resolution -- President Chirac's


decision. I don't understand why Chirac did that. If he had come on


board we would have resolved it peacefully. He didn't. And did you


then at any point feel - I should resign? Not at that stage. Earlier


on, before we got a UN resolution, much earlier, I'd thought about it.


But anyway we got the first resolution, a critical one, 1441.


And then - I mean one of the reasons I became so sceptical about


military action in respect of Iran, however, is you have to learn from


these experiences and if you have a strategy of diplomacy, backed by


the threat or possibly the use of force, you have to be alive to the


fact that as you go down these tracks, the gate-marked piece gets


narrower and the gate-marked wall gets wider. That's the lesson from


history. What about when Robin Cooke resigned? Did it make you


reconsider? By that time, in a sense, it was too late. It is never


too late to resign. I personally was committed. I was sceptical of


Robin's reasons. He had been belligerent about Saddam's threat


when he had been Foreign Secretary. He then came to a view that the


intelligence didn't suggest the level of threat that we thought.


What swung me, actually, was a report that Hans Blix did, 170-odd


pages, saying it was suggested that Saddam still had all sorts of


weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical weapons and


that was presented at the last crucial Security Council meeting on


7th March. It was that that - I swung one way, whilst Robin, my


good friend, swung the other way. Obviously domestically, I remember


it so well, at the time, it was so difficult and tense as people were


deciding what they were going to do. You say in your book that if the


handling of Iraq went wrong, you know some are licking their lips at


the possibility of ray gem change closer to home. I said it to Tony


in early March. Who was licking his lips? Various people inside...


Gordon Brown? Indeed. People in the Labour Cabinet as well as outside,


of course. I had warned Tony about that prospect the previous July as


well. Do you think Gordon Brown ever considered not supporting the


war as a way of unseating Tony Blair? No, I don't. I think he was


alive to the fact that if it went badly wrong, he would be the


beneficiary. I had no evidence whatsoever to suggest he actively


thought that he would move then - indeed he was party to many of the


Cabinet decisions leading up to the war. At this time, at that point,


when it came to changover here, you were convinced of Gordon Brown's


suitibility? I was. I men there was a history - because Tony and I


Frankly fell out, we fell out principally over foreign policies


in the Middle East. I had no reason to think that Gordon could not do


as good a job as Prime Minister as he had done as Chancellor. I'm


afraid a lot of us were proved wrong on in a, including me. Right,


you were his campaign manager. was, I was. I mean, we have seen a


lot of Gordon, there is one side of him utterly charming, intelligent,


bright, engaged. The problem was, it turned out, that he wasn't able


to be a leader and make those crucial decisions. You never, in


the end know about that sort of thing until people are tested. Both


ways. You have people who are unlikely to be leaders like clement


Attlee. He turned out to be really good. The reverse is true. Thank


you investment sometimes political debate generates more heat than


light but one of the most important current debates is how we can


ensure generating both. Britain is running dangerously low on power.


It was the conclusion of the energy regulator's report which warned of


unprecedented challenges with a risk of a short fall in electricity


supply by 2015. Nuclear power is supposed to be playing a key role


in keeping the lights on in future but the proportion of electricity


we generate from nuclear energy has fallen from one-quarter to 16%.


Another seven nuclear power stations are due to close by 2023.


Why not build more nuclear power stations to replace them? New clear


power might be low carbon and reliable but is expensive and takes


a long time to deliver. Guaranteed price for nuclear-generated


activity has not been enough to ensure investment from the private


sector. German companies E.ON and RWE pulled out of nuclear rebuilds


earlier this year. The Coalition Government has promised not to


subsidise new new clear power plants but now there's pecklation


they might be willing to underwrite construction costs overruns. That


could cost meltdown in the coalition. The Liberal Democrats'


Ed Davey says unless they can be priced competitively, they will not


proceed. This morning the head of EDF planning to build new nuclear


power stations, told MPs he would go ahead if the price was right and


clear. Without clarity we will not invest. It is pretty simple. We


have to trust ourselves. It is not an negotiation between us and the


Government. It's not us trying to twist the arm of the Government.


It's just the opcy. It's about building together the solutions.


Win-win solutions. As investors it is a big investment, a long-term


investment. It's a major investment. We need clarity about the returns.


It has to be fair for the investors. And with me now are the


Conservative MP, David more is and the leader Green Party Natalie bent.


Welcome. -- David Morris. What is the risk of an energy crisis?


think it is real risk. I said two years ago. If we don't go into


nuclear power now, there will be power cuts in the next ten years.


What do you say to that? It seems fairly immediate and urge snepbt


There is the need for rgeebt action which is one of the reasons that


nuclear is not answer. The kind of nuclear plant we are talking bthe


last two built have taken 14 and 17 to come online, double the original


budget and the current two being built are delayed and going much


over budget. Nuclear is not the answer to energy needs. What this


Government is failing to do is energy conservation and looking at


the renewable reliable energy sources we need. What percentage of


energy do we need to generate from nuclear? At least another 10% in


the mix. Natalie bent has said we'll not have any online. If you


are saying there is an energy crisis come down the track in the


next few years, what is going to happen in between This is why the


Government is intimating underwriting builds. We have eight


sites around the country. There will be a nuclear power station


built on each one of those sites, that is all it has been foot-


printed foor. I think we should start sooner rather than later.


That way we know we'll meet the gap. You are going to offer a subsidy to


private companies to build nuclear plants? My understand something


there will be an underwriting. As you heard on the footage from the


Select Committee, it is not a done deal but they want it build power


stations, we need the energy. Let's get on with it. You will break the


coalition agreement. It said firmly there will not be any Government


subsidy of new nuclear power stations. I would love to see that


coalition agreement broken on that point because we need the energy.


You are saying it is going to be broken, that's what you have heard,


they are going to do a U-turn? looks to me as if there will be an


underwriting policy going on. That's for the Secretary of State


to answer, not myself. You would have to ask him. But that's my


understanding. Underwriting construction costs is a subsidy,


isn't it? It can be. Personally I would go for it. The economics of


nuclear power generation are different from those of hydrocarbon


generation which is the capital costs are much higher but the


running costs are much lower than conventional hydrocarbon generation.


I think we need it. With great respect to the Green Party, floss


way in which, inhefrpbtly unreliable wind turbines and other


forms can do anything but supplement. -- inherently


unreliable. But not replace hydrocarbons. We need to go to the


underwriting point. What does it mean? It means writing an open


cheque for the nuclear industry. It is what it would mean doing for


foreign murlt national companies, to say - whatever the costs we will


pay it. -- multinational. Isn't that true?. If you underwrite the


costs looking at the two stations being built they have overrun


already to a tune of a couple of billion pounds. In this case, if we


underwrite them, it'll be the taxpayer. The sit zevens our


country need power. The only way is by building nuclear power stations.


-- the citizens of our country. It is the way we'll make the angments


for shortages to come together. -- arrangements. So it is worth it.


my opinion it is. We need power and energy conservation. If you look at


the House of Lords report, it says the Government's Energy Bill is


failing it tackle demand. Let's get back it Jack Straw's point. Are you


saying that renewable energies can replace what nuclear would in the


future in terms of keeping the lights on? Xctsly. These are as


reliable as a set of renewable sources. These are reliable. --


exactly. There is nonsense about wind power. It has been looked at.


Wind power is reliable. It has been said it is reliable. They are


solvable through renewable sources. But with all due respect, can it


supply the amount of energy we need? Nowhere near it. There are


two new clear power stations in my constituentcy. When they are both


going at full pelt, it is 6% of our National Grid. Feverry wind turbine


on and off shore blew at the same time, you are talking about 10% of


of our energy at the moment. If you invest in renewables, instead of


nuclear, you can raise it vastly. Do you believe, if the investment


is there, if we threw the money at renewables and took a GM bell, it


would be a gamble, wouldn't it? don't accept that. Germany has


decided to abandon nuclear power generation. It is facing an energy


crisis. It is facing huge transmission costs from where the


energy is being generated, which is on the Baltic coast, down to its


industrial heartlines. And the energy is a higher cost. Don't


forget for all that we label wind power as environmentally friendly,


there are huge environmental issues and planning arguments, just as


many in aggregate about wind turbines as there are about nuclear


four pants. But could it place? Germany is plavening to go entirely


renew ab. I trust the German engineers to work it out. -- the


Jeremy is planning to go entirely renewable. They are facing higher


and higher energy costs and they'll see a flight of manufacturing to


Eastern Europe or elsewhere in the world. Watch this spai, I promise


you and look at the debates taking place in Germany. -- watch this


space. It is true what Jack is saying and the Germans are looking


at buying energy off EDF. That says it all. We have seen big rises in


energy costs in the UK because we are dependent on hydrocarbons, gas


particularly and prices are rising. Wind solar tidal. We know exactly


what the fuel is going to cost forever, zero. And that, of course


is a big concern to viewers, the rising cost of energy? I'm in the


against having some wind power and tidal power if you can harness it,


but it is easier said and than done on a major scale, but nuclear is a


very important part... Why didn't Labour sign up to it properly teted.


I seem it remember they didn't exactly commit themselves --


properly at the time. We should have done. There were too many


arguments. And Ed Miliband should take responsibility. I don't know


about Ed. In my view we should have been much more clear-sighted about


it. This Government is doing the same. Not particularly clear. Do


you blame the coalition? If it had been a Conservative Government I'm


sure we would have had nuclear power programmes rolled out and I'm


certain if there is a Conservative Government at the next election


that is what happened. What do you say to Ed Davey? Get them built


Why do politicians like to talk tough on crime? David Cameron tried


to break that mould with his so- called "hug a hoodie" speech,


although he never used those words. Yesterday, the Prime Minister tried


to chart a change of direction. It opened another chapter in recent


political rhetoric on a crime. need to be tough on crime, tough on


the causes of crime. The old choice between social and individual


responsibility is no longer valid. We need an approach that both meets


the need to protect the public and recognises the link between the


conditions in which the young people are brought up and the


propensity to turn to crime. opponents say there are too many


people in prison. I agree. Too many people imprisoned in their own


homes, afraid to go out in case they are attacked or their homes


are burgled. Those are the people I want to set free. Let's be clear.


Prison works. When you see a child walking down a street, hoody up,


head down, moody, swaggering, dominating the pavement, think what


has brought that child to that moment. Lock them up, or let them


out. Blend the criminal or blame society. Be tough or act soft. I


have been trying to break out of this sterile debate and show a new


way forward, tough, but intelligent. The former Home Secretary Jack


Straw is still here, and we are joined by a former Cameron


speechwriter Danny Krueger, who wrote the speech associated with


the "hug a hoodie" mantra, although those words were never uttered by


David Cameron. Times have changed. The difference between those


speeches is stark. Are you disappointed? It is not, actually.


On Sunday, it looked like he would be coming down very hard. In isn't


that what he wanted? Actually, the speech he gave yesterday was a much


more nuanced message, which reflects a lot of the messages he


has been giving out since he became party leader. When young people


cross the line, it is important that the law is upheld. He makes no


bones about that. But they also has to be an understanding of how


people commit a crime, and that it is not simply enough to have a


deterrent to prevent them. But is it not as a result of pressure from


the backbenches saying, you don't sound tough enough on crime, and he


is responding to that? He will always be sensitive to that, as he


should be. The public care deeply about crime levels. Crime has


fallen in the last year. It is a long-term trend. And he has work to


do on that, but he believes in a tough law and order approach. But


he also understands that rehabilitation has to be part of


the picture. It seems to be less about crime policy and more about


part positioning. The Conservatives felt at that time that they need to


appear more compassionate, and law and order was the prism through


which they would achieve that. Labour did the same when they


wanted to appear tougher on crime. You were the conduit. It is less


about the policies themselves. Would you agree? It is difficult to


get two ideas in a headline? yet you do need both things,


discipline and understanding. Sometimes the new ones goes one way


and sometimes the other. Often, the media decide which way the story is


spun. In the case of "hug a hoodie", there was no intention to appear


soft on crime. But they did want to appear compassionate. He still does.


Tough and intelligent, how different is that from tough on


crime, tough on the causes of crime? In it is not different. The


Conservatives traditionally had a reputation for being bone Headley


hard on crime. Labour are traditionally seen as too soft on


crime. So of course, Labour leaders will try and deal with a


harbourside and conservative leaders will be softer. Except when


times get tough, and then everybody wants to look tough. But don't


underestimate the concern of the British public. People really worry


about crime. It is great that since 1995, and I am happy to concede


this, the decline in crime started under Michael Howard and


accelerated under successive Labour Home Secretaries. Crime levels are


now about half where they were. In terms of the soft side, far fewer


young people are going into crime now, and that is due to the success


partly of schools' policies, part but partly of our youth justice


policies. You don't see this in the papers, but they have been very


good. At the same time, yes, we have got a lot of people locked up


in prison, but a fifth per head of population what they have in the US.


But if you are calling for longer sentences, which was part of the


speech, you will need more prison places. That is the Achilles heel


of this government, because they have cut the number of police


officers. Kenneth Clarke, in a moment of pure adoration, as


Justice Secretary, handed over a large chunk of the Ministry of


Justice's budget back to the Treasury. It was a crazy thing to


do, and we are now reaping the whirlwind from budget cuts which


were unsustainable. There will be problems in the prisons. Prison


numbers will not fall by cutting sentences or sending less people to


prison, they will fall if we prevent people going back to prison.


The real scandal is the reoffending rates. Two-thirds of prisoners who


reoffend once they come out. That was talked about by David Cameron.


This rehabilitation revolution, no party has ever committed itself to


it. I come back to this idea that when the going gets tough, that is


shelved. It needn't be. This Government is uniquely committed to


rehabilitation. It understands that it is not just about the criminal


justice system or making twixt the sentencing, it is about involving


charities and working with ex- offenders. There is a genuine


commitment to make sure there is greater emphasis on that. Dear


Annie point on which I disagree with you is the suggestion that the


Conservatives have a monopoly on this. They don't. Everybody is


searching for the Holy Grail on rehabilitation because if you can


divert people from crime, it is better for society. It requires a


lot of effort. Now, bovine TB is issued problem


for farmers. There has been completely evidence over the years


about whether badgers are responsible for spreading the


disease. Last year, the government announced a cull of thousands of


badgers in pilot areas. That cull was supposed to begin imminently,


but the Environment Secretary Owen Patterson just told the Commons


that it will now be delayed until next summer. I know this will be


disappointing for many, particularly those farmers in the


two pilot areas. But I support the decision of the NFU to delay the


start of the coming operations. -- the come in operations. There is no


change to the government's policy. We remain committed to it, but we


must ensure that we work with the NFU to get the delivery right.


are joined now by the chief executive of the RSPCA. Your


reaction? I am delighted that we are not killing the badgers, but I


am disappointed that we are still seeing the Government committed to


a policy which lacks compassion. How do you deal with this?


vaccinate the badgers, as the Welsh Government are doing, and you press


forward urgently in Brussels to get the vaccination of cattle approved.


I was there with Brian May a week ago. There is a lack of effort by


the Government to get this done. Will the vaccination work? That is


the way we have tackled every disease in animals or human beings.


It will work for the badgers and for the cows. But while we wait for


the go-ahead for that, what happens in the meantime? Farmers still have


the worry of their livestock being affected. The number of cows being


affected has fallen for the last three years, because by a security


has been improved. If you don't stress the cattle, they are less


susceptible to the disease. Is your objection to culling badgers on the


basis of the animals themselves, or because you don't think the cull


will stop the spread of bovine TB? The RSPCA is a science led,


evidence based charity. The scientists say that the review


under the last government spent ten years looking at this. It is the


only peer reviewed piece of science, and it said the badgers are


marginal in bovine TB. So the RSPCA and bobs that position. We care as


much about the cows as we do the badgers. I also care about the


dairy farmers. They are being led up a blind alley here. But it is


still a factor, even if it is marginal. Until vaccination comes


on board, the reports we hear from the Government say that the number


of badgers is greater than we thought. Wouldn't a cull be


sensible? No, because the badgers are not the prime cause of the


transmission of the disease. We need better by a security, and


let's vaccinate the badgers. some extent, farmers have been led


to the top of the hill. Now there is a delay. I understand that the


reason is that there is not enough time to carry out the cull before


the breeding season starts for badgers. In terms of decision-


making, it does seem incompetent. It is a very difficult policy issue.


I chaired the Cabinet committee that discussed the issue of coal


versus vaccination in the closing years of the last government under


Labour. It was an electrifying debate. It was interesting talking


to lots of farmers who have got couple, hard-boiled farmers who are


not bothered about badgers, their opinions have shifted from wanting


to shoot them dead to a much more nuanced position of saying actually,


I am not sure that shooting them will work. For and that is for all


sorts of complicated, but well- established reasons. Vaccination is


probably the answer. It a lot of farmers have rejected the coal and


vaccinated their badgers. There is a massive groundswell of opinion


here. The key test which differentiates between the cow that


has been vaccinated or infected is moving forward. Let's get that done


and vaccinate the creatures. Save life, don't take it. Will you


persuade the government to drop it? I think the Government will listen


to public opinion. So, back to the media select


committee, where George Entwistle has now finished giving evidence.


Towards the end of that session, he was pressed again on what he knew


about the investigation. She surely you can see that even though you


might not have enough to stand up a programme legally, it may still


apply that it would not be appropriate to start showing


tribute programmes about someone? As I said, I recognise that our


systems need to be more carefully calibrated for dealing with the


outcome of investigations that don't proceed to broadcast.


thing was in my mind that if they had serious allegations, it would


end up being broadcast and I would be told about it and act


accordingly. I recognise that we need to reflect on making sure that


we have a culture that does not run the risk of what happened happening.


Let's talk to our political correspondent. I understand he has


finished giving evidence. Can you give us the latest? George


Entwistle came out of here a short time ago. He was met by a barrage


of questions along the lines of, is your job on the line? It was a very


difficult session for Mr Entwistle, for the BBC and in particular for


Newsnight and their editor, Peter Rippon. Listening to the tone of


the questioning, MPs were incredulous at the lack of


knowledge about details of why the Newsnight investigation was dropped,


why they didn't pursue the matter further, about the whole Saville


saga, about why young girls were apparently bussed in to Top Of The


Pops, about the number of people that were abused. And again and


again, Mr Entwistle said, I have no recollection. Particularly


difficult for the editor of Newsnight, Peter Rippon, because


George Entwistle said he would not have dropped the programme. He was


surprised that no decision was taken to continue with it, and said


he could not comment on Peter Rippon's "state of mind" when he


chose not to press ahead with the programme, and said the BBC would


get Nick Pollard's report and then look at whether there should be any


disciplinary proceedings. For all the blame that may or may be may


not be attached to Peter Rippon, the buck will stop with the


director general. He himself said at one point, "I take full


responsibility for all BBC journalism". So if MPs are not


impressed, his head will be on the block. The says the buck stops with


him. What about the conversation between himself and Helen Boaden


when he was head of vision, the ten-second conversation when he did


not ask what that Jimmy Savile investigation by Newsnight was


about? His defence was that he did not want to interfere in another


programme's business. He wanted there to be an editorial buffer


between the two programmes. He said to Helen Boaden briefly at this


charity lunch, keep me updated, and that was it. MPs spoke about the


amazing lack of curiosity that here he was, about a book out two


tribute programmes to Jimmy Savile, and along comes the director of


news and says, this could affect your Christmas schedule, and he did


not take it further. If that was part of the disbelief on the part


of MPs. They could not understand why on earth he did not pursue it


further. What strikes me is, it just has so many echoes of the


James Murdoch appearance before exactly the same select committee a


few months ago, when again and again, Mr Murdoch said, I don't


remember, I don't know. You felt that George Entwistle was being


pushed into the same box. We will be reflecting on this throughout


programmes today. There is just time before we go to find out the


answer to our quiz. The question will was, what has the Education


Secretary written to his old head teacher to apologise for? Who said


he was an unpleasant brat. Go to the top of the class. That is all


for today. Thank you for being our guest of the day and thanks to our


other guests. The One O'clock News is starting on BBC One. I will be


Download Subtitles