:00:47. > :00:50.Welcome to the Daily Politics. MPs have denounced multinational
:00:50. > :00:53.companies who pay little or no tax on their earnings in Britain as
:00:53. > :00:56.immoral. In a report, the Public Accounts Committee describes some
:00:56. > :01:00.of the evidence it heard from large corporations such as Starbucks and
:01:00. > :01:03.Google, as difficult to believe. All eyes will be on George Osborne
:01:03. > :01:07.on Wednesday when he delivers his Autumn Statement. We'll be taking a
:01:07. > :01:09.look ahead. Playing tough with Israel. Its ambassador in London
:01:09. > :01:15.has been summoned to the Foreign Office, following the Israeli
:01:15. > :01:25.government's decision to build new settlements in east Jerusalem. And
:01:25. > :01:28.
:01:28. > :01:31.we'll be asking if God and politics All that in the next hour. And with
:01:31. > :01:34.us for the whole programme today is the vicar, Giles Fraser. He's a
:01:34. > :01:42.regular contributor to the Today programme's Thought for the Day. So,
:01:42. > :01:44.we're expecting big things from him on today's Daily Politics. Now,
:01:44. > :01:47.first this morning, let's talk about sentencing because a range of
:01:47. > :01:51.new criminal offences and sanctions come into force today in England
:01:51. > :01:54.and Wales. They include a new offence of aggravated knife crime,
:01:54. > :01:56.which would in most cases result in a custodial sentence, and mandatory
:01:56. > :02:02.life sentences for anyone committing a second serious violent
:02:02. > :02:04.or sexual offence. The Government has also introduced what are called
:02:04. > :02:08.Extended Determinate Sentences, under which offenders must serve at
:02:08. > :02:15.least two-thirds of their prison term. This is what the Justice
:02:15. > :02:21.Secretary, Chris Grayling, had to say this morning. There are some
:02:21. > :02:25.areas where, society as a whole, expects politicians to say there is
:02:25. > :02:30.a minimum - a clear message to people who are attempted to carry
:02:30. > :02:34.knives and wave them around in an aggressive way - that you should
:02:34. > :02:40.and would go to jail. It is not about saying to the judges, you
:02:40. > :02:46.lose discretion. In some cases, sentences would be much longer.
:02:46. > :02:53.ETA's about saying, when somebody behaves in an aggressive way with a
:02:53. > :03:01.knife, they should and would go to jail. What is your response
:03:01. > :03:06.generally? I live in a part of South London Wedd there is knife
:03:06. > :03:10.crime. I understand the problems it causes in a community. The question
:03:10. > :03:14.is whether the politicians should be doing the sentencing for the
:03:14. > :03:20.judges. They should be free to make decisions on a case-by-case basis.
:03:20. > :03:24.What is going on is politicians same, we do not trusted to make
:03:24. > :03:30.these decisions. The public would agree with politicians in many
:03:30. > :03:40.cases where they fear of not tough enough sentences are brought down
:03:40. > :03:48.on the offenders. It is dangerous to bandy about slogans. I think we
:03:48. > :03:52.ought to trust our judiciary more than politicians, who are
:03:52. > :03:58.grandstanding electioneering on a case-by-case basis. They do a good
:03:58. > :04:03.job in tackling things like this. You have said you do a good job
:04:03. > :04:07.with victims of knife crime. It is a very violent and often fatal
:04:07. > :04:13.crime. It should be treated consistently. That is perhaps where
:04:13. > :04:17.judges have fallen down. If they were given a guideline on a minimum,
:04:17. > :04:21.perhaps they can use their discretion. If people have done a
:04:21. > :04:26.terrible offence, they will go to prison for it and for a long time.
:04:26. > :04:32.The question is, whether we trust the judges to make decisions or
:04:32. > :04:38.prefer politicians to do it. What do you say to Sadiq Khan? With the
:04:38. > :04:44.two strikes policy, it is only when you commit a second violent offence,
:04:44. > :04:48.you get alive sentence. Innocent victims of the second offence with
:04:48. > :04:53.be right in questioning why more was not done to stop after the
:04:53. > :04:57.first offence. An enormous amount has to be done to tackle problems
:04:57. > :05:03.in the inner cities. It is not necessarily through the judiciary
:05:03. > :05:07.and through the loft. Some of these problems are to do with the way
:05:07. > :05:14.inner-cities are constructed. We need to look much more broadly at
:05:14. > :05:18.the problems in the inner-cities, which create conditions for life
:05:18. > :05:21.crime. On to something somewhat different. Now it is fair to say
:05:21. > :05:23.the Public Accounts Committee was not very impressed with a number of
:05:23. > :05:25.very large corporations who gave evidence to MPs last month. This
:05:25. > :05:28.morning the Public Accounts Committee described it as
:05:28. > :05:30.unconvincing and accused Amazon, Starbucks and Google of using the
:05:30. > :05:40.letter of tax laws both nationally and internationally to immorally
:05:40. > :05:42.
:05:42. > :05:48.minimise their tax obligations. Here is a taste of the committee in
:05:48. > :05:52.action. If you have made losses in the UK, which is what you are
:05:52. > :05:59.filing, over 15 years, what on earth are you doing doing business
:06:00. > :06:05.here? We must be in the UK to be a successful global company. But you
:06:05. > :06:13.are losing money. Why not focus on the US way you say you are making
:06:13. > :06:18.money? We have had tremendous optimism about our company.
:06:18. > :06:25.have given it 15 years and you are still making losses. Yet you are
:06:25. > :06:31.carrying on - if it is true. I will have to go to Victoria Street and
:06:31. > :06:38.had a Starbucks coffee. You are in such a bad way. 14 years of trading
:06:38. > :06:42.in this country and you have paid 1.6 million in corporation tax. You
:06:42. > :06:50.are either running the business very badly, or there is a fiddle
:06:50. > :07:00.going on. Your entire activity is here and you pay no UK tax. That
:07:00. > :07:02.
:07:02. > :07:07.really riles us. We do pay corporation tax. Our accounts...
:07:07. > :07:15.Tiny - a tiny amount. I love the service you provide. Having bought
:07:15. > :07:25.this biography of John Major, you may be interested also in 50 Shades
:07:25. > :07:37.
:07:37. > :07:46.Love to -- I am interested in how you paid so little tax. We do pay
:07:46. > :07:51.corporation tax and tax on any profits that we make. The rough
:07:51. > :07:54.treatment in the Public Accounts Committee. Well, today, the Public
:07:54. > :07:57.Accounts Committee called for a change in the mindset at Her
:07:57. > :07:59.Majesty's Revenue and Customs, so that it became more aggressive in
:07:59. > :08:02.its policing and prosecuting companies that paid too little tax.
:08:02. > :08:05.And the Chancellor, George Osborne, has announced plans for a �10
:08:05. > :08:07.billion tax dodge clampdown. We're joined now by the chair of the
:08:07. > :08:15.Public Accounts Committee, Margaret Hodge, and by the Conservative MP,
:08:15. > :08:20.Jesse Norman. The Government is doing far more on tax avoidance and
:08:20. > :08:24.evasion. The Government has committed more money to HMRC. The
:08:24. > :08:32.number of prosecutions for evasion has quadrupled. What else do want
:08:32. > :08:40.them to do? Last year, they collected over �6 billion less in
:08:40. > :08:50.corporation tax than they did the year before. That is year 11/ --
:08:50. > :08:51.
:08:51. > :08:55.year 11 Macro/yr 12 Macro. That is 2011/2012. It is about whether or
:08:55. > :09:01.not a global company pays corporation tax. It is not fair to
:09:01. > :09:08.small businesses, the bookshop - local bookshop - having to compete
:09:08. > :09:14.with Amazon. That is not fair for the corner Copy Shop -- coffee shop
:09:14. > :09:18.to compete. You have talked about naming and shaming. We will find
:09:18. > :09:26.out whether that is a good line to tread. Also about taking more of
:09:26. > :09:30.these cases to court. Can you do that with avoidance? HMRC can be
:09:30. > :09:35.tougher. It is not a black-and- white issue. At the moment, it is a
:09:35. > :09:41.bit like David and Goliath with the company is being supported with
:09:41. > :09:46.very experienced, highly paid accountants and employers. We went
:09:46. > :09:52.two up the game from HMRC. They can take more cases to court. They're
:09:52. > :10:00.not taking any avoidance cases to court. We buy it a lot of stuff and
:10:00. > :10:05.we will not buy from companies... You want to advocate boycotts?
:10:05. > :10:10.is good citizenship. There is stuff the Americans and Germans do now,
:10:10. > :10:14.which we could do. The Americans are much more open with the
:10:14. > :10:19.accounts. The Germans, in some of these devices that companies do,
:10:19. > :10:26.they have just out log them. So could we. Let's pick up on the way
:10:26. > :10:35.you deal with it. Would you like to see companies named and shamed and
:10:35. > :10:40.cases going to court? It is not a voluntary thing, paying corporation
:10:40. > :10:46.tax. ICU to Margaret full of the work she has done. There is no
:10:46. > :10:51.doubt there is a lot of avoidance that is abusive avoidance of tax. -
:10:51. > :10:56.- I salute Magritte for the work she has done. The corporation tax
:10:56. > :11:02.held up better than she expected because rates came down. I am not
:11:02. > :11:07.in favour of boycotts. They are not found guilty of breaking any laws.
:11:07. > :11:10.It is fantastic that Starbucks has started to come to the table.
:11:10. > :11:15.Public information has been put on the table by good journalism and
:11:15. > :11:20.not because the Government has got into the very messy, and possibly
:11:20. > :11:25.dubious business, of naming and shaming. This is the situation we
:11:25. > :11:31.should be handing over. We should be allowing our excellent press to
:11:31. > :11:35.ferret out these facts. Do you a Greek - if you say you admire what
:11:35. > :11:39.Margaret Hodge and the committee have done - do you accept the
:11:40. > :11:46.Government has turned a blind eye to it up until now? They're
:11:46. > :11:50.completely different from each other. HMRC was the flagship of the
:11:50. > :11:54.British public administration. It has gone through a series of minor
:11:54. > :11:59.disasters over the last decade. Let's be clear. Under the last
:11:59. > :12:03.government, it was merged with Excise. Vast numbers of people were
:12:04. > :12:08.let go, including some of the best tax inspectors. What is happening
:12:08. > :12:14.now is a slow process of pulling it back to the dignity and energy it
:12:14. > :12:19.had before. Do you see it as a disincentive - naming and shaming
:12:19. > :12:23.companies - might they withdraw their business? Is it bad idea?
:12:23. > :12:29.Company should not be paying tax out of the goodness of their heart.
:12:29. > :12:32.They should not do this because of public pressure. Paying tax is not
:12:32. > :12:37.something there needs to be a consumer boycott about in order to
:12:37. > :12:41.get everyone to do it. That needs to be changed. We must find the
:12:41. > :12:46.system in which people pay their fair share of tax. I am not an
:12:46. > :12:51.accountant. It is not beyond the wit the people who can move money
:12:51. > :12:57.around so brilliantly to avoid tax to find a way in which people can
:12:57. > :13:04.pay their fair share. It should not be about boycotts or four Starbucks
:13:04. > :13:08.to very generously pay their tax. Can we unilaterally design a system
:13:08. > :13:14.which make sure that big multinationals paid their full
:13:14. > :13:18.allocation of tax, even if they do not have to? You cannot get rid of
:13:19. > :13:23.all of it. You do need co-operation. What to do not want to happen is
:13:23. > :13:29.for that to be used as an excuse for inaction in the short term.
:13:29. > :13:34.About naming and shaming, we name and shame benefit cheats. By now
:13:34. > :13:38.taken through the courts. If we took more cases through the courts
:13:38. > :13:42.on avoidance - not evasion - those companies that get caught under
:13:42. > :13:49.that also thought to be named and shamed. I agree we should get the
:13:49. > :13:53.law right. But does not like paying PAYE. This is negotiation between
:13:53. > :13:58.HMRC and the global companies about what is admissible and what is not
:13:58. > :14:07.admissible. There, I do not think we are tough enough. HMRC needs to
:14:07. > :14:12.get a grip foot of it is not just resources, it is culture. -- and
:14:12. > :14:16.HMRC needs to get a grip. benefit cheat is someone who has
:14:16. > :14:20.been found guilty of a process between tribunal and lot and has
:14:20. > :14:24.been named and shamed when their name has been made public anyway.
:14:24. > :14:29.They have not been found guilty of any crime. It cannot be found
:14:29. > :14:36.guilty of a crime on avoidance up for there is a raw on that. The
:14:36. > :14:44.Government is bringing in a general anti-avoidance rule. -- on
:14:44. > :14:48.avoidance. There is a rule on that. I love the idea it is a question of
:14:48. > :14:53.negotiation. The next time the tax man rings me up and asked me to
:14:53. > :14:59.take my tax, I will say, let's discuss a cup of coffee. The idea
:14:59. > :15:03.that this is compared with benefits cheats - people who are poor and
:15:03. > :15:08.vulnerable without brilliant lawyers - are they the ones who get
:15:08. > :15:12.dumped upon. Those with fantastic lawyers pay nothing will stop it is
:15:12. > :15:18.much more expensive to be poor. When you said they need to be
:15:18. > :15:23.tougher and negotiate harder, if you negotiate, you will have deals.
:15:23. > :15:27.HMRC has been criticised for making deals. There would be a lack of
:15:27. > :15:33.consistency and transparency and you would get the same problems all
:15:33. > :15:38.over again. It is interesting territory. The moment you get
:15:38. > :15:43.transparency, Starbucks comes to the table. This is so complicated.
:15:43. > :15:47.Companies can quite legitimately say, if they are global companies,
:15:47. > :15:54.some of their expenditure is Head Office expenditure. It depends
:15:54. > :15:59.where that is amazing it is in tax havens. What you decide his profits
:15:59. > :16:03.from real trading in the UK is difficult to define. That is what
:16:03. > :16:13.the hassle is over. At the moment they are hassling much more
:16:13. > :16:14.
:16:14. > :16:20.strongly. They are of the Goliath The poorest in society, the level
:16:20. > :16:24.above that, have difficult tax rates, and it is true that some
:16:24. > :16:28.very large companies do pay their tax. We are picking on the
:16:28. > :16:33.multinationals as a result of an enormously complicated tax codes
:16:33. > :16:38.among many jurisdictions. We need to be tough and clear and properly
:16:38. > :16:42.organised. Margaret Hodge, on your own tax affairs there have been
:16:42. > :16:48.reports that a company which you have major financial associations
:16:48. > :16:53.with does not pay any UK tax. wrong, scurrilous and I am afraid
:16:53. > :17:00.it is defamatory. The what are you doing in terms of responding?
:17:00. > :17:05.Taking action. I hear that loud and clear. This government has been
:17:05. > :17:09.very clear about trying to appear fair. We will hear more about that
:17:10. > :17:15.in the Autumn Statement. Do you think fairness just comes down to
:17:15. > :17:20.equality? It is an important part of equality. The issue with paying
:17:20. > :17:25.tax is the extent to which these large companies contribute to the
:17:25. > :17:31.paying good. I have taken over the fairness commission in Tower
:17:31. > :17:37.Hamlets. Half the children living child poverty there and yet the
:17:37. > :17:42.average wage for the people who work there is �70,000 a year,
:17:42. > :17:46.because of Canary Wharf's. It is extraordinary. The money does not
:17:46. > :17:52.trickle down to the poorest. The this trickle-down economics, the
:17:52. > :17:55.idea that the wealthy in Canary Wharf spend their money, but they
:17:55. > :17:59.do not spend it to the benefit of the people who live near them and
:17:59. > :18:05.the other low earners in the capital, but the money does not
:18:05. > :18:10.benefit the wider community? There is a lot of truth in that. Trickle-
:18:10. > :18:15.down has never been good economics, least of all now, because if you
:18:15. > :18:19.look at the very richest, they live in a payment world of their own.
:18:19. > :18:25.They do not spend and when they spent at the margin, they are
:18:25. > :18:31.paying for things and the only way you can tax them is on VAT that
:18:31. > :18:34.gets paid by all members of society. That does not work. The great
:18:34. > :18:40.tragedy of the current situation is that we have allowed this crony
:18:40. > :18:45.capitalism, as I have described it, to blow good capitalism, are people
:18:46. > :18:52.working in a day's work for eight day's pay, generating social
:18:52. > :18:58.benefit. -- a day's pay. Labour failed. They closed the gap a tiny
:18:58. > :19:03.bit but in terms of... Over a 30 year period, it was not very
:19:03. > :19:07.impressive. Is that because you cannot successfully legislate?
:19:07. > :19:17.cannot legislate but you can run expenditure programmes and that is
:19:17. > :19:18.
:19:18. > :19:24.how you use goods -- good public spending, to raise the aspirations
:19:24. > :19:30.of the poorest in community. What is sad is that we never Keith these
:19:30. > :19:36.things time -- we never gives. I was involved in Sure Start and the
:19:36. > :19:40.only use programs and I think they would have Paul Ince -- they would
:19:40. > :19:45.have borne fruit, and now they are closing, and all of that investment
:19:45. > :19:50.in children under five, wasted. We could have transformed their life
:19:50. > :19:56.chances. Lots of studies suggested that represented poor value for
:19:56. > :20:03.money. No, that is not true. key thing is to have an ethos of
:20:03. > :20:07.people who have made money giving back. Briefly, do you think
:20:07. > :20:14.unfairness has become the norm in society and everybody accepts that
:20:14. > :20:18.that is the way it is? No, but I think we are at risk of it. One of
:20:18. > :20:23.the hopeful things that may come out of this deep recession is a
:20:23. > :20:28.problem we calibration of public values. Do you think unfairness is
:20:28. > :20:34.the norm? I think we live in a very unfair society at the moment,
:20:34. > :20:38.shockingly unfair for many people. If you live in Notting Hill and you
:20:38. > :20:43.get the Central line to Bethnal Green, 10 stops and you use a year
:20:43. > :20:53.of your life if you live there, from Notting Hill to Bethnal Green
:20:53. > :20:53.
:20:53. > :20:57.-- you lose a year. How unfair is that? Is it the norm? I think
:20:57. > :21:04.fairness is the one value that people care most about, so the
:21:04. > :21:09.pursuit of SEN this I think brings people together. -- the pursuit of
:21:09. > :21:11.fairness. Thank you. The Israeli ambassador in London has been
:21:11. > :21:14.summoned to the Foreign Office, following the Israeli government's
:21:14. > :21:17.decision to build new settlements in east Jerusalem. Ministers have
:21:17. > :21:20.warned Israel that going ahead with the plans would provoke a strong
:21:20. > :21:25.reaction. Or world affairs correspondent is outside the
:21:25. > :21:30.Foreign Office. The Israeli ambassador has been summoned. That
:21:31. > :21:36.is one thing. Withdrawing Britain's ambassador to Israel is another.
:21:36. > :21:41.Will that happen? It does not look like it at the moment. Officials
:21:41. > :21:44.say they are not at that stage. It is in the realms of speculation.
:21:45. > :21:50.There has been a statement from Number Ten saying they are not
:21:50. > :21:56.proposing to do that. However, officials say they want to see how
:21:56. > :22:01.Israel reacts. QB Britain, France, others are piling on the pressure
:22:01. > :22:06.to reconsider this decision to build 3,000 new homes in a very,
:22:06. > :22:13.very sensitive area in east Jerusalem and the West Bank. To see
:22:13. > :22:16.whether Israel will reconsider this. If they don't, then I think that
:22:16. > :22:21.Foreign Office are certainly making it clear that other steps will be
:22:21. > :22:26.taken. Whether that will lead to the withdrawal of the ambassador to
:22:26. > :22:31.Israel is not clear. It is still a strong stand by the British
:22:31. > :22:38.Government. Why now particularly, when settlement building by the
:22:38. > :22:44.Israeli government is not new? Why make this strong stand now? It is
:22:44. > :22:49.the scale of what the Israelis are planning to do. 3,000 new homes in
:22:49. > :22:52.an area which the Palestinians say would effectively cut the West Bank
:22:52. > :22:58.in two and woodcut of East Jerusalem from the West Bank, and
:22:58. > :23:03.the Palestinians want East Jerusalem to be the capital of any
:23:03. > :23:10.future Palestinian state -- and it would cut off East Jerusalem from
:23:10. > :23:13.the West Bank. This is particularly sensitive. The other thing is, at
:23:13. > :23:18.the moment be international community is hoping, after the
:23:18. > :23:22.conflict we have seen in the Gaza Strip and having negotiated a
:23:22. > :23:27.ceasefire, the international community wants to see some renewed
:23:27. > :23:31.effort for negotiations and I think the belief is that if Israel were
:23:31. > :23:36.to go ahead with the settlement building programme, that would stop
:23:36. > :23:40.any chances of any resumed negotiations, so they are piling on
:23:41. > :23:46.the pressure. Not just Britain. France as well. Everyone is looking
:23:46. > :23:51.out towards the United States. that is the key, isn't it. Britain
:23:51. > :23:57.and France have made the strong and symbolic dance but it is what the
:23:57. > :24:01.US does that counts. -- symbolic stance. They are the only ones that
:24:01. > :24:05.can put real pressure on. Not the only ones but certainly the
:24:05. > :24:09.Americans are absolutely the key country because they provide so
:24:09. > :24:13.much financial assistance every year to Israel and so that
:24:13. > :24:18.relationship is vital. Israel generally have to listen when
:24:18. > :24:24.Washington tells it something. We saw that in the last few weeks.
:24:24. > :24:28.Hillary Clinton's arrival in Israel, going to Egypt, and her role was
:24:28. > :24:34.pivotal in brokering the ceasefire that ended the recent conflict, so
:24:34. > :24:42.they can apply a lot of pressure. The question is whether they will
:24:42. > :24:48.do in this case. Israel's reviewed the Palestinian moved for increased
:24:48. > :24:53.recognition at the UN as a blow for peace negotiations. Do you see this
:24:53. > :24:58.as a response to that? It is almost a petty act of revenge, and not
:24:58. > :25:03.petty, it is not insignificant, for what happens at the United Nations.
:25:03. > :25:13.Israel saw that as provocative. is very popular, it has widespread
:25:13. > :25:15.
:25:15. > :25:20.support. Not from the US. No, and six other countries. It was eight.
:25:20. > :25:26.Building 3,000 new settlements east of East Jerusalem is an extremely
:25:26. > :25:32.provocative act that the Israeli government really have to
:25:32. > :25:37.demonstrate that they believe in the peace process. This is a wilful
:25:37. > :25:43.defiance of the will of the international community, that there
:25:43. > :25:48.needs to be a return to negotiation in that part of the world. The do
:25:48. > :25:53.you think the proposals for a two state solution is in tatters now?
:25:53. > :25:58.hope not. I know that is the view of the UN, that it is almost dead.
:25:58. > :26:02.I really hope that is not the case. The two estate solution seems to me
:26:02. > :26:08.to be the only way to go, the only thing I can think of to make sense
:26:08. > :26:13.of this -- to state solution. Israel say they are committed to
:26:13. > :26:18.this. Apparently but you have to judge them by their actions and
:26:18. > :26:23.this is defiant of any attempt to construct a two state solution. I
:26:23. > :26:29.feel great despair for peace in the Middle East, for both Israel and
:26:29. > :26:32.Palestine. Frankie. -- thank you. Two subjects almost guaranteed to
:26:32. > :26:38.spark controversy, politics and religion, which is why a lot of MPs
:26:38. > :26:41.try very hard to avoid mixing them. For a long time, it seemed to be an
:26:41. > :26:43.unwritten Westminster rule that personal faith was just that,
:26:43. > :26:47.personal, with politicians from Tony Blair down reluctant to speak
:26:47. > :26:56.publicly about their beliefs. But some people think that may be
:26:56. > :27:06.changing. Holy Trinity Church in London. If
:27:06. > :27:11.you want to do God, this is a pretty good place to come. It was
:27:11. > :27:15.Alastair Campbell who famously said "we don't do God", but rather than
:27:15. > :27:21.making a grand statement of intent, he was just trying to finish an
:27:21. > :27:25.interview, but it was an interesting point. Should personal
:27:25. > :27:29.faith and policy-making be kept well away from each other?
:27:29. > :27:34.Allister's old boss felt he needed to wait until leaving office before
:27:34. > :27:40.converting to Catholicism and speaking frequently about his faith.
:27:40. > :27:43.If you are in the American political system, you can talk
:27:43. > :27:48.about safe and it is something people respond to naturally. You
:27:49. > :27:55.talk about it in our system and people think you are a matter.
:27:55. > :27:58.those times could be changing for. I think there are more politicians
:27:58. > :28:03.who are actively religious in parliament than in the general
:28:03. > :28:08.population, and I think that is a growing phenomenon, particularly
:28:08. > :28:12.with the new Conservative intake. Their religious beliefs are very
:28:12. > :28:17.important for them and informs their politics. But only one of
:28:17. > :28:22.them leads the party. Only David Cameron is a confirmed churchgoer
:28:22. > :28:27.but he does not go as often as he would like. Does our political
:28:27. > :28:32.system allow politicians to do God. To some degree. Most members of
:28:32. > :28:37.parliament have values and beliefs which stem either from religion and
:28:37. > :28:41.safe or a belief in certain ways of living, whether they are humanist
:28:41. > :28:46.or everything else. We may describe it as something else but we
:28:46. > :28:51.probably do do religion, perhaps not necessarily God. But some
:28:51. > :28:56.people think that is not all were as healthy. There is a danger when
:28:56. > :29:01.people allow their religious beliefs to override empirical
:29:01. > :29:05.evidence. The abortion debate, it is clearly people's religious
:29:05. > :29:12.argument that abortion is wrong which leads people to try to make
:29:12. > :29:15.the facts fit their argument. people and politicians come to
:29:15. > :29:20.decision making opportunities with principles, beliefs, values, and it
:29:20. > :29:25.is important that that is taken into account. Otherwise what is the
:29:25. > :29:30.point of politicians? And she has no qualms about politicians telling
:29:30. > :29:34.God's voices on earth what they should do. We should debate whether
:29:34. > :29:38.we should disestablish the Church of England, which politicians
:29:38. > :29:41.should not interfere with, but it is part of the constitutional
:29:41. > :29:45.settlement in the country. The Queen is the sovereign head of the
:29:45. > :29:49.Church of England, so it is right that parliament puts forward its
:29:49. > :29:54.use to the Church of England about how it should behave. They say you
:29:54. > :30:04.should never discuss religion and politics in the pub. In parliament,
:30:04. > :30:07.
:30:07. > :30:12.God seems to be everywhere, whether This is probably your subject when
:30:12. > :30:15.it comes to whether religion and politics should mix. Was Alastair
:30:16. > :30:21.Campbell right but you should not do religion if you are a
:30:21. > :30:28.politician? My problem with politicians not saying anything
:30:28. > :30:35.about got is that I want to know where they come from. -- about God.
:30:35. > :30:38.I want to know what motivates them - the values. The idea it is an
:30:38. > :30:45.important part of what motivates them and they are not prepared to
:30:45. > :30:50.talk about, I find quite difficult. I want the menu laid out before me
:30:50. > :30:55.and what motivates people. I can then decide if I want to vote for
:30:55. > :31:00.them or not. There will be a lot of people out there who are not
:31:01. > :31:04.religious, who will say, I do not want a member of parliament or a
:31:04. > :31:12.minister who is guided by religious belief rather than the evidence
:31:12. > :31:17.before me. Everybody comes from a... They have a background of values.
:31:17. > :31:21.Something which fundamentally informs them. I want to know what
:31:22. > :31:26.shapes people morally and politically. If people are
:31:26. > :31:31.embarrassed by where they come from, it does not seem to need to be a
:31:31. > :31:37.very good reason to separate religion and politics. It is a
:31:37. > :31:42.pragmatic reason and not a principled reason. They should be
:31:42. > :31:48.separated at the level of policy will start it is essential. I have
:31:48. > :31:53.thought about this for a very long time. I am against the issue of
:31:53. > :31:58.bishops in House of Lords. On a personal level, I want to know
:31:58. > :32:04.where they come from. You want more honesty. People should say if they
:32:04. > :32:10.have a religious background. When it comes to issues like abortion,
:32:10. > :32:14.and when it comes to issues of gay marriage, or even religious beliefs
:32:14. > :32:18.in education - if it is based schools - do you think people with
:32:18. > :32:23.strong beliefs should not be serving in those positions in
:32:23. > :32:28.government? They would not be able to distinguish between personal
:32:28. > :32:31.believes and what is in the interests of the country at large.
:32:31. > :32:35.I have a view on all of those subjects will stop if I was
:32:35. > :32:42.standing for office, I would tell people my view on all those
:32:42. > :32:47.subjects and see if I had got voted for or not. You have a thing called
:32:47. > :32:51.a collective responsibility. That is not specific to people with
:32:51. > :32:56.religious faith. That would be the same for someone with passionate
:32:56. > :33:02.humanist values. Are we going to be open about what motivates us or are
:33:02. > :33:10.we going to hide it? The problem with, we do not do got we will not
:33:10. > :33:17.talk about him, it is like people not displaying their moral workings.
:33:17. > :33:23.-- not do got. With the Iraq war, many people were feeling he was
:33:23. > :33:31.being guided to match by a zealous belief. A zealous belief in George
:33:31. > :33:36.Bush! Whatever it was. Yes. If people had voted for him on not
:33:36. > :33:41.voted for him, that would have been a very straightforward way to go. I
:33:41. > :33:45.disagree with Tony Blair and his decisions on the war. I would have
:33:45. > :33:51.liked again to have seen his workings - his theological workings
:33:51. > :33:55.of. On that one, they were over done. There was a lot of
:33:55. > :34:00.scaremongering. People hearing whispers in their ear from got to
:34:00. > :34:05.do this. That is not how it works. It is about real fundamental values
:34:05. > :34:15.are, where you are formed and way you are shaped. We'll be following
:34:15. > :34:20.be Twitter? It is not going to be very exciting, we get? -- Will you
:34:20. > :34:23.be following him on Twitter? last week, Westminster was
:34:23. > :34:26.dominated by the Leveson Report into press standards. Will it be
:34:26. > :34:28.different this week? Well, no, because this afternoon MPs debate
:34:28. > :34:31.Lord Justice Leveson's Report on the reform of press regulation, as
:34:31. > :34:36.their party leaders attempt to reach a consensus on the way
:34:36. > :34:41.forward. Home Secretary Theresa May has until 3pm to decide whether to
:34:41. > :34:51.appeal against a recent judgment preventing Abu Qatada's extradition.
:34:51. > :34:51.
:34:51. > :34:56.The season of goodwill hits Downing Street this evening, as this which
:34:56. > :34:59.is flicked on to light up the Prime Minister's Christmas tree. On
:34:59. > :35:02.Wednesday, we find out whether it is Scrooge or Santa as George
:35:02. > :35:04.Osborne delivers the Autumn Statement and we find out what the
:35:05. > :35:07.Dickens is going on with the deficit reduction plan. On Thursday,
:35:07. > :35:10.the European Council is due to respond to the UK's continuing
:35:10. > :35:13.defiance of the Court of Human Rights ruling on voting rights for
:35:13. > :35:16.prisoners. But, later that day, harmony will prevail with the
:35:16. > :35:26.parliamentary carol concert, when for at least once a year MPs of all
:35:26. > :35:34.
:35:34. > :35:37.parties can be heard singing from Joining as is James from the Daily
:35:37. > :35:42.Telegraph and Kieran from the Financial Times. It does not look
:35:42. > :35:49.good in terms of George Osborne and his targets. What do you think he
:35:49. > :35:54.will do in order to try and present and -- a credible plan? It is a
:35:54. > :35:57.good question. One thing we must remember is what Nick Clegg said
:35:57. > :36:02.during the Lib Dem party conference. He said he did not want to see a
:36:02. > :36:07.penny more of a penny less taken away from the fiscal plan. If he
:36:07. > :36:15.gets his way on Mant, George Osborne will not do much more to
:36:15. > :36:21.pay off the debt. -- on that. What George Osborne has to say is, I
:36:22. > :36:26.have got my plan, I am continuing to cut. I will carry on doing that.
:36:26. > :36:30.That is the only way to eliminate the deficit as we understand it now.
:36:30. > :36:36.One big announcement he will make on Wednesday is he will not hit his
:36:36. > :36:41.target of having debt falling as a ratio of GDP by the end of
:36:41. > :36:45.Parliament. That will pass a lot of people buy. It is technical
:36:45. > :36:50.measurement. It is worth remembering that on the two key
:36:50. > :36:54.tests of his fiscal plan, the one to have debt falling and also to
:36:54. > :37:00.have eliminated the structural deficit by 2014, he has failed on
:37:00. > :37:05.them both. Having set them out, some of it might pass people buy.
:37:05. > :37:10.Economically, let's put that to one side. Politically, what does he
:37:10. > :37:15.have to do? He needs to try to distract from the points Keiran is
:37:15. > :37:22.making - the economic signs of failure. He needs to last longer.
:37:22. > :37:27.He has missed targets. The politics, he needs to say that with one hand
:37:27. > :37:32.he is smiting welfare claimants. With the other, he is smiting the
:37:32. > :37:38.rich. The idea it is he can look middle England in the eye and say,
:37:38. > :37:44.I am in the Middle with You. I am against the undeserving poor and
:37:44. > :37:48.the undeserving rich. If he gets to Wednesday night, a Thursday morning,
:37:48. > :37:54.and he is being attacked by left and right for the Autumn Statement,
:37:54. > :38:01.he will be happy with that. Let's take a look at Leveson. Will the
:38:02. > :38:05.debate achieve anything? Very little. We had faith they have -- a
:38:05. > :38:10.flavour of it in the debate following the announcement of a
:38:10. > :38:14.report last week. It became a slanging match across the Commons
:38:14. > :38:22.was up 1 1/2 said they want statutory regulation and the other
:38:22. > :38:27.half said they did not. Is the main body of opinion, as far as the
:38:27. > :38:34.Leveson Report those in the House, it is a shifting? There is a
:38:34. > :38:42.gradual change and a wave. David Cameron came out very quickly and
:38:42. > :38:48.said, no. -- under way. Lots of people thought that was bowled. He
:38:48. > :38:53.was going up against hacked off Hugh Grant and the others. Since
:38:53. > :38:57.then, a few signs that, in Parliament, opinion is drifting his
:38:57. > :39:02.way. Some of the Conservative backbenchers who had previously
:39:02. > :39:10.suggested he was in favour of a statutory option, they are saying,
:39:10. > :39:15.maybe not. Ed Miliband is trying to calibrate his position. He had
:39:15. > :39:18.given the impression that the Labour Party was signing up to
:39:18. > :39:25.Leveson are. He is now saying, if you got that impression, it is not
:39:25. > :39:32.the case. We're more questioning in our approach. The direction of
:39:32. > :39:37.travel has gone a little bit in the direction of David Cameron but only
:39:37. > :39:42.slightly. The idea of there being a new law, at some underpinning, at
:39:43. > :39:47.layback and the Liberal Democrats together could outvote the Prime
:39:47. > :39:53.Minister. -- Labour and the Liberal Democrats. They cannot force him to
:39:53. > :39:57.legislate. David Cameron has data at his position. He says he is
:39:57. > :40:02.reluctant to cross that Rubicon, in his phrase. The fact he might have
:40:02. > :40:06.to do so, he is not going to legislate on this. One thing that
:40:06. > :40:12.will help him is, if Labour wants to mount a public campaign in
:40:12. > :40:18.support of the Leveson proposals come at it will not get much favour
:40:18. > :40:23.from the press. -- the Levison proposals, it will not get. I am
:40:23. > :40:27.sure that has not pass them by. I am sure it you will be listening to
:40:27. > :40:30.that debate this afternoon. So, as we've been hearing, all eyes will
:40:30. > :40:33.be on George Osborne this Wednesday, when he delivers his Autumn
:40:33. > :40:36.Statement. The Chancellor was on the Andrew Marr Show yesterday.
:40:36. > :40:42.This is what he had to say. Very clear going forward. We need to
:40:42. > :40:47.deal with the deficit. It will take longer. It needs to be done fairly.
:40:47. > :40:53.The richest have to bear their fair share and a whale. That means more
:40:53. > :40:58.than they are paying at the moment. -- it they will. The mansion tax
:40:58. > :41:03.business has been kicked around. There will not be a mansion tax. We
:41:03. > :41:06.have made that clear. Can I just say this? There is another
:41:06. > :41:11.conception of fairness - the fairness for the individual who
:41:11. > :41:17.goes out to work and the next on Labour is living a life on benefits.
:41:17. > :41:27.It is unfair for that individual. Make the rich pay but also made
:41:27. > :41:37.sure you are tackling the welfare system which is deeply unfair.
:41:37. > :41:39.
:41:39. > :41:44.Welcome to the three of you. How much has deficit being cut? It has
:41:44. > :41:50.been cut substantially. We're trying to turn round a very
:41:50. > :41:58.difficult economy. Highlight what George was saying on the PC just
:41:58. > :42:02.played. -- I liked what George was saying on the piece you just played.
:42:02. > :42:07.Youth unemployment has improved. There are very positive steps but
:42:07. > :42:11.we need to do a lot more. You say the deficit has been cut
:42:11. > :42:16.substantially. Cutting it by 25% is the figure Tory politicians have
:42:16. > :42:22.used, and a Liberal Democrat ones as well. You only get to 22% if you
:42:22. > :42:27.go to March and stop counting. You could find you have only reduce the
:42:27. > :42:33.deficit by 2%. That is not much at all. Which figure do you disagree
:42:33. > :42:37.with? 5% seems the exact figure. Let's see what the OBR says on
:42:38. > :42:42.Wednesday. We are second guessing what everyone is going to say.
:42:42. > :42:48.use the current budget balance, which is used by most rating
:42:48. > :42:54.agencies, as of October, 2012, the deficit has only been reduced by 2%.
:42:54. > :42:59.If you stop counting in March. we go forward, it will get better.
:42:59. > :43:03.Do you accept that? That is the right figure. A quarter over the
:43:03. > :43:08.last two and a half years. When the coalition government came to power,
:43:08. > :43:13.we had the largest peacetime deficit of any country. It has been
:43:13. > :43:18.very difficult to turn that around. When the Chancellor talks about the
:43:18. > :43:23.deficit, and we can argue in disagree about how it has come down
:43:23. > :43:27.and at what point, debt is going up. Don't you think it is disingenuous
:43:27. > :43:36.to talk about death is becoming damn about talking about debt?
:43:36. > :43:40.People get confused. -- debt is coming down. There has been more
:43:40. > :43:46.borrowing. We would not like to have had so much borrowing. They
:43:46. > :43:50.are different issues. We have differentiated them very well.
:43:50. > :43:55.you listen to the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives, they say
:43:55. > :44:01.they have brought the deficit down by a quarter. What is Labour
:44:01. > :44:07.complaining about? People will be amazed at the level of complacency.
:44:07. > :44:10.Debt is going up. Now of the Chancellor has had to borrow an
:44:10. > :44:16.extra �150 billion over the parliament because he is not
:44:16. > :44:21.meeting his own debt targets - his own target. That is because the
:44:21. > :44:26.economy is stalling. We need gross, demands, government policies and
:44:26. > :44:30.the strategy to get the economy going there again. That is what
:44:30. > :44:35.businesses say every time I meet them. It is not what the Chancellor
:44:35. > :44:42.is offering. To call for more spending? I hope he looks at
:44:42. > :44:49.bringing investment for it and using the G four dividend to invest
:44:49. > :44:54.in housing. -- investment forward. What about paying down the debt? If
:44:54. > :44:59.you are worrying about the debt rising, which it is, why not use
:44:59. > :45:04.that money to pay down the debt? You cannot pay down the debt whilst
:45:04. > :45:10.the economy is shrinking. That is the problem that George Osborne has.
:45:10. > :45:15.We need to get the economy moving. And the targets and all this seemed
:45:15. > :45:20.economic growth which has that happened. How embarrassing is it?
:45:20. > :45:30.Everyone accepts he will shift deficit-reduction targets. Make the
:45:30. > :45:31.
:45:31. > :45:36.five years start later and that he We are trying to turn around the
:45:36. > :45:42.economy in a very difficult time. He set those targets himself based
:45:42. > :45:48.on that. You attempt to meet them but you cannot legislate for the
:45:48. > :45:54.fact that that eurozone is going to hell in a handcart, those are
:45:54. > :45:58.things beyond control. If your number of three and four customers
:45:58. > :46:03.in the European economy go bust, that will clearly affect our
:46:03. > :46:09.economy. He will have to try to find more savings if he is going to
:46:09. > :46:14.reduce the deficit. Are you pleased he will be looking again at welfare
:46:14. > :46:19.and possibly a freezing benefit payments? The test for me is
:46:19. > :46:23.whether it is good for the economy, whether we go for growth and reduce
:46:23. > :46:28.the deficit, but whether it is fair, and my view is you have to start at
:46:28. > :46:33.the top, and make sure those on very high incomes are paying their
:46:33. > :46:38.fair share of tax. We saw today the �170 million that George Osborne
:46:38. > :46:43.and Danny Alexander have announced to target tax avoidance. We need to
:46:43. > :46:48.start at the top. You will be happy for benefits to be frozen? We have
:46:48. > :46:53.to look at benefits on a case-by- case basis. I am sceptical about
:46:53. > :46:57.the need to remove housing benefit for those under 25. I do not want
:46:57. > :47:01.to see a general freeze on benefits overall. But we have to make sure
:47:01. > :47:06.the measures are fair and that means starting at the top,
:47:06. > :47:10.companies and individuals dodging tax, and working down, so that
:47:10. > :47:18.everybody has a fair burden. terms of Lib Dem performance in
:47:18. > :47:25.budgets, no mansion tax, top rate of income tax increased, up tuition
:47:25. > :47:29.fees troubled... The first policy of our manifesto was to raise the
:47:29. > :47:35.income tax threshold to �10,000 and that has been delivered. Jo, you
:47:35. > :47:40.cannot just Roelof analyst... Some of those are accurate -- you cannot
:47:40. > :47:44.just read a list. A Liberal Democrat pledge has been delivered.
:47:44. > :47:48.When you look at the Lib Dem approach to the Budget on Wednesday,
:47:48. > :47:53.the Autumn Statement, it is crucial that it is a fair distribution of
:47:53. > :47:57.pain. You have mentioned the tax avoidance and you want to hit the
:47:57. > :48:03.rich. Well cutting the annual allowance for pension savings be
:48:03. > :48:08.enough to mitigate, for Lib Dems, a freezing of benefits? Up I do not
:48:08. > :48:13.have a crystal ball... Do you think that would be fair? We will have to
:48:13. > :48:16.look at a packet when it comes out on Wednesday. I cannot say without
:48:17. > :48:20.making sure that when I see the overall package that the Chancellor
:48:20. > :48:26.has done everything he can to make sure those on higher incomes pay
:48:26. > :48:33.their fair share. What would you be doing if the swing Labour's ought
:48:33. > :48:40.to misstatement? -- if this were Labour's Autumn Statement? What
:48:40. > :48:43.else? One of the things we would not be doing and that we would take
:48:43. > :48:48.out is the tax cut for the richest, the tax cut for millionaires, which
:48:49. > :48:53.means that on 1st April, the same day that pensioners will find their
:48:53. > :48:58.tax going up, and many will find their benefits have been cut or
:48:58. > :49:03.removed, on that day it millionaires, 8,000 of them, will
:49:03. > :49:11.be getting a tax cut of at the �100,000. That does not stack up
:49:11. > :49:21.well with your SEN this equation? For 13 years... -- with your friend
:49:21. > :49:25.
:49:25. > :49:31.this -- a... If you meant what you said, you would have had a 50 pence
:49:31. > :49:34.tax rate for 13 years and you did not, you had it for 30 days. We had
:49:34. > :49:40.the greatest financial crisis that we have had since the Depression
:49:40. > :49:47.and as a response we brought in tax changes. The consequence of the
:49:47. > :49:53.financial crisis is still with us will stop his VAT at the right
:49:53. > :50:03.level? I do not think it should be changed. It is a big money earner
:50:03. > :50:05.
:50:05. > :50:10.for the Treasury. We put VERY strongly for fuel duty to remain
:50:10. > :50:16.frozen -- we put VERY strongly. It is a matter for the Chancellor. I
:50:16. > :50:21.have made the point very strongly to him that I wanted see particular
:50:21. > :50:25.address to the cost of living issues. I loved what he is doing on
:50:25. > :50:29.energy, I support that, I particularly believe that you all
:50:29. > :50:35.in my part of the world, it rural Northumberland, it is not a luxury,
:50:35. > :50:39.it is a necessity, and it has a great impact on business. I believe
:50:39. > :50:44.it contrasts very strongly with what the Labour Party did which was
:50:44. > :50:49.repeatedly put up fuel prices throughout their government and
:50:49. > :50:54.they would be higher now. We have frozen it. I accept boat, and this
:50:54. > :50:57.is important, if we freeze certain duties, that means less money to
:50:57. > :51:02.the economy and we will have to make tougher decisions on other
:51:02. > :51:07.issues and that is a very tough calls for the Chancellor to make,
:51:07. > :51:12.but I do believe it is responsible thing to do, and if you talk about
:51:12. > :51:15.growth, fuelled price is the key. Right.
:51:15. > :51:18.Talks between the coalition and Labour about how to respond to the
:51:18. > :51:20.Leveson Report on press regulation have resumed today. Sir Brian
:51:20. > :51:23.Leveson's proposals for an independent body, backed by
:51:23. > :51:29.legislation, will also be debated in the Commons this afternoon. This
:51:29. > :51:35.is what the Labour leader had to say a little earlier. I think we
:51:35. > :51:39.owe it to the victims like Milly Dowler's parents and Madeleine
:51:39. > :51:43.McCann's parents to make change happen, and we are seeing a large
:51:43. > :51:52.majority of the public also warned that change. That is why we are
:51:52. > :51:55.going to draughts legislation -- draft legislation to show that
:51:55. > :52:03.Independent sold regulation guaranteed by law can work. The
:52:03. > :52:09.government said they want to produce legislation that can't work,
:52:09. > :52:18.but we believe it can. Which of you has wrecked the whole report? 2000
:52:18. > :52:22.pages? 550 pages. Is it a good read? Or no, it is very serious.
:52:22. > :52:28.You cannot read about Christopher Jefferies and Milly Dowler without
:52:28. > :52:33.filling revulsion at the action of some journalists. It is a serious
:52:33. > :52:36.and sensible piece of work. There are over 100 recommendations. And I
:52:36. > :52:40.have looked at some of the world on Criminal Justice and data
:52:40. > :52:45.protection, and I have looked strongly at be individual points in
:52:45. > :52:52.relation to Ofcom. Not every single point will be adopted. There is
:52:52. > :52:59.allotted to discuss. What about the central recommendation? -- there is
:52:59. > :53:05.a lot to discuss. You said you could not not feel revulsion. Buzz
:53:05. > :53:12.that mean there should be a guaranteed part of law that compels
:53:13. > :53:21.newspaper editors to be part of the regulation? My view is that there
:53:21. > :53:26.will be a derivation of the PCC and the 0 black and Lord Hunt proposals,
:53:26. > :53:30.I question whether a statutory regulation underpinned by a Ofcom
:53:30. > :53:35.is the right way forward. I think it is the thin end of the wedge. I
:53:35. > :53:41.also think it is not workable. You said that means that all newspapers
:53:41. > :53:46.would have to be signed up to it. Isn't it pointless otherwise?
:53:46. > :53:51.is the point. But you cannot force newspapers to do that. You would
:53:51. > :53:57.have a statutory system that says, we have this regulation, but nobody
:53:57. > :54:03.would sign up to it. If you look at the specific regulation, 75 in the
:54:03. > :54:07.summary, he says, I accept some people would not sign up to this.
:54:07. > :54:16.They read newspapers have said they would not. But if there is some
:54:16. > :54:20.sort of law that underpins the regulator...? No. This is a locking
:54:20. > :54:23.in the last chance saloon for a press that has shown itself to be
:54:23. > :54:27.reckless in targeting innocent people across the country and
:54:27. > :54:33.exposing them to the full force of the media, often without a
:54:33. > :54:37.correction, often without an apology. Some of the writing in the
:54:37. > :54:42.Leveson Report is very difficult. I think we do need to see a legal
:54:42. > :54:47.fail-safe to make sure that we have an independent regulator, free from
:54:47. > :54:51.editors on the board, three from politicians on the board, which is
:54:51. > :54:59.able to properly address the concerns that innocent people have
:54:59. > :55:04.when they had been abused by the press. Did you want to respond?
:55:04. > :55:09.Congratulations on 500 pages. He said not every point is capable of
:55:09. > :55:14.being implemented. Let's not forget statutory underpinning is said by
:55:14. > :55:19.Leveson Report to be essential, it is not a detail. It is essential to
:55:19. > :55:23.ensuring that victims have the kind of protection that they need, and
:55:23. > :55:28.the Prime Minister promised that. He said unless it would be bonkers,
:55:28. > :55:31.he would implement it. Einstein said that insanity is doing the
:55:31. > :55:38.same thing again and again and again and expecting different
:55:38. > :55:45.results. You will not get different results without change. Nobody is
:55:45. > :55:51.expecting this present status quo to stay the same. The PCS seat...
:55:51. > :55:54.Nobody wants the PCC to remain. Lord Black and Lord Hunt's
:55:54. > :55:58.recommendations are not far enough and everybody in the House of
:55:58. > :56:03.Commons that the same thing. What they have not said is if there
:56:03. > :56:09.should be statutory regulation. Ofcom, that is a political
:56:09. > :56:12.appointment by the Minister for Culture, Media and Sport. I am very
:56:12. > :56:17.nervous about that political appointment. I do not think it
:56:17. > :56:21.should be a political appointment. You can cherry-pick bits of the
:56:21. > :56:26.report but paragraph 65 so has by far the best option would be for
:56:26. > :56:32.all publishers to choose to sign up to a self regulatory regime and in
:56:32. > :56:37.order to be able to make them do so, convincing incentives are required.
:56:37. > :56:46.If you have not got people party to it, the statutory scheme fails
:56:46. > :56:51.totally. A what do you say to the victims? How do you justified...?
:56:51. > :56:55.Is it is a breach of criminal law! A not always, it was often
:56:55. > :57:00.professional standards. But in a note in a five-year-old's school
:57:00. > :57:06.back to influence their mother, that is not criminal law. That is
:57:06. > :57:09.be criminal offence. What we need is statutory underpinning. One of
:57:09. > :57:15.the recommendations is regarding the Data Protection exceptions,
:57:15. > :57:17.which the press already have, so the press are happy to have
:57:17. > :57:23.statutory underpinning for protection but not for protection
:57:23. > :57:26.for the victims. Labour are drawing up their own draft legislation.
:57:26. > :57:31.Should the Liberal Democrat support that legislation and then you can
:57:31. > :57:35.vote together and defeats David Cameron? Cross-party talks are
:57:35. > :57:39.happening at the moment. I think they will be productive. I am quite
:57:39. > :57:44.sure that Nick Clegg will be making the case to David Cameron
:57:44. > :57:48.powerfully that we want to see a legal fail-safe that guarantees the
:57:48. > :57:54.independence of the self regulatory system. We are not talking about
:57:55. > :57:59.abolishing a free press. Everybody wants to see a free press...
:57:59. > :58:05.how do you stop...? We do not want the press to bully the innocent
:58:05. > :58:09.without redress. Everybody wants that. The point raised by its Guy
:58:09. > :58:13.Opperman is that if you go down the route of statutory regulation, how
:58:13. > :58:17.do you stop it getting to the stage where editors phone up the
:58:18. > :58:23.regulator and say, is this OK before I publish it? Where does
:58:23. > :58:29.that stop? We have to make sure that those issues are properly
:58:29. > :58:34.addressed. I am sure that one of the issues she has just mentioned,
:58:34. > :58:38.the exemption of the press under data protection legislation. If the
:58:38. > :58:42.press are pursuing an individual and that individual can ask for all
:58:42. > :58:47.the data the press have, that is clearly nonsense and would harm
:58:47. > :58:55.investigative journalism... I will have to stop you there. You have