16/04/2013 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 16/04/2013. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Afternoon. Welcome to the Daily Three dead and more than 140


injured, many critically, in two explosions at the Boston Marathon.


We will have the latest on events there and what it means for the


Thatcher funeral and the London Marathon here.


The government wants to get builders building, allowing house


extensions of up to 26 feet without planning permission. But their own


MPs are trying to knock down their proposals.


An end to scenes like this in Britain's big tops? The government


brings forward a bill to ban the use wild animals in circuses.


And royalty, politicians and celebs - we will look at who will be


rubbing shoulders at Margaret All that in the next hour. With us


for the duration, John Kampfner, journalist and campaigner on free


speech. We could be doing with having a bit free speech, it is


good to have you. Appalling images from Boston last night after two


blasts near the finish line of the Boston Marathon. Three people were


killed including an eight-year-old boy. Many others are very seriously


injured. One policeman said grimly than some of those had run the


marathon no longer have their legs. There are also reports that two


other unexploded devices were found and disabled. But that is


unconfirmed. It is the most serious terrorist attack on the US mainland


since the 9/11 attacks. President Obama addressed the nation from the


White House last night. We still do not know who did this or wife.


People should not jump to conclusions before we have the


facts but make no mistakes, we will get to the bottom of this and we


will find out to do this, we will find out why they do this. Any


responsible individuals, any responsible groups, will feel the


full weight of justice. It was clear lap the federal government


still had no idea what was behind it and that seems to be the


situation this morning -- it was clear then that the federal


government. A few minutes ago, I spoke to Laura


Trevelyan in Boston. I started by asking her about those injured in


the explosions. That is what is so horrific. Especially it took so


many of the athletes I have spoken to -- especially to so many. This


is the pinnacle of their athletic achievement, they train for years


in many occasions, and to have people who were taking part and


cheering them on, to have them robbed of their limbs, to have


amputations taking place, somebody said to me he came from Canada who


finished in under three hours, he said, this strikes at the very core


of what we are and we are reeling. And still no firm leads as I


understand it as to who was behind this? That is the question that


that is being asked across America, who could have done this and why?


We have another briefing from the police this morning. We were told


by the leading FBI agent yesterday that this is a potential terrorist


investigation. Whether that means home-grown terrorists,


international extremists, we do not know, and nothing is being said


publicly at the moment. But there are some interesting background


points to note on the domestic front, which is that no official in


forces have been noting that this is traditionally a big week for


anti-government groups in America. -- Bill Law enforcement officials.


We are coming up to the anniversary of the Oklahoma bombing and the


Columbine massacre. But this is conjecture. What we have is the


death of three people and well over 100 injured. There are some reports


that two other bombs were discovered and disabled but we have


not been able to confirm these reports. Do you have anything on


that? That was asked last night when the police gave a press


conference and they said they would not comment on whether they had


found any other explosive devices. One report said the police had


found five unexploded devices but that was very quickly backtracked


on. As so often is the case in the aftermath, the information is


contradictory, the picture is confusing, but the one thing the


people of Boston know when they wake up this morning is that their


beloved marathon, one of the rites of spring in New England, that day


was utterly devastated. It is interesting that the police would


not confirm if unexploded bombs have been disabled because if there


are bombs that did not go off, they will have a veritable cornucopia of


information about who might have been behind this, so that is


developing story, if of course it is true. We have not been able to


confirm that. I am joined now by Stephen


Greenhalgh, who runs the Mayor of London's office for policing and


crime. And by former Security Minister Admiral Alan West. Why


would the police not confirm if other bombs had been disabled?


have hit the nail on the head. When they start pulling it apart and


find the components, that can give you an immense amount of detail.


That is why such huge amount of effort goes into the bomb blast


area to find every bit of a bomb and in this country we are


amazingly good at that. It enables to find where bombs are being made,


who provides components, so it is a treasure trove and that is probably


the reason. Also you get so much information and a lot of this will


not be correct and that is why you have to be very calm and wait until


it comes in. And it is why we emphasise that the reports of


unexploded bombs are unconcerned. I would suggest that if this was Al-


Qaeda or something similar, or would we not have expected to have


heard from them by now? We probably would have done. I personally, this


is my own opinion, would be surprised if it isn't a Al-Qaeda


attack. I am afraid -- I would be surprised if it is an Al-Qaeda


attack. There have been many attacks I am afraid, the attacks on


the Cleveland Bridge, in a high EO, but normally those sorts of


bombings are against government targets -- in Ohio. This


unfortunately is very like Islamic extremist terrorism. I assume that


although there may be meetings about Margaret Thatcher's funeral


as a result of Boston, not much more need to be done. There are


comprehensive policing plans in place obviously for the funeral, as


for all public events like the London Marathon. The London


Marathon is in a different category from the funeral and more difficult


to police, I would suggest. Absolutely because people bring


things when they go running. All these things have been policed in


the past and the plants are in place. The question is, what can


you do more for something like the London Marathon and that is where


we need everybody to be as vigilant as possible. A clearly Margaret


Thatcher's funeral will be policed for a terrorist attack. Yes, there


is a balance between a terrorist threat and a public order


demonstration. Would we police a marathon for a terrorist attack?


Any large event. The threat levels in this country are substantial,


that means a strong possibility of a terrorist attack, and everything


is planned on that basis. We always touch wood because you only need to


be lucky ones, but we are very good at Bad And I would have no concerns


about going to either of these events -- and certainly I would


have no concerns. What could the police do more that they were not


all would be planning to do? mayor and I have been in touch with


Bernard Hogan-Howe and the good news is there are comprehensive


plans in place. Clearly you can search more and you can get the


help from the public. Anything that looks suspicious, anything that is


concerning two people, there will be a strong police presence at both


events so we need the public to play their part and we need to make


sure maybe we search a bit more then we may have planned to do but


the plans are in place. In a way, we have been lucky and also we have


benefited from a great intelligence, because there had been so many


attempts to do a Boston or a version of a Boston. What is


fascinating with this is clearly their intelligence agencies had no


indication whatsoever that something was going to happen and


our greatest defence is the security service and police


intelligence agency in this country. We monitor hundreds of people, many


of whom are British, who wish to do the nation harm. We saw a case


going through at the moment. That is the way we are able to prevent


something happening. The dangers are there loners who we are not


able to monitor. People who we do not have on file, who do it on


their own bat, and also it is hard with right-wing extremists. We have


had occasions in the past. In America they have a real problem


with that sort of threat and they can be very violent. It is unusual


they aim to kill people randomly. That is very much an Al-Qaeda way


of doing things. But it was a federal building... I am struck by


two words that Lord West used. Balance and calm. I was struck not


just by President Obama's statement but also the Governor of


Massachusetts this morning. Thankfully, in spite of the carnage


and the terrible events and the pictures, I am quite reassured by


the way the US administration is dealing with it, which is, this is


a terrorist attack. He did not use that word. The commentators in


America are wondering. It is clearly a terrorist attack but we


do not know who is behind it. Why didn't he say that? Obviously this


is truly awful but it is on a different scale to 9/11. A little


boy was killed in Warrington, that was still a terrorist attack.


said an act of terror rather than terrorism. But I was struck by the


sobriety and the lack of rhetoric and flowery language that George


Bush often 9/11 and this panoply. George Bush's initial reaction was


to be struck dumb by the scale of it! We will leave it there. There


will be more on BBC News throughout the day. Thank you for joining us.


We hope tomorrow and Sunday go off in the usual British way of


everything being fine. One of the key developments to


emerge from the Arab Spring has been the use by activists of social


media to spread revolt and bring it to the attention of the outside


world. From Tunisia to Egypt to Syria, Twitter, Facebook and


YouTube have allowed protesters to organise and indeed, televise their


attempts to bring about regime change. But is the impact of social


media on the wane and are the very governments which were once at risk


from it beginning to harness its power to neutralise their


These days revolutions are televised and none more so than the


Arab Spring but not so much by professional correspondence as by


images taken on mobile phones and activists to use social media to


spread revolt. These are some of those activists talking to me


directly from Syria on Skype. has happened without Facebook?


is a very tiny village in the countryside but we can fill it.


has taken and played a good part in the revolution. We have seen


protesters using social media to mobilise, filming footage that gets


picked up by film stations, Al- Jazeera, and that name gets


broadcast back to the country. of the key players has been this


campaigning organisation. They have helped get footage shot by


protesters onto mainstream TV but they are also aware that it


activists want to use social media as a weapon, so do the Government's


they are trying to overthrow. of them are trying to outdo the


other, regimes trying to listen in but also activists trying to


increase their ability to operate without being snooped on. We are


aware of drones being used in Syria. Iranians are giving support to


use it in more powerful way. Footage of what is happening will be


immediately available internationally and across the


country itself in a way that hasn't in the case in the past. Social


media didn't invent revolt but it did bring it into our living rooms


in almost real time and that is a power that protesters and those they


are trying to topple are desperate to harness.


We are joined now by journalist Nabila Ramdani, who specialises in


the Arab world, and John Kampfner, who campaigns on freedom of speech.


I am going to Tunisia and Beirut soon. I'll be right to say that we


remember in the early days of the Arab spring, also into an easier,


social media was being used by the insurgents as a way to get their


story across inland is where the media was almost entirely controlled


by the state. Is it now right to say the new governments are using social


media to control what gets out? Absolutely. There is no doubt that


the social media was indeed a catalyst, especially at the start of


the revolutions, and played a pivotal role in effectively putting


the problems of the Arab world of the global agenda. Having said


that, it didn't quite lead to regime change. We would be naive to assume


that. It was a powerful trigger which was supported by traditional


media. We are seeing now, regimes in the rest of the Arab world getting


increasingly jittery about what is happening in the region, using


social media to keep tabs on the activities of political dissidents


will stop so that is the case in the new Egypt, where the new president


is using old laws to crack down not only on traditional media but also


on Internet dissidents. In Gulf countries in particular, we have


well-documented evidence of Internet dissidents having been arrested,


tortured and indeed jailed. In the Gulf? Countries like Bahrain, Saudi


Arabia and even Qatar. Interestingly, in Syria, where


Facebook was banned before the revolution, it has now been allowed


by the government in order to monitor the activities of


dissidents. So we are seeing how governments use social media, either


to prevent dissent or put across their own messages. It is depressing


in a way, because we used to think, perhaps wrongly, naively, that


social media, the Internet, text in, they were kind of anarchic.


Governments couldn't control them. They were the people's weapons of


information. That was the great hope of the founders of the Internet. It


was originally called the wild West, now it is anything but. It is right


about the Middle East, but it is not just the middle east, but


everywhere, Russia introduced a pretty awful Internet filtering law


in November and China proselytisers, as a patriotic duty, this whole


thing. It is not just monitoring what people write and what they say,


it is also going into people 's computers, using technology to find


out where they are, what they are doing. Your whole life is on your


computer! Absolutely. Platforms are platforms, and they change behaviour


through the communication. So the speed of medication has changed


exponentially, being able to get people out on the streets, you can


do that just like this. But I am old enough to remember, as a young


journalist, I covered the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of


coming as in the Soviet Union, there was none of this. Mobile phones?


Even before that period, people still got out, but it was much


slower. It doesn't change behaviour but it does change the speed.


not just talking about authoritarian regimes. We have to be careful in


any society, we heard David Cameron calling for Twitter and Facebook to


be curtailed during the London riots. London police will be


monitoring social media in the run-up to tomorrow's funeral.


is the issue, there are legitimate states, child pornography, everyone


says it is terrible therefore we need to ban it and keep tabs on who


is doing it. Terrorism, as we were discussing, copyright is a really


interesting one. But what is happening, you are right, it is not


just authoritarian states, in the UK we saw off to Reza maze misguided


bill which would have not just been extremely intrusive in terms of


tracking people, you don't just TrackBack people, you track


everybody in the hope that you will find something. But is also carte


blanche to the dictators. The Arab spring is 18 months old now, more


than two years. Are we now in a position to say that in general, the


governments that have replaced the previous governments are better, or


worse, when it comes to this kind of thing? I think transitions are


always chaotic and can be extremely messy. You can go backwards. I was


quoting the example of Egypt's, where there is no question -- how


can you go even further back than Mubarak? There is no progress. But I


just want to point out the role that Google played in Egypt, when the


Internet got shut down, it provided alternative services, where you


could literally phone in a tweet and it could be picked up without an


Internet connection needed. Will we see the similar technology being


provided to Saudi Arabia? We will see. Thank you for being with us.


So, it is the London Marathon on Sunday, an event that is going to


feel the impact of last nights events in Boston. A number of MPs


will be running, Adam is outside Parliament with a couple of them.


Normally it would be traditional to have a bunch of MPs at this time of


year to have MPs in their running shoes during a photocall. That has


been postponed in respect to people in Boston. But I am joined by two


MPs who will be running around London this weekend, Nicky Morgan


and Jim Murphy. We will talk about your preparations in a second, but


first of all, Boston, what did you think I'm a knowing you will be


running a marathon in a couple of days time? Just tragic. Everyone


says the atmosphere will be amazing, at the finish line, there are lots


of people waiting there, carnival atmosphere, completely ruined within


a matter of seconds. We were looking forward to it and now Sunday is


going to have a lot more poignancy for everyone running. A lot of


people talking about how preparations for the London Marathon


will be different, how do you think they will be affected? It is too


early to say who carried out the atrocity, but I think it is right


for the security forces here to look again and look afresh at whatever


arrangements they can look at in terms of the security. But it is


very difficult, it is an open cities, 26 miles, hundreds of


thousands of spectators, free access along the roads. My response is


initially a sense of shock but it is now determination. I have never run


a marathon before, and I really want to do it, after Boston, I have never


been more certain that I do want to run a marathon. That is my message


to everyone who is thinking of running. My inclination is, don't


let it put you off. Whoever carried that attack out should not dictate


to us in the UK how we live our lives. Come, spectate, participate,


run your best, that is my message. Thank you to those reactions. In


terms of your preparations, how has the training been going? It has been


all right. I'm grateful that we have had Parliament in recess for a


couple of weeks, it has given me a chance to run during the day.


Sometimes you are trying to combine it all the parliamentary duties. I


have done 26 miles, I should be running, they ask you to taper off


for the last few days. But it is excitement mixed with nervousness. I


have never done a full marathon before, I have done a couple of half


marathons, the thought of getting to 13 miles and then having another 13


to do is really quite something! People always give you advice, what


is the best bit of advice you have had? Don't do it!Too late! There is


an endless amount of advice. My advice is, don't take any advice. On


all these online running blogs, they say concentrate on your breathing.


My arms move this way, I know how to move my arms! Land your weight on


this but, I know how to do all that, but I have been bamboozled. How do I


breathe, how do I move my arms? Forget all that, do what comes


naturally. But they can ignore that advice as well! Are you prepared for


the wall? I am hoping I just get through it. I have been training in


Glasgow at strange times at night when the kids go to bed. I am ready


for anything! Good luck on Sunday, we will be watching. Shall we have


our usual fish and chips for lunch? I will look forward to that! I think


that advice, don't do it, is pretty good advice, I am going to follow


it! Though running in Glasgow the two hours in the middle of the


night, brave man... Our home is our castle, and we are in love with home


improvement and DIY programmes. The government wants to help us along by


making it easier for us to extend them and in the process give the


building sector and economy eight used. Ministers announced last year


that they intended a three-year relaxation of the depth of allowed


single-storey extensions, from 13 feet to 26 feet four detached houses


and from ten feet to 20 feet fall of the houses. Critics argue that this


relaxation of planning rules will lead to a rise in disputes between


neighbours. The policy has also led to a dispute between the planning


minister and some Tory and Lib Dem MPs. Today they will vote for an


amendment which would give local authorities the option of projecting


the new rules in their area. -- rejecting the new rules. We asked


the government for a minister to defend their plans but no one was


available. Probably building their conservatories! Joining me to


discuss this are one of the rebel MPs, and Brian Berry from the


Federation of Master Builders. What is wrong with this? I think the


clear position is that if you want to put an extension made Robert E,


the first thing you do is talk to your neighbours, and the second


thing you do is make sure you have an architect or builder who is


properly qualified to do the job, advise you what the planning


authority will allow and submit an application which will hopefully


sail through and you will get approval. In 87% of the cases where


we talk about these extensions, that is approved to stop it costs people


roughly �250 for an application. The government is proposing to relax the


rules which will allow people to do permitted development, don't bother


talking to your neighbours, build what you want within the rules, and


hopefully you will apply for a certificate of lawful development.


The problem is that you pay a fee for that and the builder has long


gone, you are left with an extension that probably doesn't fit the


rules, you may have to take it down or skeleton act. -- scale it back.


If 80% and percent of these applications are approved, why do we


need to change? I think we need to have fixed ability for homeowners.


But if 87% are approved, haven't we got that fixed ability? We want to


make the planning system simpler and easier for householders, this is an


option where people can extend their properties, it is only


single-storey. We're talking three metres for a terraced house. You


will still need to have welding control to check it, it is not a


question of building it without any control -- building control. Also


the cost can mount up to �2000 in certain cases. It is higher than


that if you want planning permission. Surely it is only right


that people who want to extend their homes they have the right to do so.


If you put a planning application in, the local authority will consult


the neighbours and in the neighbours get the chance to say, this is going


to be overbearing, it will take my light away, invaded by a provision.


If you stay lit back, I'm happy to compromise. What will happen under


these proposals is they will be no consultation with the neighbours.


There was never a week went by without me having to deal with a


planning application where somebody wanted to put an extension on the


neighbours disputed it. What happens with the authority is they then


mediate. People have the right to If I looked out of my back window


one morning and discovered something that was 26 ft have been


built next door to me, I would be a bit miffed. Most people want to


have good relations with their neighbours so they are going to


talk to their neighbours. The have not met my neighbours. We have a


housing crisis in this country. We are only building half the number


of houses required. People cannot afford to move and need to have


that flexibility. If we are putting in relaxation to extend the


property, single-storey, that has to be a good thing. Your government


says we need more building jobs, it will help get the economy going, it


will be small businesses doing this, and that will put money in people's


pockets, and also a lot of people cannot afford to move. I would


completely agree and if we had a position where home improvements


were stalled, but we are talking about 90% of the applications


sailing through. It depends on the local authority you live in. The


lots and lots... We also have a lot of people who buy up property is


especially in London and then they put on the maximum possible


extension, they let out the premises and pile people into


living is extensions in a very unacceptable manner. This is for


England only. This seems a random measure. What we need is more homes


in this country and also of the worst manifestation of planning


laws and bureaucracy are our big infrastructure projects. Look how


long in London it has taken to get cross roll up and running, 20 years.


I broke the story in 1986! CrossRail. If we want to get the


economy going, we have to get going on infrastructure, railway lines,


the get the country running in terms of the grand projects, as the


French call them. But we do need to build more homes. I would love to


see the government kick-start the housing market. Why don't the


builders just get on with it? First-time buyers find it very hard


because of the lack of mortgage availability. Another thing to help


the building industry would be to reduce VAT on repair and


maintenance to 5%. We each they did in France. Yes and it was a fiscal


success. If the government was very serious I think we need to see


attempts to kick-start the housing market. Her will win on the


politics of this? We will see what happens. -- who will win? Labour


are backing you? About 20 Tories are backing us and some Lib Dems. I


will vote against. I am voting in favour of the amendment that went


through in the House of Lords which allows local authorities to set


their own rules. Good local list policy. But it will never happen!


We have a contradiction here. have to leave it there.


At one time, no self-respecting circus master would be without an


elephant, tiger or lion in their big-top. But in recent years the


practice has diminished. In Britain only a handful of circuses use wild


animals and revelations of cruel treatment of those animals has


increased pressure for an outright ban. Today the government has


outlined plans to introduce such a ban after pressure from MPs on all


sides, not least the Conservative backbencher Mark Pritchard, who


faced considerable resistance from Number 10. I was told unless I


withdraw this motion that the Prime Minister himself said that he would


look upon it very dimly indeed. Will I have a message for the whips


and for the Prime Minister of our country. I have a message. I may


just be a little council house lad from a very poor background but


that background gives me a backbone and a thick skin and I am not going


to be kowtowed by the whips or even the Prime Minister of my country on


an issue that I feel passionately about and that I have conviction


about! And Mark Prichard is with me now.


The lad from the council house. Are you getting your way? I am


delighted that the government is finally bringing about the ban. The


last government did not do it. Credit to this government, it is


introducing a ban from 2015. It is a great day for animal welfare.


Newspapers like the Independent, my constituents have been a support,


animal welfare charities, and the government has listened to the


public opinion. 96% want to see an outright ban. A good day for Animal


Welfare, a good day for the government because the government


has listened. But on that clip, the heavies were putting the moves on


you to stop you proselytising this idea. Now you say the government is


for it? What changed? The government to the view that the


unanimous support of the House of Commons mattered. They said they


would respect the will of parliament. They have taken on


board public opinion. A lot of people have written to Number Ten


since that debate setting out their own views. A lot of us have been


working behind the scenes and with ministers and officials but credit


where it is due, the government has listened. The last government did


not bring forward a ban. Where is the politics and where is the


policy in trying to stop you doing what you were trying to do? Why


were they so upset? That is still a mystery. But that is history.


but why? That is a question for historians and distinguished


journalists. I respect the whips but I am not afraid of them and


they know that. Many of them have moved into ministerial positions


now so we have a different whips office but I think the whips


realised, most of them realise if they are sensible, it is best to


work alongside colleagues wherever possible without resorting to


alternative tactics that are sometimes unhelpful. It must mean


the end of circuses as we know them. Not at all. There are many


successful commercial circuses around the world, Cirque du Soleil


of, and Bolivia has just banned wild animals in circuses, Austria...


The French banned it some time ago. I am sure somebody but e-mail if I


am wrong. -- will send any now. the idea of a circus that we see in


the movies, the Billy Smart's Circus stuff, which we see in many


movies, that will be over. That might seem quaint and I remember


when I was young I was dragged along to circuses, but a lot of


these animals are transported and house in cramped and cool


conditions. I am not arguing that. What will happen to the elephants?


I do not accept it will be the end of circuses. As we know it.Yes,


they will develop in a new way and change the way they do things.


will happen to the animals? I hope they will be put in to rescue


centres and rehoused. Does the legislation take care of that?


These details will be worked out with DEFRA, but from 2015 onwards,


we will not have a new generation of wild animals exploited for


profit in this country. It is a good day for animal welfare and for


the party of William Wilberforce, it is a proud day for the


Conservative Party. Thank you. Well we have had the late-night


deal, the criticism from the papers, and delight from the celebrities


they tormented. Next month the Queen will sign off a new regime


that is supposed to regulate the press. But not everyone is happy


and it is going to take a lot convince editors, from the


Telegraph to the Guardian, to sign up to the new system. Three of the


main players who agreed the deal are before MPs at the Culture,


Media and Sport Committee this morning. Let's see what has been


said. The work that has been done since November will mean that there


is a very strong reason why either press of this country would want to


take part in this new system of self regulation. There are clear


incentives and clear disincentives for not taking part Rostock that is


the premise that Lord Justice Leveson set out in his report, that


is what we followed. We believe very strongly that the system that


we have discussed in parliament on a number of occasions will provide


absolutely the right basis for us to move forward on. We are


convinced that this is the right way forward and that the press will


want to take part in it. It seems to me it a dereliction of duty not


to think through the consequences of people not signing up to


something. In industry, if somebody showed that level of lack of


foresight and planning, I would not be particularly encouraged. The we


disagree. We are optimists about the press. We think they will come


forward and set up a regulatory body and seek recognition. We would


like to have confidence... This is not about what the press and


politicians want, it is about the victims to deserve protection and


there must be a momentum. Have you any doubts that we will get to


completion with this? We will certainly get to a conclusion


because we will set up a charter that will have a recognition panel


and that will lead to the incentives for people to want to


take part in this process. One of the most vocal campaigners


for regulation of the press is the Labour MP Chris Bryant. He told the


Leveson Inquiry about how his private life had been splashed all


over the tabloids and he joins me now. John Kampfner is still with us.


It looks like you have called a party and nobody is coming. That is


one way of putting it! No, I disagree. The Royal Charter has not


actually gone to the privy council yet. That will happen in May. The


legislation has not got Royal Assent yet. Until those two things


are in place it will be too early to decide. We learned this morning


that the government is not even in discussions with the newspapers


about what to do next to. I think the government should be in


discussions. Everybody agrees, including the newspaper owners, but


the PCC was inappropriate, it did not meet the needs of the families


in Hills's brother, a carcass other people, -- countless other people,


like Christopher Jefferies and so many other people. I think if the


press are honest, I hope they will sit down and look at what they can


do to abide by this but not least because that is what most punters


to buy their newspapers want and what operates in Ireland, in the


Republic of Ireland. But without anybody moaning! Except that the


government want to toughen it up. One newspaper executive said to me


this morning that his fear is that the ratchet only goes one way. This


will never be lighter and. Are no, no. I have heard all the hyperbole.


I have never read so much hyperbole in my life. But you go to party


conference! He just listen to them! -- you just listen! I thought the


press did itself an enormous disservice when it ran all these


articles for days on end, I mean, self-serving. If a journalist ever


accuses me of being self-serving again I was slapped them up round


the face with a hat-trick. I don't think that is allowed!


Metaphorically. But you are in some trouble. Never mind the Daily Mail,


the Telegraph, even the Times. As things stand, you can't even get


the Guardian to sign up to this. as far as I know. I am not involved


in these discussions. I hope the government will pursue what we have


got to do. We have got to get the Privy charted in place. All the


press campaigned vigorously against a legislative solution but remember


the Prime Minister said if nobody ended up signing up to this, they


would have to go to the previous version, which is everything under


Ofcom, which nobody wants. I would say to the press, you said you


wanted a better organisation and the PCC, you admitted it did not do


the job, I think there is an interest of the press at a time


when, how much of the press will be with us in 15 years' time is on my


mind, how can you make sure you have a cheaper system of redress


many readers will think they are above the law, they are too


powerful. There is a lot of common ground and all of this, I would


agree with it. Everybody thinks that what happened with phone hacking was


wrong, most of it was criminal. Most of it could and should have been


dealt with by the police but they were far too in hock to newspaper


bosses. Leveson was a good enquiry, I appeared before it twice. I have


respect for the process, many of the conclusions are across the board


agreed, the old regulator wasn't working, we need a better regulated.


What you do not do, however, after an enquiry that took a year, is,


with a three a.m. Deal with a whole random bunch of people, you include


members of campaigns, the lobby organisation that was having a


respectable position, but the analogy I would draw would be that


you have the Northern Ireland peace negotiations and you involve the


Catholics and not the Protestants. Hang on, to be fair, we have no idea


what meetings there were between government and press at the time.


Because the government refuses to publish them. They are only


publishing the meetings they had up to last September. Let me answer the


important question, which is the point that everything was


illegal... Not everything. And that the regulator was poor. Part of the


problem was that the press believed they were above the law, and they


didn't care they were breaking the law. It is the same issue now. The


law has been written, and that is why, I think, there is a lot of


common ground. Nobody is trying to create a body where positions tell


the press what is written and what is not working. What was agreed at


that meeting was tougher than what Leveson originally wanted. Not just


tougher, but also shoddy. They were saying, can you throw in a bit of


Internet. I have been critical of the process because I think the


Prime Minister should have been hands-on, I think it was bizarre


that he delegated it to live in Edwin, I think I was critical


about... It changes Leveson, because a lot of people, it should be off,.


On who approves the code, on the form of apologies, it goes way


beyond... I would not say that it is more aggressive than Leveson.


Leveson was absolutely clear it had to be an independent body, where you


didn't have the press marking its own homework. But there are busy


newspaper organisations that have a vested interest that got themselves


into this situation, you also have newspaper editors on the right side


of this debate. As Andrew says, they are all uncomfortable, not just with


the result but with the process that led to the results. You now have the


worst of all worlds, where nobody wants to sign up to what is


effectively a dog's breakfast. not a dog's breakfast, the vast


majority of people in this country want a press that is able to be wild


coming Justin, exciting, entertaining, all the rest of it.


Nobody wants to see state censorship and everybody wants to see a fairer


system of redress, and I think it is now incumbent on the press to set


down and say, how can we make what we have got work? Didn't you


describe real titres as an autocratic rule? -- Royal charters.


I wasn't in favour of this process, I would have preferred straight


legislation. Just behave, Andrew! You are regulated! Broadcasting is


regulating stop -- is regulated. have run out of time. I do


apologise, my lord. You should take your forelock, you didn't have a


forelock! Final depressions are taking place for the funeral of


Baroness Thatcher tomorrow, and MPs are debating whether to cancel Prime


Minister's questions in order to allow them to attend. Dennis Skinner


and the Respect MP George Galloway have objected to the proposals. What


are they up to and will they succeed? Parliament will be


presenting different faces below and above ground this afternoon. We will


see Lady Thatcher's coughing come to the chapel, where there will be a


short service and MPs and peers will be able to go and pay their


respects. Quite possibly, while some of that is happening, there will be


this debate about whether or not there should be a delay in


proceedings until after the funeral is over. I have been speaking to


Dennis Skinner, he is very angry about how a lot of this has gone. He


says, why couldn't we have had a vote on this, why is money being


spent when we have concerns about austerity? I have spoken to lots of


people in labours ranks, including Glenda Jackson, the MP who had a lot


to say during the tribute abates, none of them have confirmed to me


that they will be voting with Dennis Skinner yet. She says she's yet to


make up her mind. As far as I understand it, they will not be a


Prime Minister's questions tomorrow? They will not be, and


ultimately, Labour will go along with the government, insured. What


all this means is that on the Eve of Lady Thatcher 's funeral, at a time


when people have been saying that there has been too much difference,


there will be time set aside in the House of Commons for those who feel


most vehemently and angrily about her legacy to have their say. I


think those two shy and retiring characters you mentioned may take


the opportunity to do just that. The funeral will start at Saint


Pauls at 11 a.m. Tomorrow. Central London Road will be closed and 50


bus routes will be disrupted as dignitaries from around the world


will rub shoulders with the chefs, celebrities and people who worked


with Margaret Thatcher. As well as Mr Cameron, the service will be


attended by all living former prime ministers, and they will be joined


by figures including the former South African leader FW de Klerk, a


key figure at the end of apartheid, and Newt Gingrich, the Republican


speaker in the mid-19 90s. But it is not just politicians, actors, chefs,


singers and broadcasters have also been invited. Michael Crawford plans


to be there as does Michael Portillo. They will be joined by Top


Gear presenter Jeremy Clarkson and the recently departed US Secretary


of State and maybe the next president of the US, Hillary


Clinton. Joining me to discuss the seating plans, former Tory MP Gyles


Brandreth and Dr Eliza Filby. How do they work out who sits where?


imagine I will be sitting right at the back, behind a pillar? But it


will be an honour to be there. It is a funeral, but you and I, we know


Carol Thatcher, she is the daughter. Losing your mother is a


complicated thing, a difficult thing, even when the mother is old


and has been frail poor thing -- for years. Some of the writing about it


at either turned into a jamboree or like a royal wedding, who will


receive their? We have to remember, it is a funeral. It is also a


ceremonial funeral. What I like about the list is as well as the


great political figures of her day, there are people that over the


years, particularly in the 23 years since she left office, when she had


no active on a six in her life, she had to have other resources. -- no


active politics. She met people who were good companions along the way.


Quite a few of those will be there, Joan Collins, Jeremy Clarkson.


won't have been a funeral like this since Sir Winston Churchill? It is


the obvious parallel, but there will not be the same pomp and


circumstance. I think Churchill's death was two days of natural


morning, he lay in state for three days... I ran with the cranes, when


he went down the river. It wouldn't be... It will not be the same as


Churchill's, but the other parallel is Clement Attlee. She is lauded as


written is greatest peacetime Prime Minister -- Britain's greatest


peacetime promised. But his was very sedate. The only connection with the


fact that he had been Prime Minister was the recent underbody coughing


which was from the flowers of checkers. He built Britain's welfare


state and nuclear deterrent. element of history here is that this


is Britain's first woman prime minister. The people of my daughters


generation, they take it for granted, what Thatcher achieved. But


there she was, getting to Oxford in the 1940s, becoming an MP in the


1950s, these were a remarkable thing for a woman to do, and then becoming


prime minister. The service is going to be a spiritual, nonpolitical


affair. She was serious about her method is as a girl and being a


member of the Church of England as an adult and that will be remembered


in the service. Francis Maude said that Tony Blair should be afforded a


state funeral when the time comes... To me, what happened to good old


British restraint? Everything seems to be in this post Diana


environment, hyperbolic, grandiose, I am not making a blizzard will


point. But if you think about the 19th-century, you had the Duke of


Wellington, even Gladstone, who didn't want a great pageant, there


were no military connections with it at all, he still lay in state.


got 13,000 people into St Paul's for the Duke of Wellington, health and


safety would never allow that now! So you are saying, a final word on


this, you are saying that in the 19th century we actually did going


to these big things? The 19th century was the age of ceremony and


deference. Churchill's funeral, which was the obvious parallel, was


symbolic because it was the end of Churchill's England, the end of


Download Subtitles