:00:42. > :00:46.Afternoon, folks, welcome to the Daily Politics. It is short, simple
:00:46. > :00:50.and men to make the newspapers behave better it. In the wake of
:00:50. > :00:54.the Leveson report, Labour is the first to publish a draft bill
:00:54. > :00:58.regulating the press. The party wants a panel of senior judges to
:00:58. > :01:01.oversee the new system of self- regulation and we will ask the
:01:01. > :01:05.Labour Deputy Leader Harriet Harman whether it will work.
:01:05. > :01:10.Let me pop this question - will gay marriage think the Tories? John
:01:10. > :01:14.Major is the latest to show support, reminding his party that we live in
:01:14. > :01:17.the 21st century. A group of MPs say ministers should
:01:17. > :01:22.consider ending criminal penalties for some people found with small
:01:22. > :01:31.quantities of drugs. And three cheers for the European
:01:31. > :01:35.Union, who today took hold of the Nobel Peace Prize - hurrah!
:01:35. > :01:42.All that in the next hour. With us for the duration, or at least half
:01:42. > :01:47.of it, a crossbench peer who likes the beer. Welcome to Karan
:01:47. > :01:51.Bilimoria. He is the founder and chairman of Cobra Beer. First this
:01:51. > :01:55.morning, let's talk about genetically modified food. The
:01:55. > :02:00.Environment Secretary, Owen Paterson, would like more of it.
:02:00. > :02:04.Ministers are preparing to relax controls on the cultivation of GM
:02:04. > :02:08.crops. In the Daily Telegraph, Mr Paterson said GM food should be
:02:08. > :02:13.grown and sold widely in Britain and consumer opposition to the
:02:13. > :02:18.technology was, quote, complete nonsense. Is he right? I have
:02:18. > :02:23.spoken about GM foods in Parliament. Agriculture in this country needs
:02:23. > :02:28.far more attention, the agriculture sector has gone down to barely over
:02:28. > :02:33.1% of our GDP, tiny. We need to encourage agriculture. In India,
:02:33. > :02:38.for example, I know how much during the green revolution that hybrid
:02:38. > :02:43.crops were used, which transformed Indian agriculture. It has lifted
:02:43. > :02:48.starving people out of poverty. In theory, GM food is a great idea,
:02:48. > :02:52.you can increase productivity, reduce fertiliser reduce, reduce
:02:52. > :02:57.the risk of infection. It should benefit humanity, held up with
:02:57. > :03:01.people from poverty. Are there no dangers? Of course they have shown
:03:01. > :03:05.to be dangers. One needs to look at it carefully. There is a lot of
:03:05. > :03:10.opposition in India because you have to look at very small holdings
:03:10. > :03:14.and the way it is implemented. But on a case-by-case basis here it is
:03:14. > :03:19.worthy of considering, rather than having a very blinkered attitude.
:03:19. > :03:22.It looks like, belatedly, we will go for it? There has been a lot of
:03:22. > :03:28.debate in years gone by, I think the Daily Mail called it
:03:28. > :03:33.Frankenstein food, but it looks like the opposition is losing out?
:03:33. > :03:37.We need to be practical. Science is advancing and if you can have
:03:37. > :03:41.science helping you to be more productive, that has to benefit in
:03:41. > :03:48.keeping costs down. We are going through horrible recessionary times,
:03:48. > :03:51.we must keep an open mind. Now time for away daily quiz. The
:03:51. > :03:55.Communities Secretary and MP for Brentwood and avant-garde, Eric
:03:55. > :04:00.Pickles, appeared on Desert Island Discs on Radio 4 yesterday. Guests
:04:00. > :04:07.can take one luxury item on to the island, what did he choose?
:04:07. > :04:12.Earl Grey tea, an organic pork pie, weekly bin collections or a boxed
:04:12. > :04:16.set of The Only Way is Essex? Shut At the end of the show, someone
:04:16. > :04:19.will tell us the right answer, I hope.
:04:19. > :04:22.When Brian Leveson published his 2000 page report into the future of
:04:23. > :04:27.press legislation, he said the ball was back in the Court of the
:04:27. > :04:30.politicians. What have they done since? The Conservative Party the
:04:30. > :04:34.Government is against a system of regulation which has to be backed
:04:35. > :04:38.by a new law. The Culture Department is drawing up a draft
:04:38. > :04:42.bill to show, they say, how complicated it would be.
:04:42. > :04:46.But Labour, which supports Leveson's call for a regulator
:04:46. > :04:51.backed by law, has come up with its own draft bill. Everyone seems to
:04:51. > :04:57.be doing it. Presumably to show how easy it can be done, the Labour
:04:57. > :04:59.version is a mere eight pages and six clauses long.
:04:59. > :05:02.They envisage a new regulator called the Press Standards Trust
:05:02. > :05:07.with the power to investigate complaints and false papers to
:05:07. > :05:10.print apologies or face big fines. Every national newspaper and
:05:10. > :05:14.magazine with a substantial UK circulation would be expected to
:05:14. > :05:18.join, but purely online organisation such as blogs would
:05:18. > :05:22.not have to. The Labour plans would see the Lord Chief Justice
:05:22. > :05:27.appointed to oversee the new trust, along with a panel of other judges
:05:27. > :05:30.who decide once every few years if it is up to scratch. The Bill would
:05:30. > :05:35.order ministers and anyone in public office to uphold the freedom
:05:35. > :05:38.of the press. Ed Miliband is said to have spoken to Nick Clegg about
:05:38. > :05:42.the proposals, which are said to have gone down well with the
:05:42. > :05:46.Liberal Democrats. That could add to pressure on David Cameron of the
:05:47. > :05:53.cross-party talks later this week. Labour's Harriet Harman has worked
:05:53. > :05:56.on the draft Bill and joins me now. Welcome. What is there in the
:05:56. > :06:01.behaviour of judges in this country which would make you think that the
:06:01. > :06:05.freedom of the press would be safe in my hands? What our Bill does is
:06:05. > :06:10.it actually enacts a central principle that Leveson put forward,
:06:10. > :06:14.which is the press need to redo their press complaints system so it
:06:14. > :06:18.is independent and effective, but there needs to be some legal
:06:18. > :06:23.guarantee, some guarantee in law that they will not just slip back.
:06:23. > :06:27.Previously they have said we will sort things out and improve the
:06:27. > :06:31.system and after a few years they have slipped back. This Bill is
:06:31. > :06:36.simply sets up a system which recognises and gives the
:06:36. > :06:39.responsibility to the Lord Chief Justice. Let me come back to my
:06:39. > :06:43.question, what is it in the behaviour of British judges in
:06:43. > :06:49.modern times which makes you think that freedom of the press is safer
:06:49. > :06:54.now hands? They will apply the law. And the law we have set out says
:06:54. > :07:00.there has to be a guarantee of press freedom but also says that if
:07:00. > :07:03.a body which has been set up by the press themselves but is actually
:07:03. > :07:08.independents and operating according to the criteria Leveson
:07:08. > :07:11.set out, you simply verify it, you go away and carry on with your day
:07:12. > :07:15.job of being Lord Chief Justice, in three years' time you look again
:07:15. > :07:20.and say, are they still doing what they promised they would do? If
:07:20. > :07:25.they have you tick the box and go away again. It is a legal guarantee
:07:25. > :07:30.that you don't have what she always had Doba last 70 years, good
:07:30. > :07:34.intentions and then things slipping. -- what you always had over the
:07:34. > :07:40.last 70 years. The British judiciary has been responsible for
:07:40. > :07:44.some of the most anti- believe -- anti- free press behaviour is in
:07:44. > :07:51.the modern world, such as thalidomide and Spycatcher, which
:07:52. > :07:55.they tried to stop it being -- to stop being published. They would
:07:55. > :08:00.not be dealing with any complaints about the press, that is not what
:08:00. > :08:06.they would be doing. But they would monitor the body that is. They
:08:06. > :08:09.would not. They would report every two or three years. At the outset
:08:09. > :08:13.they would look up the criteria laid down by Leveson like whether
:08:13. > :08:16.the body is independent and includes the newspapers, they would
:08:16. > :08:21.then say it has ticked the box and they would get on and deal with the
:08:21. > :08:25.press. The Lord Chief Justice would be no where near content or any of
:08:25. > :08:32.those other issues. I have read your bill, it is interesting, more
:08:32. > :08:38.readable than most, although that may be a weakness of it. But under
:08:38. > :08:44.the Bill the Lord Chief Justice and other judges would monitor, reports
:08:44. > :08:51.on how this body of regulators is performing with the power to make
:08:51. > :08:54.regulations, suggest changes and enforce them if need be? In the six
:08:54. > :09:02.clauses and The One Show Gil, it says at the outset it would verify
:09:02. > :09:05.the system and then look at it. If you had a system which was set up
:09:05. > :09:09.and after a year the press decided to close the whole thing down, I
:09:09. > :09:14.don't think they would, but supposing they did, we have a
:09:14. > :09:17.clause which says if it breaks down between the three years, then the
:09:17. > :09:22.Lord Chief Justice can say the system is broken-down and therefore
:09:22. > :09:28.it is no longer verified. I would like you to recognise and accept
:09:28. > :09:31.that this takes the courts nowhere near what is written in the papers.
:09:31. > :09:35.Parliament is nowhere near what is written in the papers, the
:09:35. > :09:39.Government is nowhere near. The press would set up their own system
:09:39. > :09:45.to deal with complaints, we would just tick the box. It is operating
:09:45. > :09:50.in the way they say it will operate. But the judges would still be the
:09:50. > :09:55.Verify and they would report on the performance of this body. They
:09:55. > :09:59.would not report on the performance, they would simply say, is the body
:09:59. > :10:03.matching the criteria laid out? They would not have it up and say,
:10:03. > :10:08.we are not happy with how you dealt with this complaint, we think you
:10:08. > :10:11.should have dealt differently, they will simply look at whether or not
:10:11. > :10:15.it is structurally and organisationally what the press
:10:15. > :10:20.themselves say they are doing. next Lord Chief Justice could be
:10:20. > :10:23.Brian Leveson. Are you happy he would be the one regulating the
:10:23. > :10:29.press? Whoever is Lord Chief Justice will have the
:10:29. > :10:34.responsibility of applying the law according to the statute. This is a
:10:34. > :10:37.very simple and straightforward task. It must worry you that Brian
:10:37. > :10:43.Leveson could be the Lord Chief Justice, the man that you would put
:10:43. > :10:46.in power as the ultimate arbitrator of press regulation? All the
:10:46. > :10:51.experience of working journalists, I don't know if you speak to them
:10:51. > :10:54.Walmart, they don't think judges understand the media or not. It's a
:10:54. > :10:58.Claude Leveson six months to work out that journalists do not write
:10:58. > :11:03.their own headlines, and yet she want to give these people with no
:11:03. > :11:06.expertise at all the ultimate ride on regulating the press? We don't.
:11:06. > :11:12.And the criteria that Leveson has laid down for highways system
:11:12. > :11:20.should work, and independence of regulatory system, they have been
:11:20. > :11:25.agreed by the newspapers, they have said they are good criteria and we
:11:25. > :11:28.will accept the principles. All we are doing is ensuring them having
:11:28. > :11:34.accepted those principles and setting up a body which complies
:11:34. > :11:37.with those principles, we have it verified and also in three years'
:11:37. > :11:42.time we have a sense that the press know that they have to keep doing
:11:42. > :11:47.what they're doing and not slip back. I have got your own copy of
:11:47. > :11:53.the bill for you to read. I have read it, but why don't you sign it
:11:53. > :11:57.for me? Why did you give up on Ofcom? Mr
:11:57. > :12:02.Miliband first said he wanted Ofcom to do this, not the Lord Chief
:12:02. > :12:05.Justice. This recognising body should be Ofcom, but if people did
:12:05. > :12:10.not want that they could have an alternative. Ed Miliband said you
:12:10. > :12:14.would go with Ofcom. Leveson said we should have of combative people
:12:14. > :12:19.did not wanted there could be an alternative. Ed Miliband said we
:12:19. > :12:24.would go with Leveson to have Ofcom, but in the debate last Monday and
:12:25. > :12:30.number of MPs, including, importantly, the Deputy Prime
:12:30. > :12:35.Minister... Mr Clegg, I think his name is. He said he was not happy
:12:35. > :12:39.with Ofcom. Ofcom is not a central tenet, it is a question of who will
:12:39. > :12:43.do the role. We have come forward with something we think will
:12:43. > :12:50.reassure people of the independence. And you hope for wider support by
:12:50. > :12:55.doing it this way. Off, is a direct regulator, that is the worry. -- of,
:12:55. > :13:00.is a direct regulator of. If you give back an observing role to
:13:00. > :13:05.somebody whose day-job is the regulator, they might start getting
:13:05. > :13:10.directly regulatory. But Leveson said you could pick. You have
:13:10. > :13:14.changed your mind, I understand. have not, we listen to Parliament...
:13:14. > :13:23.And change your mind, Miliband said you would go with off, and you have
:13:24. > :13:29.not, you have changed your mind, fact. You want compromise, stop
:13:29. > :13:34.arguing with me, I am agreeing with you. You're doing quite well as
:13:34. > :13:38.arguing with me. What is the logic of saying the
:13:38. > :13:43.online website of the New Statesman should come within this regulation,
:13:43. > :13:50.which has no great influence on Westminster, but probably one of
:13:50. > :13:55.the most influential sites, credo Fawkes, should not? Faulks is
:13:55. > :14:00.offshore, offshore activities, of the situation of the law deals with
:14:00. > :14:05.them differently. But they could join voluntarily. If they did and
:14:05. > :14:10.they got done for libel, they would be able to say we are in the body,
:14:10. > :14:14.please make our damages accordingly and don't sting us with costs.
:14:14. > :14:19.though Guido Fawkes is not covered if he does not volunteer to join it,
:14:19. > :14:26.he could get costs in any libel case? There are sticks and carrots,
:14:26. > :14:30.you can get costs reduced if you join his body, because you have
:14:30. > :14:34.shown good endeavour, it is a mitigating factor. If you don't,
:14:35. > :14:39.and you are found guilty of libel, you get it in the neck. This will
:14:39. > :14:49.come before the Lords. If it ever becomes a bill in parliament, how
:14:49. > :14:56.There is a feeling that things have gone too far T majority of the
:14:56. > :15:01.Leveson report has got people agreeing with it. Having judges and
:15:01. > :15:06.I have the greatest respect for British courts. Worldwide we have
:15:06. > :15:10.the fairest courts in the world. Anything to do with judges, courts,
:15:10. > :15:14.supervising the press, alarm bells ring. The free press is a
:15:14. > :15:19.cornerstone of this country. I know the intentions are good, but you
:15:19. > :15:21.have to have an independent regulator. We know the Press
:15:21. > :15:26.Complaints Commission has not worked. We need something which
:15:26. > :15:32.will. The report is very good in that sense. We have to stay away
:15:32. > :15:37.from any form of statutory control of the press. That will destroy and
:15:37. > :15:41.the perception sent abroad - we must remember that, not just here.
:15:41. > :15:44.How do you stop what has happened over the past 70 years, the press
:15:44. > :15:49.changing, getting their house in order and then slipping back. As
:15:49. > :15:55.far as abroad is concerned that is a red hearing. The Irish have their
:15:55. > :16:02.system and they are human rights come President Clinton. Ironically,
:16:02. > :16:07.the biggest -- they are right rights compliant.
:16:07. > :16:11.That is one stop. That is what has been shown to happen.
:16:11. > :16:14.I think we have learnt some serious lessons. What you have said has
:16:14. > :16:18.been said over and over again. This time we have to make sure we don't
:16:18. > :16:23.slip back. It is not fair on people like the McCanns and the Dowlers
:16:23. > :16:27.that should happen to families. Speaking of... Don't leave us,
:16:27. > :16:33.because we are speaking about lives being wrecked by some things the
:16:33. > :16:39.media do. From the British press, let's move to the Australian media.
:16:39. > :16:44.The two presenters who made that hoax call say they are heart broken
:16:44. > :16:49.by the death of the nurse caught newspaper the prank. Her name was
:16:49. > :16:54.Jacintha Saldanha. She was found dead three days after put through
:16:54. > :16:58.that call. This is what the presenters had to say earlier today.
:16:58. > :17:01.Unfortunately I remember that moment very well, because I haven't
:17:01. > :17:11.stopped thinking about it since it happened. I remember my first
:17:11. > :17:11.
:17:11. > :17:18.question was, was she a mother. When you found out she was what did
:17:18. > :17:21.you think? Very sad for the family. I cannot imagine what they are
:17:21. > :17:27.going through. What about you? Gutted. You know.
:17:27. > :17:34.Shattered. Heart-broken.
:17:34. > :17:40.Does it even feel real to you what has happened? We're still trying to
:17:40. > :17:44.get our heads around everything, trying to make sense of the
:17:44. > :17:48.situation. It doesn't seem real because you could not foresee
:17:48. > :17:55.something happening like that from a prank call. It was never nopbt go
:17:55. > :18:01.that far. It was meant to be a -- never meant to go that far. It
:18:01. > :18:05.meant to be a prank. This wasn't supposed to happen. If it was a
:18:05. > :18:10.British tabloid responsible, in the post Leveson atmosphere there would
:18:10. > :18:14.be a lynch mob, wouldn't there? think everybody right now is
:18:14. > :18:20.sympathetic and heart-broken for the family and there will be an
:18:20. > :18:25.inquest, but I think it's just a real tragedy. I think the idea of
:18:25. > :18:30.trying to judge what has happened on this against this bill we've put
:18:30. > :18:35.forward, I mean I just.... I think it is relevant. If this were to
:18:35. > :18:39.become law, there would be a body of law which is the basis of press
:18:39. > :18:43.regulation. If you got something like that, God forbid, done by a
:18:43. > :18:49.British newspaper, there would be a huge outcry in Parliament, you
:18:49. > :18:56.probably leading it to toughen up things so this could not happen?
:18:56. > :19:01.All there would be is a stamp - an authorisation of what the press
:19:01. > :19:05.themselves are doing by the way of Press Complaints Commission. They
:19:05. > :19:11.are reconstituting that now. What do you think? What happens here is
:19:11. > :19:17.awful. On one hand, you would say pranks - people have always pulled
:19:17. > :19:20.pranks, they will always happen. In this instance you are talking about
:19:21. > :19:24.people playing a prank on a hospital, dealing with people
:19:25. > :19:28.caring for people's lives. You are trying to get private, sensitive
:19:28. > :19:32.information, let alone, it happens to be a member of the Royal Family.
:19:32. > :19:36.That is wrong, for somebody to think of playing a prank like that
:19:36. > :19:39.- it's completely wrong. They are regretting what they've done. They
:19:40. > :19:44.have no... They were not thinking of what they were doing. Well, it
:19:44. > :19:52.is very serious. You don't do that with a hospital.
:19:52. > :19:57.Will you sign this for me? Indeed! With a kiss? I am hoping to even
:19:57. > :20:01.persuade you it might be a bit of a tall order. I have no views on the
:20:01. > :20:05.matter. I am in favour of press freedom, like you are. I would not
:20:05. > :20:09.dream of doing anything I felt harmed the press. I am in favour of
:20:09. > :20:17.individuals to lead their lives without harassment. That is what
:20:17. > :20:20.has been suggested we do. David Cameron is in favour of gay
:20:20. > :20:28.marriage. So are many prominent figures, not everyone in the party
:20:28. > :20:33.Adam is on the green. You are totally right. It is fair to say
:20:33. > :20:38.this divided Conservatives to strong views. Let's hear some of
:20:38. > :20:43.the views. We have Tim Montgomery from Conservative home and Peter
:20:43. > :20:48.Bone. You are in favour of same-sex marriage, so too is John Major, he
:20:48. > :20:53.issued a statement in favour. Why is that a significant moment?
:20:53. > :20:59.is important for the Conservative Party to demonstrate is civility. I
:20:59. > :21:05.respect Peter's view. I hope he respects mine. What I hope we'll
:21:05. > :21:10.get to in a position and this is what the Freedom to Marry group is
:21:10. > :21:14.hoping for - a number of others leading, the right for gay people
:21:14. > :21:18.to be part of the important institution of marriage but
:21:18. > :21:21.important liberty to protect it as well. We must not force anybody in
:21:21. > :21:26.the churches or mosques or synagogues to support something
:21:26. > :21:30.that is against their consciences. Is it is a civil debate? It seems
:21:30. > :21:35.like it is getting bad tempered? didn't start off very well. The
:21:35. > :21:39.letter Tim was associated with implied that most people who didn't
:21:39. > :21:44.support their view were homophobic. That is a really bad way. It was
:21:44. > :21:48.badly written. If that is not what it meant, please say. When I hear
:21:48. > :21:52.other Conservative MPs picking on other Conservative MPs over this
:21:52. > :21:57.issue, that is not the way to have this. It's not just the
:21:57. > :22:01.Conservative Party who is divided over it - of course the country is
:22:01. > :22:04.divided. It is not just political parties, people of different
:22:04. > :22:08.political views. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I
:22:08. > :22:13.have that right to believe that. Tim takes a different view. What I
:22:13. > :22:18.object to is this being forced on Parliament now when there's no
:22:18. > :22:21.mandate from any political party, not in any manifesto for this to
:22:21. > :22:28.happen. Yes, so Tim where is this coming from? It was not in
:22:28. > :22:32.manifestos, as Peter Bone says - the evidence from the public is
:22:32. > :22:37.mixed? I don't think it is mixed. There is a large minority who
:22:37. > :22:42.oppose this form. Every opinion poll has found a large majority of
:22:42. > :22:44.people in favour of this reform, particularly amongst young people,
:22:44. > :22:48.and even amongst most religious people as well, I think there is
:22:48. > :22:51.support for this. One of the first speeches David Cameron gave as
:22:51. > :22:55.leader of the Conservative Party was, he said he wanted to see
:22:55. > :22:59.marriage between a man and a man, a woman and a woman and a man and a
:22:59. > :23:03.woman as well. He wanted full equality before the law. I think
:23:03. > :23:09.that's the right position for the Conservative Party, for the nation,
:23:09. > :23:18.to address. Completely, contrary to what Peter has said, I don't regard
:23:18. > :23:23.him as homophobic. Why did that letter say it? You read it.
:23:23. > :23:26.Nick Clegg spoke very badly in that press release that he withdraw. I
:23:26. > :23:31.don't regard people who have sincere, perhaps religious views,
:23:31. > :23:35.who hold the view that Peter does as anything other than sincere.
:23:35. > :23:42.People who are homophobic I think are a small minority. I don't want
:23:42. > :23:47.to swap one form of intoll rapbls for a new form of inkol --
:23:47. > :23:50.intolerance, for a new form of intolerance.
:23:50. > :23:55.Mutual tolerance and support for equal rights. Also, isn't the
:23:55. > :24:05.problem with this issue, it's not like a lot of issues where there
:24:05. > :24:08.can be a nice fudge, people are broadly happy with. There is no
:24:08. > :24:13.compromise We should argue on the issue. Maybe something we can agree
:24:13. > :24:17.on is there cannot be a goorn tee that churches will not be forced to
:24:17. > :24:22.have same-sex marriage. When the European Court of Human Rights gets
:24:22. > :24:30.involved, who knows where it will go! A few weeks ago we said there
:24:30. > :24:33.would be no church same-sex wedding. There's not a cast-iron guarantee.
:24:33. > :24:37.Tim knows the European Court has its own way of getting involved in
:24:37. > :24:41.these things. Let's look way into the distance. Imagine this
:24:41. > :24:43.legislation is passed or swished in the House of Commons and the Lords,
:24:43. > :24:48.where would this leave the Conservative Party once it happens
:24:48. > :24:54.or doesn't happen? I think what is true is we look at issues like
:24:54. > :24:57.Section 28 from ten years ago or civil partnerships from five years
:24:57. > :25:02.ago. These were issues of huge controversy at the time. Almost as
:25:02. > :25:05.soon as they are passed they are accepted by the nation. I don't
:25:05. > :25:10.know Peter's view on civil partnerships. I support them. There
:25:10. > :25:14.you go. Did you at the time? That's a very nice, easy thing to say,
:25:14. > :25:19.isn't it? When you are trying to change an institution which has
:25:19. > :25:23.been there for hundreds of years - this is where you will see from
:25:23. > :25:27.Conservative home the number of grass root Torys who are opposed to
:25:27. > :25:31.this change F we do it, put it in a manifesto, have a general election.
:25:31. > :25:35.Let people decide whether they want to vote for that MP, not bring it
:25:35. > :25:40.forward now. I hope you'll agree with me, this is an own-goal in
:25:40. > :25:47.terms of the Conservative Party. It damages us. What happens if it gets
:25:47. > :25:50.past in 18 months - would you leave the Conservative Party? I do have a
:25:50. > :25:54.calling that is higher than the Conservative Party - that's God, of
:25:54. > :25:58.course. We have strong arguments... What I don't want. It is not what
:25:58. > :26:02.the letter in the Telegraph said. We must have a civilised debate. I
:26:02. > :26:09.would hope the people who wrote that letter will apologise for it.
:26:09. > :26:16.I think you are being too pressure about that. -- precious about that.
:26:16. > :26:20.I I think millions were offended by it. I am sure not. Take steps that
:26:20. > :26:27.way. Carry on discussing it and we'll go back to the studio where
:26:27. > :26:31.we will talk about controversial issues. We'll hear more later in
:26:31. > :26:36.the week when Maria Miller will be in the Commons to update MPs on
:26:36. > :26:40.what MPs want to do with this issue. Where are you on this? I led a
:26:40. > :26:44.debate earlier this year on the contribution of the ethnic and
:26:44. > :26:50.religious minoritys to this country. It is fantastic that we have such
:26:50. > :26:55.an open country, a secular country, multicultural, where we don't just
:26:55. > :26:59.tolerate all religions, we celebrate all religions. We've had
:26:59. > :27:04.civil partnerships. If this is to go ahead, so long as it is not
:27:04. > :27:08.forced on any religious body to implement it. The fear is once it -
:27:08. > :27:14.although that's not the intention - the critics say once this becomes
:27:14. > :27:18.law, there will be huge pressure on the churches, even maybe legal
:27:18. > :27:22.pressure to conform. No, I they are making it very clear. Of course the
:27:22. > :27:26.step by step approach would be a first for civil partnerships to be
:27:26. > :27:29.recognised as marriages. Then to get to this stage and now it's
:27:29. > :27:34.going straight to marriages. you happy with that, or not?
:27:34. > :27:39.think, on the whole, people seem to want to move on in that direction.
:27:39. > :27:44.My biggest fear is it should not be forced on the religions. That is
:27:45. > :27:50.wrong, we should not do that. out thevy lins and spare a thought
:27:50. > :27:55.for poor MPs who are - well sometimes they cannot win. Take
:27:55. > :28:01.immigration. The Government wants to bring net migration below the
:28:01. > :28:05.100,000 mark by 2015. They are 80,000 off target. Ministers want
:28:05. > :28:09.to grow the high tech businesses which often rely on, you have got
:28:09. > :28:12.it, skilled foreign workers from outside the EU, who will be hit by
:28:12. > :28:19.the immigration cap. That means they are getting it in the neck
:28:19. > :28:23.from, well, just about everybody. In America, they have Silicon
:28:23. > :28:28.Valley, a sizable chunk of California poplised by industries
:28:28. > :28:35.of 21st century and beyond. We are British. We have silicon roundabout.
:28:35. > :28:38.One day, all of this will be high tech startups, run by trendy
:28:38. > :28:43.entrepreneurs, the Government insist will revitalise the economy.
:28:43. > :28:47.That is why politicians love to hang here. The cool kids say,
:28:47. > :28:51.thanks in a large part to the Government's immigration policies,
:28:51. > :28:56.they cannot get the staff. Their beef is with the cap. Ministers
:28:56. > :29:00.want to bring net inward migration below 100,000 by 2015. It is
:29:00. > :29:04.currently at 180,000. They cannot do much about people there the EU,
:29:04. > :29:08.but they can deal with those from outside it. Only people with
:29:08. > :29:12.exceptional skills, investors and entrepreneurs are being welcomed.
:29:12. > :29:16.Students face tougher language tests, are allowed to stay for less
:29:16. > :29:20.time and need a sponsoring employer. That gives the new breed of
:29:20. > :29:27.businesses around these parts a headache. The high tech companies
:29:27. > :29:34.on Silicon Roundabout are affected. We thrive on having really skilled
:29:34. > :29:37.workers and are ability to expand and provide new jobs in this area
:29:37. > :29:43.is affected by getting the skilled workers. We would love to have as
:29:43. > :29:46.many British coming in. But if we are going to grow Silicon
:29:46. > :29:49.Roundabout into something which is world-beating and has a major
:29:49. > :29:53.effect on the economy, we need to bring in the best and the brightest
:29:53. > :29:58.from around the world. You don't have to support the Government to
:29:58. > :30:05.disagree with Dan. So far as employers are concerned it is self-
:30:05. > :30:10.serving. It is the easy way out. Instead of resources for young
:30:10. > :30:15.people - don't forget 20% of graduates cannot get jobs. Instead
:30:15. > :30:20.of taking on graduates, the easy option is to get somebody from
:30:20. > :30:26.abroad. Of course they use the argument, this strives economic
:30:26. > :30:31.growth. It adds minutely overall to GDP. So far as per capita GPD, that
:30:31. > :30:33.is the wealth of the individuals in the country, it doesn't add at all.
:30:33. > :30:43.Equally, being a Conservative doesn't mean you have to think what
:30:43. > :30:45.
:30:45. > :30:48.The trouble is that I do not think the policy is in the economic
:30:48. > :30:52.interests of the country and I don't think we will be able to
:30:52. > :30:58.reduce immigration from its current level of 182,000 to under 100 birds
:30:58. > :31:03.and, which is what we have promised. Which leads people like Dan feeling
:31:03. > :31:06.dazed and confused. On the one hand we are promoting
:31:06. > :31:09.Silicon Roundabout and we are able to find great people to come in as
:31:09. > :31:15.a result of that, but on the other hand the Government is saying that
:31:15. > :31:21.we don't want immigrants. This is not what the UK once, the UK is not
:31:21. > :31:25.open for business. You can't have those two messages at once.
:31:25. > :31:29.immigration debate is as much about politics and people as it is about
:31:29. > :31:33.the numbers, which makes keeping everyone happy very hard indeed.
:31:33. > :31:39.We are joined by the Immigration Minister Mark Harper, welcomed. Is
:31:39. > :31:43.there not a danger that your immigration strategy is now
:31:43. > :31:46.undermining your growth strategy? don't think so. I fundamentally
:31:46. > :31:50.don't understand and that clip why the gentleman was saying he had
:31:50. > :31:54.heard people say Britain was closed for business. Ministers have said
:31:54. > :31:58.nothing of the sort. Our policies are about having fewer people
:31:58. > :32:02.overall but being more selective and making sure we have skilled
:32:02. > :32:06.workers. If you look at the figures published on the 29th of November,
:32:06. > :32:10.we have fewer people coming in of all but more skilled workers. We
:32:10. > :32:14.have fewer students but more students coming to an excellent
:32:14. > :32:20.British universities, Britain is very much open for business. Why do
:32:20. > :32:24.you have a cap on 1000 visas for the exceptionally talented? That is
:32:25. > :32:29.a new stream we have opened up, we have not reached 1000 yet. A number
:32:29. > :32:33.of the things we have opened, we have developed. Why would you
:32:33. > :32:38.cabbage? Don't we want exceptionally talented people? Why
:32:38. > :32:41.would you put a cap on exceptional talent? We opened a new stream to
:32:41. > :32:47.have people coming in under that route, people who were extremely
:32:47. > :32:51.talented, and also routes for entrepreneurs and investors. We
:32:51. > :32:56.want people to come here, start businesses and be successful, that
:32:56. > :33:00.is the strategy we have outlined and it is working. When that
:33:00. > :33:05.gentleman said he could not hire skilled workers, the cap we have is
:33:05. > :33:09.nowhere near being reached. I just don't think it is true. If you
:33:09. > :33:14.can't hire them it is not because of the cap? If he wants to bring
:33:14. > :33:20.skilled workers from outside the EU, there should not be a problem.
:33:20. > :33:25.are a businessman, you deal with this, what is your view?
:33:25. > :33:31.reality is the perception of what is being said. This country has
:33:31. > :33:34.been built on good immigration. The previous government lost control of
:33:34. > :33:37.immigration and if you asked the UK Border Agency right now how many
:33:37. > :33:42.illegal immigrants that are, they cannot even give you a figure
:33:42. > :33:47.rounded up to 100,000, they have no clue. We have lost control of our
:33:47. > :33:51.borders, we have not introduced exit controls so we don't even know
:33:51. > :33:55.who is sleeping. Then there is a big difference between bad and good
:33:55. > :33:59.immigration. There are 60 million people on a small island, we can't
:34:00. > :34:04.have everyone coming in. It is an attractive place to come, one of
:34:04. > :34:09.the top 10 economies in the world, but we need to get control and keep
:34:09. > :34:15.away the bad immigration. What about the cap?
:34:15. > :34:18.ALL TALK AT ONCE. It is the way that you did it. If
:34:18. > :34:24.you want to get bad. -- rid of the bad immigration, the dodgy colleges
:34:24. > :34:29.and students, everybody would agree. But if you have a blunt, crude
:34:29. > :34:35.immigration cap, you send out the message of a broad brush carpet-
:34:35. > :34:38.bombing everyone. I sits on the boards of schools and we have seen
:34:38. > :34:45.applications of students from India plummet, because the message being
:34:45. > :34:47.sent out is that British universities do not want us. The
:34:47. > :34:54.London Metropolitan University, overnight the Borders Agency said
:34:54. > :35:02.you have to get rid of 2500 to 3000 foreign students you have now, that
:35:02. > :35:07.is a police state type action. Most of those students did nothing wrong.
:35:07. > :35:11.It is not just the Duchy College is you are closing down, people coming
:35:11. > :35:16.for dodgy degrees, it is affecting people who should be coming to our
:35:16. > :35:20.top business schools? The overall number of students coming to allow
:35:20. > :35:26.universities was up last year. that the case? The figures I have
:35:26. > :35:33.here was that in the it year to 20th September 12 there were
:35:34. > :35:38.210,921 visas issued for study. That is it for up 26%. The number
:35:38. > :35:42.of students coming to the UK is down, the number of students coming
:35:42. > :35:49.to our universities is up. We have tackled the institutions which were
:35:49. > :35:54.not selling education, they were selling... The number of
:35:54. > :35:58.applications for visas to come to universities is also up. The
:35:58. > :36:03.university sector is being protected. It is the sector where,
:36:03. > :36:09.as Karen said, there was abuse, we are weeding out the abuse. We have
:36:10. > :36:17.far fewer colleges. This fall of 26%, a quarter, is it all down to
:36:17. > :36:21.the closure of the dodgy language schools and the false degrees?
:36:21. > :36:25.because the number of students coming to universities is up. The
:36:25. > :36:31.high quality end of the sector, the best and brightest, to use your
:36:31. > :36:35.language, is going up. Britain is very much open for business. That
:36:35. > :36:40.is what ministers are saying. want to bring you back, we are not
:36:41. > :36:44.just talking about students but we are talking about visas for very
:36:44. > :36:49.talented people. The minister says we are way below the cap, is there
:36:49. > :36:54.any evidence that British companies cannot hire the best and brightest
:36:54. > :36:57.from abroad because of what the Government has done? Yesterday I
:36:58. > :37:03.was at the annual awards of the Bangladesh Caterers Association,
:37:03. > :37:08.the leading restaurant body. That employs over 100,000 people, it is
:37:08. > :37:14.part of our way of life. They cannot recruit staff from a board,
:37:14. > :37:17.in particular, shirts. I know that curry colleges were being set up,
:37:17. > :37:22.including the University of West London, where I was Chancellor, but
:37:22. > :37:26.those things take time to implement. In the meantime, restaurants are
:37:26. > :37:31.suffering, consumers are squeezed, they are trying to survive...
:37:31. > :37:35.have made no apologies for saying you can't bring in people from
:37:35. > :37:41.outside the UK will unskilled and low-skilled. These are skilled
:37:41. > :37:46.people. The migrations... Migration Advisory Committee set up
:37:46. > :37:50.the skills we want people to have. But the industry is saying we are
:37:50. > :37:55.not getting the skills. They listen to people, they don't just sit in
:37:55. > :37:59.Whitehall, they take evidence and listen. Come here if you are
:37:59. > :38:05.skilled, but we are not importing unskilled labour into the labour
:38:06. > :38:10.market. An unrelated matter, related to immigration but not what
:38:10. > :38:14.we're talking about, Romanians and Bulgarians, by the end of next year
:38:14. > :38:20.the transitional restrictions come after and Romanian some Bulgarians
:38:20. > :38:25.will have totally free access to this country the way the Polish had
:38:25. > :38:32.to 10 years or so ago? That's right. And we are not the only country
:38:32. > :38:38.removing transitional controls. you accept that this report by
:38:38. > :38:43.Migrationwatch, it could lead to up to 425,000? That is speculation.
:38:43. > :38:46.When I was asked in the Commons about the forecast, I said it is
:38:46. > :38:51.much better to say it is very difficult to forecast these numbers.
:38:51. > :38:55.I think you alluded to the previous government... They got it totally
:38:55. > :38:59.wrong. But there are a number of European countries with
:38:59. > :39:08.restrictions, they will be releasing them as well. It is a
:39:08. > :39:13.very difficult job. No forecasts? No. Straight answer. Thank you both
:39:13. > :39:17.very much. Goodbye. Now let's look at what will be
:39:17. > :39:20.making the news next -- this week. Today sees the publication of the
:39:20. > :39:25.Home Affairs Select Committee report on drugs, which has made 48
:39:25. > :39:28.recommendations, including, controversially, urging the
:39:28. > :39:33.Government to consider a system of drug decriminalisation pioneered in
:39:33. > :39:36.Portugal. On Tuesday, there is the
:39:36. > :39:38.Communications Bill. The Lib Dems may yet withdraw support for more
:39:38. > :39:42.police powers to monitor communications.
:39:42. > :39:46.Get you glad rags on tomorrow night, the Chancellor is hosting his
:39:46. > :39:49.annual Christmas drinks. Let's hope he can extend a little more
:39:49. > :39:54.Christmas cheer than his Autumn Statement.
:39:54. > :39:57.On Wednesday it is the penultimate PMQs of the year. For some of you,
:39:57. > :40:02.that means second blast. The parties go head-to-head on
:40:03. > :40:07.Leveson on Thursday. More cross- party talks, I wish -- I bet you
:40:07. > :40:10.can't wait. Statutory underpinning or not?
:40:10. > :40:14.We are joined from outside Westminster by Craig Wood house
:40:14. > :40:19.from the Sun and Rowenna Davis from the New Statesman, looking very
:40:19. > :40:23.cold indeed. Rowenna Davis, I don't know if you heard Harriet Harman,
:40:23. > :40:27.are you comfortable with the Labour idea that judges should become the
:40:27. > :40:31.ultimate arbitrators of press freedom? It is an interesting
:40:31. > :40:35.proposal which has had a reasonably warm welcome, largely because it is
:40:35. > :40:39.quite constructive and has a natural solution, it is reasonably
:40:39. > :40:44.comprehensible, not too long and deals with a chief problem that a
:40:45. > :40:49.lot of the press had which was there was too much involvement of
:40:49. > :40:53.Ofcom. Where I think there are a couple of worries are the role of
:40:53. > :40:57.judges, as you rightly pointed out. Having spoken to colleagues in
:40:57. > :41:02.various newspapers there is a concern that several times in the
:41:02. > :41:05.past with things like injunctions, judges have not always acted in the
:41:05. > :41:14.public interest. Secondly there is a concern about whether this deals
:41:14. > :41:17.with new media sufficiently. A commercial blocks of really big
:41:17. > :41:21.outlets like Guido Fawkes and the Huffington Post will not be obliged
:41:21. > :41:26.to join us. We need a settlement that works with the changing
:41:27. > :41:36.newspaper industry and not just one as we see it today. Is this some
:41:36. > :41:40.happy to have judges as the ultimate arbitrator? -- is the Sun?
:41:41. > :41:46.Whether judges are the right people to hold it to account, we don't
:41:46. > :41:50.necessarily know. The fundamental problem with these proposals today
:41:50. > :41:54.is it still amounts to a statutory underpinning, which the industry
:41:54. > :41:59.and many Conservatives say they will not stomach. It will come to
:41:59. > :42:02.the cross-party talks on Thursday. It certainly moves Labour closer to
:42:02. > :42:08.the Lib Dems by saying they no longer need Ofcom, but I think they
:42:08. > :42:12.will get opposition from people, including David Cameron. Again
:42:12. > :42:17.talking to newspaper colleagues, the settlement does not get agreed
:42:17. > :42:20.soon, that will be the worst thing. Because this odd limbo state exists
:42:21. > :42:25.where the press are trying to report some politicians but
:42:25. > :42:30.politicians are trying to decide whether are not to boot some
:42:30. > :42:34.statutory like -- regulation. Let's move onto gay marriage. Is it
:42:34. > :42:40.doing damage to the Conservatives in the sense that it shows they are
:42:40. > :42:44.quite deeply divided? I'm not really sure what some of these
:42:44. > :42:50.Conservatives are up to. We heard earlier from Peter Bone, who
:42:50. > :42:54.obviously feels strongly, and some others of a strongly religious
:42:54. > :42:58.nature Feely -- clearly feel strongly. But lots of moderates,
:42:58. > :43:03.including David Cameron, say this is the direction they want to lead.
:43:03. > :43:09.I think it is squabbling on the backbenches, but once they become
:43:09. > :43:13.more people forget about them. If it happens in time for 2014, which
:43:13. > :43:17.the Government hopes, it will all be forgotten about by the 2015
:43:17. > :43:23.general election. Gay marriage does not divide the Labour Party, but
:43:23. > :43:27.what about drug decriminalisation? Will Labour have the guts to accept
:43:27. > :43:30.the recommendations? I really hope so. The whole issue of
:43:30. > :43:34.decriminalisation is one of those issues where the evidence is
:43:34. > :43:39.consistently in its favour and it has always been the politicians
:43:39. > :43:44.refusing to step up to the evidence and take an lead on it. I would
:43:44. > :43:47.hope it will start to happen. You saw on the Today programme...
:43:47. > :43:52.we hope and what happens are often different, what do you think will
:43:52. > :43:57.happen? I don't know what will happen exactly, I think Labour will
:43:57. > :44:02.still discuss it. It is interesting with Ed Miliband at the moment, he
:44:02. > :44:05.is prepared to take on quite a few issues which go against the typical
:44:05. > :44:09.political lines. Whether it has been Leveson or the banks, he has
:44:09. > :44:15.consistently said, let's challenge the frame of the debate at the
:44:15. > :44:18.moment. Most recently on voting on benefit changes, he may go against
:44:18. > :44:26.what is established political law, I hope he does that on drugs.
:44:26. > :44:30.chance, Crich quite -- Chris? don't think so. I think it is a
:44:30. > :44:36.step too far. Ed Miliband's thing is about taking on the vested
:44:36. > :44:41.interests, I don't know what be vested interest is here. We will
:44:41. > :44:47.let you get into some warmth, thank you foreign during the cold and the
:44:47. > :44:50.sirens! They were probably looking for you, or looking for me!
:44:50. > :44:53.Should ministers consider ending criminal penalties for people found
:44:53. > :44:58.with small quantities of drugs if they are going to a treatment
:44:58. > :45:01.programme? The Commons home affairs committee thinks so. A report out
:45:01. > :45:05.today says Britain might benefit from following an approach which
:45:05. > :45:09.has been pioneered in Portugal. It used to be Sweden or Amsterdam we
:45:09. > :45:12.went to, but Portugal is now the new one. What does the Minister
:45:12. > :45:16.thing? The Home Secretary has said she
:45:16. > :45:20.does not think the Royal Commission has the answer at the moment, but
:45:20. > :45:23.the report is a thoughtful, comprehensive and intelligent
:45:24. > :45:29.report. We don't necessarily need to agree with every recommendation
:45:29. > :45:34.and we will analyse it properly, because it has just been published.
:45:34. > :45:37.We want to have an informed policy, informed by fresh thinking and
:45:37. > :45:47.based on the best evidence available so we will look at it
:45:47. > :45:54.
:45:54. > :46:00.We are joined by Paul Uppal, Bridget Phillipson and by Annette
:46:00. > :46:04.Brooke. I think they will look at it. I saw the minister on Skye TV
:46:04. > :46:08.this morning certainly looking at the Portuguese example and said
:46:09. > :46:15.they would look at it. It's important in the grand scheme of
:46:16. > :46:22.things - and I am the father of three children - I know how
:46:22. > :46:26.pertinent it is. I worry about my children being exposed to drugs in
:46:26. > :46:31.the future. Why did they did a Royal Commission is not necessary?
:46:31. > :46:35.There are some positives. Even the report noticed this as well. If you
:46:35. > :46:39.look at 11-15 year olds there are a decline in the numbers of them
:46:39. > :46:44.using these soft drugs, also with the harder drugs there is a decline
:46:44. > :46:48.there. It is important to focus on the two main issues - one is the
:46:48. > :46:52.harder drugs and second are recreational drugs taken at
:46:52. > :46:58.weekends. On both those fronts we are seeing progress. Bridget
:46:58. > :47:02.Phillipson, will Labour grapts this nettle? Is there a con-- grasp this
:47:03. > :47:05.nettle? Is there a convention not to do anything about this? I am a
:47:05. > :47:10.member of the Home Affairs Committee. We are clear that drugs
:47:10. > :47:14.policy is one area to be considered. It is a wide-ranging report, which
:47:14. > :47:19.looks at a number of aspects, treatment, how we enforce, how to
:47:19. > :47:23.get money back where it is laundered through UK banks. The
:47:23. > :47:28.issue of decriminalisation or otherwise is an aspect. It is one
:47:29. > :47:34.that gets the headline. It is why we recommended a Royal Commission.
:47:34. > :47:37.Personally, I was not persuaded by the arguments around
:47:37. > :47:42.decriminalallisation. I know colleagues who visited Portugal
:47:42. > :47:46.were interested by what they saw there. It is not a sanction of free
:47:46. > :47:49.approach in Portugal. Members were impressed by what was being done
:47:49. > :47:54.there, in making sure we address the consequences properly. There is
:47:54. > :47:58.still a problem, in this country, with how we treat people who are
:47:58. > :48:02.using drugs, including alcohol. I see that with the work I do as an
:48:03. > :48:06.MP. We have a long way to address that, to make sure people get the
:48:06. > :48:12.right treatment they need, so they are not a victim of crime.
:48:12. > :48:22.Liberal Democrats have traditionally been, how shall I put
:48:22. > :48:27.it! Liberal on this matter. You have the legalise cannabis
:48:27. > :48:32.motion - and they rush to hose it down. The grown-up party should say
:48:32. > :48:36.we should look at the evidence. It cannot be said that the
:48:36. > :48:39.reclassification of drugs under the last Government was based on
:48:39. > :48:44.scientific evidence. I have to admit I feel strongly we should be
:48:44. > :48:49.looking at the evidence, but then, as a parent, I get tugged. I think
:48:49. > :48:54.we should look at all these projects. We're not doing well. We
:48:54. > :48:59.have the vicious circle with people taking drugs, stealing, into jail,
:48:59. > :49:04.more drug-taking and on we go, on and on. It surprised me official
:49:05. > :49:11.figures show official drug use in England and Wales is at the lowest
:49:11. > :49:17.rate since 1996. That is surprising. That is encouraging. You are on the
:49:17. > :49:20.committee - why is that? It shows that decriminalisation is not the
:49:20. > :49:25.answer. Why they use drugs and cause harms to themselves and
:49:25. > :49:29.others is complex. The work I did before I was an MP, working with
:49:29. > :49:33.people who were homeless is people use drugs because of trauma in
:49:33. > :49:38.their lives and because of poverty. The action that Labour took to try
:49:38. > :49:45.and work with families to stop that happening and to address the root
:49:45. > :49:48.causes did lead to a decline in drug use. These declines in use,
:49:48. > :49:52.notwithstanding - the war on drugs has been lost, not just in this
:49:52. > :49:56.country, it has been lost across the Western world, in the United
:49:56. > :50:01.States. Shouldn't politicians be prepared to be more radical than
:50:01. > :50:11.just say more of the same? I think it is important to look at the
:50:11. > :50:13.
:50:14. > :50:20.causes we are looking at here. There's a three tronged report. You
:50:20. > :50:24.-- those who have drug dependency, wean them off that. I know I heard
:50:24. > :50:29.you speaking there - I met somebody who was in prison for most of his
:50:29. > :50:36.adult life, when I became an MP. He said the main thing which got him
:50:36. > :50:41.off drugs was a stable family life. Those are the fundamentals.
:50:41. > :50:49.word is moving here - Washington State have become the first to
:50:49. > :50:59.legalise marijuana. At election time a number of pleb cysts, voted
:50:59. > :51:01.
:51:01. > :51:06.for a more -- a number of plebisites voted for a more... You
:51:06. > :51:11.would like a Royal Commission? happy looking across the board. We
:51:11. > :51:19.have to look at different types of drugs, because obviously new ones
:51:19. > :51:25.are emerging, switching from one to the other. I don't think it is as
:51:25. > :51:31.simple as decriminalising cannabis. How did you miss the trip to
:51:31. > :51:36.Portugal? I had just had a baby. Now, hip, hip, hooray for the
:51:36. > :51:40.European Union, who today formally accepted the Nobel Peace Prize at a
:51:40. > :51:44.ceremony in Norway. David Cameron declined to go, but the Deputy
:51:44. > :51:49.Prime Minister, he couldn't wait. The EU was given the award for its
:51:49. > :51:54.role in united Europe after two world wars. Some of the more
:51:54. > :51:59.cynical may say that the award is inappropriate at a time when the EU
:51:59. > :52:05.is struggling with the financial crisis. You are just a bunch of
:52:05. > :52:10.meanys. Here is Nigel Farage. utterly bemused. We saw Angela
:52:10. > :52:16.Merkel going to Athens, people dressed up in Nazi uniforms and a
:52:16. > :52:20.feeling of mutual disgust, which has grown up between Germany and
:52:20. > :52:26.Greece. I find it absolutely baffeling that the EU could have
:52:26. > :52:32.been awarded this prize. Frankly, it brings the Nobel Prize into
:52:32. > :52:36.total disrepute. Were you baffled? That was quite a long baffled!
:52:36. > :52:42.you baffled when you heard the news? It was something I didn't see
:52:42. > :52:49.coming. I didn't expect that one. Were you baffled when you heard it,
:52:49. > :52:51.high the EU got the prize? It is unusual to award it for an
:52:51. > :52:57.institution as opposed to an individual. We saw greater
:52:57. > :53:01.integration, it was for a good reason. It emerged from the horror
:53:01. > :53:06.of war. Many people disagree with how Europe has gone since. I am a
:53:06. > :53:10.support of Britain having a strong role in Europe. Shouldn't we have
:53:11. > :53:16.given it to NATO? That kept the peace. Europe doesn't do it by
:53:16. > :53:24.itself, but no, I don't think it is a bad thing to have done it.
:53:25. > :53:31.has said, political satire become obs leet when Harry kissing ger was
:53:31. > :53:36.awarded the Nobel Prize. A lot of people in the country dislike the
:53:36. > :53:41.EU and reading about it, don't feel comfortable about this. It is an
:53:41. > :53:46.institution which needs reforming - absolutely! But I think we can look
:53:46. > :53:52.back on a relative 70 years of peace in Europe. Would you put it
:53:52. > :53:56.down to the EU or to the spread of demock rasy and the NATO defence
:53:56. > :54:01.system? -- democracy and the NATO defence system? All things have to
:54:01. > :54:06.come together. I remember learning about the heartland, which would be
:54:06. > :54:12.a battle to get control over the centre of Europe. It is quite a
:54:12. > :54:16.weak one overall, but you can match that to what was happening with the
:54:16. > :54:20.power based around Germany. By balancing strengths out across the
:54:20. > :54:25.EU, that has been important. Those critics who say, oh, it should just
:54:26. > :54:29.be a trade treaty, would obviously not see that as appropriate. It
:54:29. > :54:35.always surprises me when one is door-knocking and a member of the
:54:35. > :54:41.Liberal Democrats says, you are favour -- in favour of the EU. Look
:54:41. > :54:47.at what you are doing to us. I reply back. But we have had peace
:54:47. > :54:57.for 70 years. That is something to be valued. You must, as a Tory, be
:54:57. > :54:57.
:54:57. > :55:05.proud that Winstonure hill has been ooze en? I always have a warm glow
:55:05. > :55:12.many my heart when we mention Winston Churchill. Equally a noble
:55:12. > :55:19.recipient could have been NATO. It was just an idea that flooded
:55:19. > :55:25.into my mind! Great minds think alike. Let's talk about the fate of
:55:25. > :55:33.Britain's most famous MP - not David Cameron, but Nadine. She
:55:33. > :55:43.travelled to the jung toll take part in I'm a celebrity get me out
:55:43. > :55:48.of here. They withdraw the whip. Yesterday she told the Sunday
:55:48. > :55:54.Politics why she took part. Children run up to me with their
:55:54. > :55:59.mobile phones and say, Are you an MP?" what is it like to eat a
:55:59. > :56:03.spider N Westminster, back in the corridor of powers, my name has
:56:03. > :56:07.been removed from the Conservative Party's website list of MPs. In
:56:07. > :56:12.2015, a whole new generation of voters will go into the voting
:56:12. > :56:17.booth in Mid-Beds put a cross next to my name and know who they are
:56:17. > :56:22.voting for. Far from being a disaster, I'm a celebrity - with a
:56:22. > :56:27.total success. I have no regrets and I would do it all again. Well,
:56:27. > :56:33.today she meets the Chief Whip. So, what should her fate be? Should she
:56:33. > :56:38.get the whip back? That is above my pay grade actually, Andrew.
:56:38. > :56:41.must have a view. I have a view on this and I know I watched this
:56:41. > :56:46.yesterday on TV. Is this for her or for the Conservative Party? I'm
:56:46. > :56:50.going to quote Ronnie Wood on this - I am not sure - he said of all
:56:50. > :56:55.the addictions in life. I think he's done most of them, of all the
:56:55. > :56:58.vices. H said the most famous one is fame. I think politicians can
:56:58. > :57:02.get addicted to seeing themselves in black and white that can be a
:57:02. > :57:07.dangerous think. If we are talking about drugs and linking this in,
:57:07. > :57:12.maybe she has gone from a soft user into a hard user in terms of media
:57:12. > :57:15.addiction. Is she good for bad for the Torys? She is certainly
:57:15. > :57:19.interesting. She has strong views on a number of issues. I respect
:57:19. > :57:23.the fact she has those views. However, I don't think we should
:57:23. > :57:31.confuse the job we do with being a celebrity. I think she is in the
:57:31. > :57:36.risk of confusing that. She has an important job. She would be better
:57:36. > :57:40.serving kirpblts out of the -- constituents out of the jungle.
:57:40. > :57:47.Is fame necessarily going to mean you will make achievements?
:57:47. > :57:53.Politicians here are to change things. This will disappear.
:57:53. > :58:01.Putting your own views aside, what in general is the view of
:58:01. > :58:05.backbenchers to here? She has a lot of school children asking who she
:58:05. > :58:08.was and what it was like eating a spider. We will see this story
:58:08. > :58:13.unfold. There's just time before we go to
:58:13. > :58:23.find out the answer to our quiz. What luxury item would Eric Pickles
:58:23. > :58:27.
:58:27. > :58:33.take with him if he got stuck in a What is the correct answer? Does
:58:33. > :58:38.anybody know? I thought you would mention curry. I have to go for the
:58:38. > :58:42.pork pie. The correct answer is Earl Grey tea. You can cut out the
:58:42. > :58:46.bin collections. Thank to all the guests being here. The news is
:58:46. > :58:50.starting on BBC One now. Jo will be here tomorrow at noon, with all the